Well said, Turkana.
Posted by wilder at May 7, 2008 10:59 AMA good post. But as for this: But too many of Obama's most passionate supporters are incapable of either reason or comity, ....
True. However, I found that problem with supporters of both sides. On this site, eriposte's posts these past months have read like dispatches from TownHall.com, only with the names changed.
Posted by Anonny at May 7, 2008 11:00 AMThanks, that's a very graceful post. Like you, I was for someone else at the start, John Edwards. We all have to adapt to good enough at some point, even have to embrace George McGovern, as I did in 1972, when the alternative is Richard Nixon. Even when defeat is certain. In this election, I sense that victory for the Democratic nominee is possible, even probable but I do worry about the level of rancor between the 2 camps and do hope for a gracious end to all this. Hope it all works out.
Posted by JohnShreffler at May 7, 2008 11:03 AMTurkana,
I think your goal would be better served by speaking constructively with the Obama camp. You have several months to change our minds. But the Obama camp needs to change it's behavior now, if it's to triumph then,
Posted by basement angel at May 7, 2008 11:11 AMI don't understand how it's "unfair" that Hillary won't win. A bummer, sure. But it can only be unfair if winning was something she had some sort of entitlement to, but was denied.
unfairness can also imply inequality in treatment from the media and the shrillosphere. an inequality in treatment that many have ignored.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 11:23 AMGreat post (well, I say so coming from exactly your position on the race, but still).
Posted by rilkefan at May 7, 2008 11:25 AMTurkana,
I think that you are still trying to have it both ways. True, your post starts off quite gracefully, but then descends into your typical denunciation of "many" Obama supporters. As someone who has read this blog for a long time, I only decided to speak up in reaction to what I viewed as extremely biased and hostile posts from you and eriposte.
Without question, some of the commenters here have been pesky or a pain in the ass to you; perhaps even "obsessive" as you might say (or have said). I think for the most part these comments have been of two categories: (1) a reaction to gross generalizations of 'Obamabots' or personal insults; and/or (2) simple presentation of counterpoints to your theses.
I bear you no ill-will as an editor for banning me on occasion. I would like you to to sincerely think about whether you desire to have an honest dialogue or whether you desire to continue to 'fan the flames'.
As I have said before, I like your non-political posts.
Posted by tfitznc at May 7, 2008 11:27 AMan inequality in treatment that many have ignored.
It's certainly true that Hillary got bad press relative to Obama early. But the last debate I saw, Obama had to spend like 40 minutes answering questions amounting to "how much do you hate America, and why?" Hillary got one question about the sniper gaffe.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 7, 2008 11:27 AMIf the Obama people asked for my vote, I might give it to them. But they're way too good for that.
Signed, a slightly-more-than-tepid HRC supporter.
Posted by Seth at May 7, 2008 11:28 AMmoonbat,
one horrid performance by the abc crew in one debate hardly balanced months of horrid performances by many media sources. the abc debate struck me as a hint of what will come once clinton's out of the way. the media don't hate obama the way they hate clinton, but they love mccain in a way they will never love obama.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 11:31 AMthe media don't hate obama the way they hate clinton, but they love mccain in a way they will never love obama.
That's true.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 7, 2008 11:34 AMOkay, we got it. Obama = Bad (with the supporting evidence that he did things that only Clinton did during the campaign)
I suggest anyone here scroll to the upper right and search for the term "Turkana", then explore the posts...hell, just the titles. That's all you need to know. That Tukana has a lovely blivot full of hate going for Obama-bots can't be disguised by putting lipstick on Turkana's piggish posts from the past.
Posted by phidipides at May 7, 2008 11:40 AMSeth, don't worry, we Obamans will be literally begging for (all) the Hillarians votes. The Obamans with any brains will, anyway. I'm sure Obama himself will also come askin'.....you can count on that!
As an Obaman, I thought turkana's post was pretty darn eloquent.
Posted by euzoius at May 7, 2008 11:43 AM
Classy. As a former Edwards supporter, allow me to point out that if you care about issues, and if you think that your vote is absolutely necessary for Obama, you actually have leverage to get the platform changed. You probably would actually have to let to anger go to realize this.
