it's 1300 here in sunny spain. i finished watching "this week" with some spanish co-workers. when george interviewed obama, they said, "the next president of the united states."
i was still up in the air about who i'm voting for, until the jesse jackson slight by bill. i LIKE bill c, but that was over the top. will we really have one president if h.r.c. wins?
are we voting for the potus or the president of the democratic party? i know this blog has a pro-hillary tilt, and that's ok, but it is interesting to read that the obama supporters are wimpy, blind, whiners, etc. some of your contributors here are engaging in the very same politics our counterparts of the right have honed to an unconscious level.
republicans are switching because of his message. NONE would consider voting for hillary. that speaks volumes. ted and caroline endorse him. that speaks volumes, since i don't recall them endorsing anyone in a great while.
yes, obama is a great, no exceptional orator. he and hillary have practically the same platform. very little differences between them, reading the comments here would lead to another conclusion...
however, "i found my own voice," though a great soundbite, is not the apparent reality of the day. this is a two-for-one deal, and for the last 20 years, our country was locked in partisanship, bush 1&2 and clinton. can we really afford another 4 of continued rancor?
im not sure about what's the mood over the pond, but here, in spain, the spanish peoples, by what i hear and see, love him, the visting brits, germans, and africans do too. i think he'd go a lot further restoring our worldwide rep than h.r.c.
just a thought
anthony
Paul Krugman's column this week is certainly worth a read:
Posted by MTM at January 28, 2008 04:49 AM
BREAKING: In addition to Caroline and Ted Kennedy, Nobel Prize-winning author, Toni Morrison, who in a 1998 New Yorker article famously (or infamously) declared Bill Clinton "the first black president," has decided to endorse Barack Obama for president in 2008.
In that article, many took offense at the suggestion that a southern white guy might be "the first black president." Others complained that the comparison was based on Clinton's embrace (exploitation?) of African American culture, or a set of ideas tying black masculinity to infidelity. Some were angry that Morrison suggested that Bill was "blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime." To many, Morrison appeared to accept limits on black political empowerment.
Well, no longer. On the day Senator Ted Kennedy is not only set to endorse Obama, but to vigorously campaign for him acros the country, Morrison has stepped forth to embrace Barack, as well.
Here is the breaking news story: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/author-toni-mor.html
Posted by at January 28, 2008 05:31 AMI've been a Hillary supporter for the most part, but I'm about ready to jump ship to Obama. I think Hillary would make a better president if only given the chance. But she won't be given the chance. If elected, she'll be hounded by every group that hates her including the media, and no one on the right will want to be seen as cooperating with her, just as no one on the left wants to work with Bush. If she could have a clean slate without all the baggage she brings (which is not her fault), I think she'd be a great president. I think she's brilliant and would make good decisions--better ones than Obama. But I just think that no one would give her a fucking chance and it pisses me off. I don't get to vote until Feb 12, so we'll see if it even matters by then. For now I'm still on the fence, but tipping toward Obama.
Posted by CG at January 28, 2008 06:05 AM...Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13:
“omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse.”
Mr. Obama’s campaign was always going to be difficult, and the climb is even steeper now. There is no reason to feel sorry for him. He’s a politician out of Chicago who must have known that campaigns often degenerate into demolition derbies.
Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
--Bob Hebert
Divide and conquer politics. Bob Hebert isn't the only pundit calling them on it. I wonder if only persons of color see this? The media, overwhelmingly white, male and narrowminded, perpetuate these remarks. What person of color was interviewed about this??? Andrew "joking around," Young? Bob "BET perpetuate the stereotype" Johnson? If I remember correctly, before all of this pandering, H.R.C. led SC among African American's. I think Bill squandered that vote with his "over the top," attacks, as well as the shrillness of Mr's Young and Johnson. Call it what you will, but the country is fed up with 8 years of name calling, why settle for 4 more? Congress will be deadlocked with a Clinton win. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, happily, but will you vote for Barack if he pulls the upset of upsets???
Interesting perspective from Spain, anthony, thanks. Politically, we usually do the opposite of what the Europeans think we should do.
She's not my pick, but most of the Hillary supporters at TLC have said they'll vote for Obama if he wins. The problem appears to more of what will the Obama supporters do if Hillary wins.
