For those of us afflicted with "mute" computers could someone give a rough transcript of the question and answers in the video?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by snark at February 5, 2008 07:37 AMUmmm... ahhh... inspirational speaker... one real answer and he moved the mike... Hannity is acting like an idiot.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 5, 2008 07:45 AMGood God, Margaret! Couldn't you have just uttered some pleasant and banal thing about the importance of making our voices heard? You really hate Black people. Do you hate Jews and Hispanics also?
Posted by phidipides at February 5, 2008 07:49 AMI voted for Hillary this morning in my Republican't precinct in OK. First time I've ever had to stand in line (about 12-15 people in front of me); the same line when I left.
Good omen? Hillary's name was at the top of my ballot; Obama was buried among the pulled-outs and wannabees.
Posted by bartcopfan at February 5, 2008 07:50 AMGosh someone on this site reporting they voted for Hillary - I'm shocked!
Posted by John at February 5, 2008 08:00 AMJeez, missed opportunity to say "Fuck off, Sean!".
Posted by Flamethrower at February 5, 2008 08:01 AMHe passed the strongest ethics bill since Watergate. You're prevented from dining with lobbyists--unless you're standing.
The blank canvas appeal in which voters project onto him whatever their ideals are is what so worries about him as our likely nominee. The GOP will demonize him in a snap. His campaign is a house of cards. How will they deal when the media turns on him? This is the first truly competitive race he's ever had. How will he possibly deal with a recession and global affairs? The man's just not qualified, but he'll win the nominee because people feel good about him.
Posted by Nathan at February 5, 2008 08:02 AMVoted Obama... no lines, steady stream of people however.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 5, 2008 08:03 AMit's all personality. we've already seen how petulant he and his wife get when they're called or questioned on anything. i predict he'll collapse in the general election against McCain. Look how much Hillary and Bill have rattled him. He ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by xht at February 5, 2008 08:13 AMI voted for Hillary this morning in my Republican't precinct in OK.
Good job! I sincerely thank you for voting!
How do you tell a republi-con precinct from a democratic precinct in our little red state? You should see they way we were gerrymandered during redistricting! A clump of rural democrats, then a little corridor north to an interstate, and a little corridor west to include a densely populated republi-con city. Doesn't really matter with Boren, a true DINO.
Get out there and vote!
snark, essential Hannity says he understands why people like Obama but asks the Obama supporters if they will name one specific accomplishment of his.
First few people..."ummm".."no","no" "work with the elderly" (me huh?), "great orator" inspirational"....
Hannity goes into a rant (with Fund essentially saying the same thing)while banging his hand for emphasis, that these supporters naming his (Obama's) attributes and are voting because they just like him not because they are aware of anything he's done.
-------------
Anyway, in my little redtown in a blue/blue had about a couple hundred voters already by 10 this morning...that's alot for this small town and even smaller precinct. Also basing it on my past experiences voting here for well over a decade. And btw and fwiw, the order on the ballot was 1)Edwards, 2)Clinton, not sure who was next but it was either and Dodd, Biden?Gravel?.Obama was buried down in the middle with Richardson last...just sayin.
Thanks emal.
Posted by snark at February 5, 2008 08:19 AMJohn:
Isn’t it shocking that anyone on this blog voted for Hillary? She also reported that “Obama was buried among the pulled-outs and wannabees” (LOL) That is so cute. Thanks for the insight Bart.
Hillary's name was at the top of my ballot; Obama was buried among the pulled-outs and wannabees.
They're in alphabetical order. I just got my sample ballot and it's the same--lists Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson in that order.
Posted by CG at February 5, 2008 08:43 AM
CG they weren't in alpabetical order here in MA...honestly Edwards was first because I was pleasantly surprised. Oh and btw, congrats on the Giants win....they definitely outplayed the Patriots that day...my youngest is still recovering but my spouse and I have gotten past it. Unlike said youngest, we have both lived long enough to have suffered through and survived many past heartbreaking defeats of New England sports teams before.
Posted by emal at February 5, 2008 08:57 AMThey're in alphabetical order.