I've been sort of pissed at Edwards because he's basically done diddly to make any deals.
"Hillary Clinton was never more than my fourth choice for president, and I've never been more than a tepid supporter. " if so Turkana, you've done a helluva job masking your feelings. I've consistently said I'd vote for Clinton if nominated, I voted for her husband twice. I'll never vote for a Republican for any office, including dog catcher, and I never have. When Clinton jumped on McCain's bandwagon with The Gas Tax Holiday it proved something to me about her, and about Obama. I have no idea what kind of president Obama will be, but I'm pretty sure I know now what kind Clinton would be. I'll go with Hopes and Dreams for a Change. But if the improbable happens, I'll vote for Hillary and fasten the seat belt.
Posted by T2 at May 7, 2008 11:48 AMphid & tfitz,
thanks for proving my point.
euzo,
i agree- i have no doubt obama will work very hard for the votes of the clinton supporters, and i also have no doubt that both clintons will end up helping him in whatever ways he asks for their help.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 11:53 AMHillary can still get the nomination. Please we need to push Rezko, the fact that Obambi has played the race card, he has not achieved a finger's worth of things compared to Hillary.
I for one will never vote for that DINO who likes Reagan. Plus he stole the election in Gary, IN. I for one will never vote for Obambi, the best I can do is not vote for McCain.
Anyway, congrats dems for picking a man who will not win the support of working class whites like me and my wife.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 11:54 AMTwo points:
1. Keying off what Brazile said, if Hillary and Obama have very different models of what a party should be, the differences between the two are not marginal, despite their similarity as Centrists.
2. Turkana writes:
It isn't necessary that those who support Clinton now enthusiastically come to support Obama, but it is necessary that they come to support him.
Hillary has been my first choice for quite a while. I kept trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon, but I just couldn't get there. I have little confidence in him. I'm not sure he can handle a crisis. I'm not sure he can make tough decisions. I don't trust his judgment. And for the record, I think Hillary was right to vote for the AUMF--it was a stick. A deterrant. Not a vote for war.
I hope the Obama supporters on here (or the candidate himself) can change my mind about him because right now I think he will be a weak president, but I'll vote for him anyway. Hillary, on the other hand...I just wish people could see what I see in her. It comes out sometimes, but not often enough--the passionate, funny, charming woman that she is. Not to mention incredibly fucking smart and tireless. I'm not angry. I'm just sad.
Posted by CG at May 7, 2008 12:02 PMI for one will never vote for Obambi, the best I can do is not vote for McCain.
This kind of thing has to stop.
It's not about your personal feelings about Obama; it's about America. If a Republican gets elected in November, this country will continue to get WORSE for another four years. (And beyond that, because Justices Stevens and Ginsburg are almost certain to be replaced during the next four years.)
Posted by dj moonbat at May 7, 2008 12:03 PMTurkana said: "phid & tfitz, thanks for proving my point. "
Thanks for putting me in such esteemed company.
Now which point did I prove -
(1) I bear you no ill-will as an editor for banning me on occasion. I would like you to to sincerely think about whether you desire to have an honest dialogue or whether you desire to continue to 'fan the flames'.
(2) As I have said before, I like your non-political posts.
I think you have once again shown 'yourself'.
I tried to be nice, and you shoved the olive branch up my ass.
The gloves are back off.
Posted by tfitznc at May 7, 2008 12:11 PMDJ Moonbat it can't get any worse than it already is, besides Obambi came from Chicago where all the politicians are dirty, he has taken money from the oil & nuclear power companies, plus don't forget his ties to the Weather Underground, racist black preachers who Dr. King would be ashamed of and Rezko.
Plus he is a sexist man who thinks that he is entitled to the presidency. At least McCain took principled stands against his party and has worked well with democrats. He is also a war hero.
Again the most I can do is not vote for either candidate since neither one represents my values. The democratic party does not want to become the party of America, it wants to become the party or upper class eleites & black people.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 12:12 PMDJ Moonbat it can't get any worse than it already is
You could not be more wrong.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 7, 2008 12:13 PMIf the Obama people asked for my vote, I might give it to them. But they're way too good for that
Seth, Americans need your vote for the Democratic nominee, not just us Obama supporters. We have to turn this mess around that the Bush Administration and GOP has created, and whoever is the nominee of our party needs your help.