And what have Obama and Clinton done today about protecting FISA and stopping immunity for Cheney? Or is it just that they've shown up in DC?
Posted by euzoius at January 28, 2008 06:52 AMeuzoius--
i've been over the pond since 2004. i'm not military, but pretty much work exclusively with them.
i have first hand knowledge of what they think, not the photo ops, but behind the office door candor, clarity, and at times vehemence on what this gwot is doing to them...
anyway, the military-- the grunts, are following this with more interest than a little bit. they not only want out, but want the hell out... much of the 'commercials,' on the tv give mucho bonuses for re-enlistment and friend referral. it's sad. their sooo fcukin tired.
the europeans aren't looking at us with wry amusement this time. the are very interested in what happens. i recall the london paper after the last election: "how could 51 million people be so dumb,"
experience from day one is a good thing, but with the various wounds, scabs, and blackeyes we garnered the last eight years, i really believe we need someone who "inspires," us to do better.
i hear it from the "troops," as well as from the retirees...
--anthony
Posted by anthony at January 28, 2008 07:12 AMto go with my previous point...
an excerpt from the guardian uk:
Yet he is also dividing the Democratic party and has helped plunge the race into a bitter feud, tinged with the poison of race-baiting politics. Some fear the prospect of an all-out political civil war in a party that many had assumed was ripe to take power after the demise of the Bush White House. Instead the Democrats could fall prey to an old disease of bloody infighting, tearing strips off each other and ignoring the real enemy
Posted by anthony at January 28, 2008 07:20 AMCG--Read Paul Krugman's column. It addresses the issue you are raising. To quote a portion:
So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).
The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.
Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.
I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.
My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.
What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=opinion
Posted by Tyler at January 28, 2008 07:37 AMCG,
I was sure that you were a HRC fan. Hang in there and stick by your candidate. Pray that Bubba takes a back seat and let HRC run her campaign. Many of AA friends and they mention the code word thing which probably united the electorate in South Carolina.
Posted by angryman at January 28, 2008 07:44 AM
Bob Herbert writes the best endorsement for voting FOR Obama that I've seen (and I don't like Obama).
Posted by jwrjr at January 28, 2008 07:47 AMAnthony,, re: "If I remember correctly, before all of this pandering, H.R.C. led SC among African American's.
Not true.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 28, 2008 07:57 AMbrian--
im pretty sure she was well ahead among black voters at the beginning of this.
i could be mistaken, but i don't think so...
Posted by anthony at January 28, 2008 08:02 AMBrian;
HRC was ahead before IOWA.
Posted by angryman at January 28, 2008 08:34 AMangryman and tyler, thanks for the encouragement. As I said, we'll see if it even matters by the time I vote. I still think (after reading Krugman) that Obama would be given half a chance by the media and by republicans in congress. At least for a while. But it's also possible that after a little while, they hate him and criticize his every move. It's possible Hillary could, with the hard work she's good at (not the kind Bush claims to do) overcome a lot of the animosity. Who knows. I've always felt it's better to vote for the candidate you believe in rather than the candidate who is more "electable". I guess if I think she'd really make a better president, I should stick with her. Still, there's something appealing about a candidate that no one actually seems to hate, and that a whole lot of people are wildly enthusiastic about.
Brian, what I remember is that she was ahead with black voters, but that part of that (who knows if it's true or not) was that African Americans were worried that a black candidate wasn't really viable. Once he won Iowa, they saw he could win among white voters, so they started backing him. Again, who knows how true that analysis is.
Posted by CG at January 28, 2008 08:53 AMjwrjr, can you link to what you're talking about? The only thing I found was a column about how Obama is all hopeful--nothing new about why to vote for him.
Posted by CG at January 28, 2008 08:57 AManthony, yeah, yeah, yeah, grousing grunts and officers.
The troops will vote for the militarist 100-Year-War conservative GOoPer McCain.
Just like they always do.
Posted by euzoius at January 28, 2008 09:02 AMBrian,
From the CNN Political Tracker in October:
Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.
Posted by anthony at January 28, 2008 09:28 AMI am sick of the media bashing Hillary because she is a woman, and swearing it's because she's a Clinton.
Obama and Edwards should do the gentlemanly thing and undergo immediate sex change operations to level the playing field.
Would Obama's twin sister be running for president?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 28, 2008 11:53 AM