Not in AZ, here's our order:
WHITEHOUSE, SANDY
RICHARDSON, BILL
LYNCH, FRANK
KRUEGER, KARL
OBAMA, BARACK
EDWARDS, JOHN
BOLLANDER, PETER "SIMON"
MONTELL, LELAND
SEE, CHUCK
HUBBARD, LIBBY
GEST, LOTI
DALEY, ORION
CAMPBELL, WILLIAM
TANNER, PHILIP
KUCINICH, DENNIS J.
CLINTON, HILLARY
DOBSON, EDWARD
HAYMER, TISH
LEE, RICH
OATMAN, MICHAEL
GRAVEL, MIKE
VITULLOR, EVELYN L.
DODD, CHRISTOPHER J.
GRAYSON, RICHARD
Is that a riot or what? Biden's not on it but every other clown act is!
Of course we have a republi-con Sec. of State, Jan Brewer, who spends millions on commercials to make sure everyone has ID. She also ensured that the truly Democratic counties in the Tucson area had Diebold as their voting machines in '04'.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 5, 2008 09:06 AMI respect Lambert's opinion a lot and I am slowly reaching the same conclusion. I am a little (but not much) less pessimistic about Obama. And I am less optimistic about Hillary. But his general thought process mirrors mine.
A few bonus thoughts:
1. I still think Bill Clinton is a Grade A scumbag and a traitor to the Democratic Party. Hillary's supporters should have no illusions. My conversion from someone who ruled out Hillary to someone who now has an open mind has only been possible as a result of my acceptance that it has been unfair to hold my distaste for her husband entirely against Hillary. One reason that I don't feel sympathetic towards Hillary when she gets bad press is that her husband signed the miserable '96 telecommunications bill. You reap what you sow.
2. For many progressives, Hillary's association with people like Penn and McAuliffe is a deal-breaker (just like Obama's with McClurkin was, for some). I wish Hillary and her supporters would recognize that instead of making lame excuses or blaming the criticism on "Hillary Hatred"...or even worse blaming the criticism on "RW talking points." I assure you, I have NEVER heard a Republican blame Hillary for associating with Penn and McAuliffe.
3. Hillary has concededly run a much more progressive campaign and avoided dog-whistling RW talking points. That said, Hillary has unnecessarily pandered to the Right in the past and I am unconvinced that her primary behavior is genuine (nor am I convinced that it is phony). See Hillary's post-2004 comments that Democrats need to be talking about religion more, her idiotic support for the flag-burning amendment, and her war on GTA-type video games.
4. I credit Hillary for her support of Media Matters, but wish that she would play this up more. IMHO, she has been unnecessarily chilly towards the netroots and grassroots progressivism. It is unsurprising that the response to her candidacy has been lukewarm. She has nobody to blame for this but herself. OTOH, being tepid towards the fighting progressives is a damn sight better than going to war against Paul Krugman.
5. The HFB is not much better than the OFB. I have heard MANY Hillary supporters echo RW talking points, including slams against "trial lawyers", unions, and anyone who opposes unrestricted "free trade". I'm not saying that Hillary or all her supporters think like this, but many in the HFB do.
6. Like Obama, the Clintons have a bad habit of cozying up to their enemies. Murdoch, Sun Myung Moon, Scaife. For some reason, the Clintons keep offering up an olive branch to these RW wackos and keep whining about all the bad press they get. Has anybody in Hillary's camp ever read the NY Post? Rupert Murdoch is not her friend.
Posted by space at February 5, 2008 09:12 AMMy apologies for the long post and apologies for bringing it back to yesterday’s topic of the vote for the war – but I feel that this vote will come back to haunt her endlessly.
In my opinion, Hillary knew exactly what she was doing. She was a new Senator, with Presidential aspirations and she had to prove her grit and “Gravitas.”
The proof of this is not the Senators who also voted for it and their quotations…the proof is the majority of Democratic House Members who voted against the AUMF and the Senators who voted against it. How did they get it right? Why did they take the enormous risk to vote against it? – it was a risk at the time to stand up against the status quo so early after the shock of 9/11.
She has never admitted that she was wrong in her vote for the war because she does not believe that it was wrong. She believes that it was a good idea to take down Saddam. I wish someone would ask her that question.