The issue is bigger than the tiff between our two party's great candidates. I do hope the Hillary supporters come to grips with that soon.
As for Turkana, there's a couple of things said in your post that I disagree with (as Anonny pointed out above), but in large part I agree and appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 12:14 PM"But too many of Obama's most passionate supporters are incapable of either reason or comity, so I won't bother with them."
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN???!!!???
(Kidding.)
Posted by Brady Bonk at May 7, 2008 12:15 PMPlus he is a sexist man
I doubt the husband of Michelle Obama is sexist.
Posted by CG at May 7, 2008 12:15 PMDJ Moonbat it can't get any worse than it already is, besides Obambi came from Chicago where all the politicians are dirty, he has taken money from the oil & nuclear power companies, plus don't forget his ties to the Weather Underground, racist black preachers who Dr. King would be ashamed of and Rezko.
And I also hear that he's in cahoots with the Chicago mafia, and that if elected the mafia will take over the world.
I also hear that he's more black than white.
And that he's a Muslim, and if the Chicago mafia won't take over his friends in al Qaeda will come through and take it over instead.
And I hear he eats babies.
And he's also the AntiChrist.
I'd point out how pathetic your post is, but I guess I don't need to at all.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 12:20 PMI'm hearing reports that vote counts still drift in in Indiana...it is actually getting closer to 50-50 there.
Posted by T2 at May 7, 2008 12:21 PMDJ,
What has to stop is the condescending misogynist, race baiting rhetoric about Clinton and Clinton supporters by the Obama camp. Why should I vote for a party when the nominee thinks I'm a racist because I object to his supporters threatening delegates, harassing and intimidating caucus goers and engaging genuine foul-mouthed, misogynistic rhetoric against my candidate?
It's like one extended cry of "shut up, shut up, shut up" out of the Obama campaign. Forget it. I'm changing my registration this morning. If Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote. If not, I won't. And I won't vote because of the misogyny and race baiting - not because my candidate lost.
I've had lots of candidates lose and I've always happily supported the nominee - even John Kerry. But I've never been condescended to and called a racist before and subjected to level of online abuse that Clinton supporters are subjected to. This is my fourth presidential campaign online. What's happening here isn't acceptable and if the Democrats lose because of it, perhaps they won't treat bedrock Democratic voters as badly as they did this time out.
Instead of ordering us to vote Democratic, maybe you ought to be offended by the way the Obama camp has behaved and object to the divisions its caused in our party. It's the only way you're going to have a chance of getting our vote back and there is the risk that it's too little, too late.
Posted by at May 7, 2008 12:26 PMmy vote.. if need be.. will be a write in for the person most qualified to be president..hiillary clinton...barack obama will not defeat john mccain..and not because of my write in...he will not win because of the millions of people who he and his campaign have alienated...the party and it's process is severely broken..and thats how barack obama is where he is today..that and one hell of a deceitful campaign..they painted the clintons and many others as racists..and got away with it....for political gain..people aren't going to forget it..i'm not..there was nothing fair about it..nothing in this rediculous dnc process has been fair..including disenfranchising two major state..nah..i'm not gonna just forget it..i'm still hurting from 2000..this has the same feel..but done by people in the party with an agenda and a hatred of the clintons..dona brazile and company can put together what they will..i won't be part of it
Posted by dennis at May 7, 2008 12:27 PMOh, speaking of race-baiting, yeah, this was all Obama's fault for Hillary's Chief Strategist to say this about white voters in North Carolina:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_chief_strategist_north.php
I anxiously await the excuses from Hillary supporters on this one. Of course that's Obama's fault, uhh, somehow, right?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 12:28 PMWow, you people are really fucked up.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 7, 2008 12:29 PMAnd he's also the AntiChrist.
On that one you're wrong.
Consensus clearly is that Hillary Clinton is the antichrist.
Posted by snark at May 7, 2008 12:30 PMOh brother.
Look neither the Clinton nor the Obama supporters behaved particularly well. There is plenty of blame to go around. However, now that it's settled, are there actually people out there that would consider not voting for the Democratic nominee because their feelings were hurt by anonymous postings on the Internet?
Please. Let's grow up a little bit.
Posted by Dexter at May 7, 2008 12:35 PMWell said, Turkana. More "grace" than Soto's post about Hillary's "vanity campaign."
I have supported Hillary despite having many of the same questions about her commitment to liberal values. I believe she will be the better President, and I have more serious questions about Obama's commitment to liberalism.
I'll vote for the nominee, even though I believe disenfranchising Florida and Michigan means we will not have a legitimate nominee.
To the extent I hold anything like a grudge, it is twofold:
(1) I will never forget the ease with which the Obama camp, and especially his blogger supporters, levied the accusation of "racist" against fellow Democrats, and rank-and-file (mostly rural) voters. They have set back racial equality, and it will be harder to act on real racism in the general election because these shrill jerks have cried wolf at every turn, against fellow progressives.
(2) I will never feel a part, or support, Netroots 1.0 again. DailyKos, AmericaBlog, and Talking Points Memo have all lost their credibility, and unfortunately any good writers associated with them are tainted by the association. Truth does not matter to these people. Loyalty and respect for fellow Democrats do not matter. They are a bunch of hacks who have misused their considerable talents.
Thanks for always being honest in your views and respectful in your demeanor, Turkana.
Posted by Joelarama at May 7, 2008 12:38 PMMisterOpus1,
I think the TPM post by Greg Sargent is a bit misleading. I don't have access to the audio at the moment but in the quoted comments Garin does not tie the white/black results to electability as Garin does in his post.
Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.
"When we began in North Carolina," Garin said, "our internal polling and much of the public polling [showed] we were running exactly even with white voters."
Garin said that the Virginia electorate was the "closest white electorate in the country" to North Carolina, and added that Hillary "started even" among whites in North Carolina, and "ended up earning a significant win of 24 points."
"We obviously did not do as well as we would want or needed to among African American voters," Garin concluded.
From those quotes it sounds like simple spin. This guys a campaign strategist. He's gonna pull apart the demographic breakdown to put a positive spin on the numbers for his candidate. I'm not quite sure what got you so worked up about that quote. The Clinton campaign would love to have the support of black voters but I think the handwriting is on the wall in that respect. Don't you?
As an Obama supporter from the very beginning (I sent him money before Alan Keyes entered the senate race) I have to say I am a bit angry at how we Obama fans have been portrayed on this blog.
From my standpoint I hear most of the strong Clinton supporters call me nieve, stupid, part of a cult, a Clinton hater, evil, out of touch, incapable of reason, etc. etc.
From the start last year of my visits lurking and writing on this blog I have and many defenders of Obama have tried to reasonable give our opinion of why we think he is the better choice over Clinton but almost always trying to point out that we would support Mrs. Clinton. The posts are usually met with "go back to the dorm kid" or worse.
I really hope that the die hard Clinton fans at this site begin to look at Obama in a new light and at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am starting to see the leaders of this community move in that direction but the occasional writer like tenacitus that will not vote democratic still has me quite worried.
For someone that supports what the Clintons and democrats stand for to vote for Mccain or not vote (really the same damn thing) just blows me away. The only analogy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I hope reason begins to take hold in this small group soon. We will need all this support to obtain a fillabuster proof majority in the Senate.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 7, 2008 12:43 PMJesus, Turkana. Make me gag.
Posted by NealB at May 7, 2008 12:44 PMI never said that he eats babies OPus1. Rezko has ties to organized crime which hurts Obama's credibilty. And don't forget his support of the weather underground. LIke I said earlier to have a black man play the race card the way Obambi did would make Dr. King who was 10 times the man Obama is turn in his grave.
After pandering to blacks he is riding to the nomination on their backs but he is going to make all those black people suffer after the democrats loose to McCain there will be a backlash and I doubt that we will see another black candidate for the presidency in a hundred years.
One good thing is that there will probably be an end to entitlements like affirmative action. At least african americans can never say that the democrats never gave them a chance
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 12:46 PMThere is still a chance that Hillary will win the nomination, I sincerely hope that the superdelegates make the correct decision for the good of the country
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 12:49 PMlisten.. the sun will come up tomorrow..i think
...and there are plenty of people out there who are smiling and as happy as clams in a shell..thing is though..they're all republicans...god they must be laughing...thinking they did it gain!