I have had an extremely difficult time coming here month after month and reading all Hillary all the time. Admittedly, perhaps it would have been easier if you were supporting my guy (Edwards) against the others…but I don’t think so. This has made me really uncomfortable – even with the disclaimer that these were “your personal opinions” and did not reflect endorsement “by TLC”.
There would have been so many more neutral posts that could have been written – it has been a turn off to read so much condemning vitriol of our possible nominee. I find it difficult to believe that there will be complete support for Obama, if he gets it, after reading so much anti-Obama writing.
I would much rather have read about how we, as Progressives, should ban together to support our Party, regardless of the nominee. I would like to see more posts about how to infiltrate our local Democratic Party and how to change things from the ground up. It would have been nice to read about how we could make our local Party more Progressive and how we could fight to change our Party, get more involved and how to make a real difference.
I have no doubt that if you were supporting Obama you could have written posts endlessly about how bad Hillary would be for our Party and all of the bad things that she has done and how she could never get elected….blah, blah, blah. I know that it is easy to find all of the info that we need to support the position that we have, but reading TLC lately it would seem that the end of the world will be upon us if Obama is the nominee.
This will be over soon. I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is – I find it difficult, however, to get excited about Hillary. It will be more difficult to try to “sell” her to people as I knock on doors because I do not feel it in my gut, but I will support her nonetheless. I think that it will be even more difficult for some on TLC to support Obama though – simply because there have been months and months of hundreds of reasons not to.
Posted by Anjha at February 5, 2008 09:44 AMThis is so sad. The Obama webpage has been trying to show all the bills that he cosponsored to show that he has a record.
Posted by 4jkb4ia at February 5, 2008 10:00 AMthank you ahjha, for pointing out what is the clear fact eriposte and others here have chosen to overlook...LOTS of Dem Congressmen voted against the AUMF. LOTS of them were right in seeing the lack of threat due to ten years of US Combat Air Patrols over Iraq, right in not trusting Bush and Cheney's "evidence", and right knowing that Bush had no plan other than "gittin' Saddam". Lots of Dems were right, and for the right reasons. Hillary was not one of them. Apparently she saw something the others didn't. And it wasn't there.
Posted by T2 at February 5, 2008 10:02 AMThanks for a great post, anjha.
Her Iraq vote will haunt Hillary's campaign, and for me there's just no way around the bad judgment of that vote, or the phoniness in now "explaining" it.
I didn't believe Kerry's "explanation" and I don't believe Hillary's.
I see Dodd, Biden, and Edwards all voted for it. Edwards said it was a mistake. What did the others say about it?
Posted by CG at February 5, 2008 11:50 AMYeah, the cult of personality thing is going well for Obama. But for those of us who vote as grown ups, he's about as content free as humanly possible. Sort of a black, democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
Posted by Moses at February 5, 2008 12:17 PMSuper Tuesday Prognostication:
1. Corporate America wins tonight.
2. Corporate America wins in November.
3. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
"Lots of Dems were right, and for the right reasons. Hillary was not one of them. Apparently she saw something the others didn't. And it wasn't there.
Sorry for the double-post, but this was the point I wanted to make yesterday. Something like 59 Million people voted for Democrats in 2004. Undoubtedly, a significant number of those were disgusted with the War in Iraq. But in 2004 and again in 2008, how many 'leading' candidates did the Corporate machine and the DLC provide Democratic voters to choose from? How many of those 'leading' candidates were against the war before it started?
Where's Al Gore? Probably happy to be free of the Corporate machine that rules America.
Posted by Tampa Student at February 5, 2008 04:00 PMRe. "Cult of personality"
Viewing this video made me suddenly realize how much of the "movement" (I know many do not particularly like this concept - so just substitute one you feel comfortable with), how much of what is happening is not about Obama at all. Most of the women featured in this video seem to look to Obama not for who he is but for the possibilities that lie ahead should he be successful in this endeavour. Possibilities that were already in their head and in their heart but that they had been convinced were unattainable. I'm not certain that that can be described as a "cult of personality".
Posted by Gene at February 6, 2008 12:34 AM