Posted by dennis at May 7, 2008 12:51 PM*sigh*
Rezko has ties to organized crime which hurts Obama's credibilty
You realize that this GOP talking point has been thoroughly debunked and discredited long ago, right? But if you have new information to help slime our party's likely nominee, bring it. Otherwise you're repeating exactly what Hannity loves hearing.
And don't forget his support of the weather underground
Why would I even remember an association to another Board member, ESPECIALLY in lieu of Hillary's husband pardoning 2 members of the same group in contrast? Oh that's right, she doesn't specifically recall any information on those two pardons, I keep forgetting.
LIke I said earlier to have a black man play the race card the way Obambi did would make Dr. King who was 10 times the man Obama is turn in his grave.
I like your name calling skills. They remind me of my 7 year old nephew. It's cute.
Do me a favor, champ, can you explain Obama's supposed "race baiting" skills here?:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_chief_strategist_north.php
Or can we try and make an attempt to see that Hillary's hands were a bit dirty in this muck as well?
After pandering to blacks he is riding to the nomination on their backs but he is going to make all those black people suffer after the democrats loose to McCain there will be a backlash and I doubt that we will see another black candidate for the presidency in a hundred years.
Umm, huh? A Democratic candidate "pandering" to African Americans? Huh, okay, considering that the Democrats have consistently won approx. 90% of the African American vote in the past few decades, I guess that means our entire party does wonders "pandering" to them.
Then again, of course Hillary's gas-tax holiday fiasco was NEVER a means of pandering to those in Indiana and NC. Never. Who would think of such a thing?
One good thing is that there will probably be an end to entitlements like affirmative action. At least african americans can never say that the democrats never gave them a chance
Yeah, that's just terrific, champ. And how has Powerline's blog or Captain's Quarters been lately? Shoo, GOP troll.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 12:56 PMWhy is it so hard for so many who are deeply involved in politics to understand that most of us out here actually judge the candidates by their own words.
Stop babbling about how this or that is the fault of the "media" or the "consultants" or the "supporters". Give me a break. These people are running for president. How about what happens to them being THEIR OWN responsibility?
I started this campaign knowing almost nothing about Obama but with a deep distrust of Hillary due to her unwavering support for Bush's wars. My personal opinion is that any demo who marched happily to war at the shoulder of George Bush is completely disqualified to be President.
But still I was willing to listen to what Clinton had to say and, for the most part, I did not like it one bit. Apparently millions of other voters did not like what she had to say either. She, and she alone, is reponsible for the position she is in. Period.
Posted by Binko at May 7, 2008 12:57 PM"I have no doubt that the people she would have had running the government would have been vastly superior to her campaign staff, but her campaign staff has cost her the chance to prove it."
Why do you have no doubt that this would have happened? If you assume Senator Clinton did in fact choose her nomination campaign team (instead of it being the other way around as seems likely) then her judgement over choices of personnel and subordinates has been shown to be seriously flawed over the past year or so.
A major part of the rewards of being on a successful political campaign in the US is the chance to gain rank and position in an administration, whether it be a Mayoralty, Governorship or the Presidency itself. Chief of staff positions, secretarial seats, all such political posts tend to be occupied by long-term associates of the candidate who achieves office. Would you feel comfortable with Mark Penn in charge of a White House political team? Forget the money, that's what power-junkies like him want in exchange for the years of eighteen-hour days and rubber chicken. Sadly for him and his DC insider associates they ran into the superior Obama machine and it has cost them their chance at the brass ring.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at May 7, 2008 01:01 PMMy complaints about Obama supporters are not that they are fanatical, but a lot of them seem to be in some magical "post racial" world that does not really exist. Most of the people I hang out with have no problems about voting for Barack, but having lived in the South and visiting parts of the Midwest, there are still lots of folks out there who will not vote for a black man. Then take into account the Republican slime machine (look what they did to Kerry, a war hero--they made him into an elitist war criminal) and a media which hates Democrats, and we're in for real trouble in November. Plus, look at the states Obama has won in the primaries and some of them have not voted for Dems in the GE for years. Here's hoping Obama can take the rough treatment he is going to get from the Villagers, Limpbrain, Imus, Dowd and the rest of the millionaire punditocracy. I know I will be holding my breath when I vote for him in November.
Posted by joanne at May 7, 2008 01:08 PMrobert,
as eriposte has made clear, the ability to run a good campaign does not equate with the ability to govern well. as with bush. and i have little doubt that gore or kerry would have been a terrific president, even though they both ran lousy campaigns.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 01:09 PMA very nice piece Turkana.....we all seemed at some point to forget we are on the same side of the ball....when you are old like me (almost 60) you realize that time is the best salve.
As I mentioned on a different thread, the problem for the Repugs is their candidate should be in a resthome. He couldn't get more than 78% of the vote in NC and Ind when he was basically the only candidate. That tells me the kool aiders are fatigued and don't see McOld as the guy to stop abortion or gay marriage (their only issues) and will probably simply not show up in November.
I hope Hillary does let go soon so that we can all get together to crush McFart and rid the world of these pukes for once and for all.
ps: A blanket apology to anyone I have sworn at in the heat of this battle!!!
Posted by Goyo at May 7, 2008 01:10 PMbinko-
"unwavering support"- your disconnect from reality is clear. no doubt you also accept every distortion of what clinton said. but don't worry- it's very common.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 01:12 PMI'm still debating if I can vote for Obama. Not because he is not worth my vote, but because from the start he was the one with the sense of entitlement. Neither he nor his supporters have given the Clintons the respect they are due.
They have treated her like some sort of wanna-be.
I suppose it's hard to vote for someone who I don't believe has paid his dues. I just don't have a sense of confidence that he can actually make a difference. He will be played just like Bill Clinton was played (and he knew politics and had paid his dues.)
Maybe I am cynic, maybe I'm still upset about Hillary not making it, but don't doubt for a minute that I will not vote. Maybe I'll just write her name in. Maybe I'll vote for Obama, but I will never forgive him for allowing the disrespectful treatment of Clinton by his campaign and supporters.
Oh and Dennis?
Nice to here your prophetic voice again. Please tell us all how this will all turn out. I want to cut and paste it into my collection.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 7, 2008 01:16 PMtangerine,
just remain focused on the issues. whatever you think of obama, he will be vastly better than mccain on the issues.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 01:17 PMTurkana, I appreciate the effort to make a coherent case for doing what you believe has to be done.
Probably by November I'll make my peace with Barack Obama. Then again, I may be in one of my periodic episodes of feeling down about him. Depends completely on him.
Posted by hitchhiker at May 7, 2008 01:20 PMTurkana, I neither accept nor reject any "distortions" of what Clinton says. I listen to her speak her words, I look at her actions, and I judge for myself. I don't filter my opinions through other people's opinions.
And yes, voting to give the Executive branch a free ticket to go to war, refusing to condemn the war, voting year and year to fund the war, refusing to commit to ending the war really does add up to "unwavering support".
I have no doubt, after listening to her speak her own words, that she would show equally unwavering support for the next war, and the next, and the next....
Posted by Binko at May 7, 2008 01:25 PMtalk about reconciliation and it gets nastier with every other post.
obama supporters have been branded by those in this blog. hilary supporters accuse him of every dirty trick, yet turn a blind eye to what she's done as well as what her surrogates say. i don't think she's racist in the least, nor have i accused her of such. i find it disconcerting that she only campaigns in rural america now. both her and bill seem to forget the cities.
when she wins a state, she wins, when he wins, its because the demographic suits him. both have said divisive things, yet you give hrc a pass on hers? that says plenty.
we need a unified party in nov. you definitely have the right to vote for whoever you want, but if mc cain wins and you voted for him or chose to stay home in a fit of pique, then the next four are on you.
out.
Posted by anthony at May 7, 2008 01:25 PMMisterOpus1 Oh, speaking of race-baiting, yeah, this was all Obama's fault for Hillary's Chief Strategist to say this about white voters in North Carolina:
snark put the quote from Garin in his post, so I won't bother. What's the big deal? She did better among whites in NC than she did in VA? How is it race-baiting to say that? After every primary there's a discussion of the demographics--this candidate made inroads in the young, old, college-educated, over $50K, under $50K, white, black, hispanic, etc. So what?
I really hope that the die hard Clinton fans at this site begin to look at Obama in a new light and at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt.
OK Eric in Austin, I'm going to take your advice. Tell me why I should want Obama as president (other than "he's better than McCain.")
Posted by CG at May 7, 2008 01:26 PMThis is going to be tough call. Do I accept being dictated to by the DNC leadership or not? Quite frankly, I haven't made up my mind.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 7, 2008 01:29 PMyes, binko. you represent your stereotype very well.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 01:29 PMForget it, no Obama vote from me. Necessary for whom, indeed. My vote is mine, stop telling me what to do with it. I choose what to do with vote, not you.
You want me to vote for Obama, convince me about Obama. Don't tell me what you want me to do with my vote.
Posted by at May 7, 2008 01:36 PMMister Opus,
Rezko is on trial for bribery, among other things right now - so no, it's hasn't been debunked. And if Rezko is convicted on the bribery charge, his inexplicable assistance in Obama's home purchase is going to look a whole lot like a bribe. And of course, when asked why Rezko would spend 625k of his money to help Obama purchase his big, fancy house, no one has any answers.
You haven't begun to hear about Rezko and Wright. If Obama is teh nominee, it's going to be 2 hour a day speculation on what the deal between Obama and Rezko was.
Obama's mob ties have been reaffirmed, not debunked.
Posted by basement angel at May 7, 2008 01:43 PMI'm not ready to give Obama a pass on the odiousness of his supporters. I believe their behavior is a reflection of a disturbing level of arrogance in Barack himself.
No one will ever convince me that he wasn't giving the finger--in a special compact with his followers--to Hillary Clinton in that notorious video. At that moment I knew it would be very difficult for me to vote for him.
Posted by cygnus at May 7, 2008 01:50 PMI'm not in a position to tell anyone about whom they should support in the GE. Heck, I live in Georgia, even if I vote for Obama, he'll never carry the state, so I suppose my party identification will remain secure. It won't be the first time I've voted for my 2nd or 3rd choice, and it probably won't be the last. I could almost be enthusiastic about it if I felt that Obama really was the consensus choice of the party. His failure to coalesce the party behind him makes him an incredibly weak nominee going forward. It must be said that Hillary failed utterly yesterday to prove that she is capable uniting the party behind her either.
We seem to be exposing the true rifts in our party (that have always existed) at a time when our opportunity to remake our society has never been greater. I don't know how you fix that. The minority-youth-anti-war-creative class-west coast liberal factions that rode George McGovern to victory in 1972 paid an awful price by discounting, ignoring and insulting the old line Democratic voters. History is funny in how it repeats itself. Nixon went from being absolutely beatable, to landslide victor.
I don't think John McCain will be that lucky, but he doesn't really need a landslide does he?
For me, the shame of it all is that if Obama wins the nomination, and loses the General, he will be finished in Presidential politics. This is unfortunate because I believe that he would live up to all of the claims he makes now if he had only waited for his time to come. This will not be an affirmation. It will be mathematical gerrymandering.
Posted by jb64 at May 7, 2008 01:51 PMNo, no, no, and NO!
Those people called me a stupid, white trash, racist.
I will never forgive them. ANY of them.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
CG replies:
snark put the quote from Garin in his post, so I won't bother. What's the big deal? She did better among whites in NC than she did in VA? How is it race-baiting to say that? After every primary there's a discussion of the demographics--this candidate made inroads in the young, old, college-educated, over $50K, under $50K, white, black, hispanic, etc. So what?
Let's see what Sargent had said in my above link:
Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.
(snip)Put in the context of the Hillary campaign's chief argument that she's the more electable Dem, Garin's overall implication here is that her success among white voters in North Carolina yesterday is "progress" in the sense that it strengthens her case for electability.
In other words, it's an explicit, and unabashed, linking of her claim of electability to her success among whites.
Race-baiting? Kinda hard to read anything else in that implication, but go ahead and try. Sure we can pass it off as a "discussion" on demographics, but what's the point in discussing specifically with an obvious emphasis on the inroads with white voters? What's the obvious implication to that, which you are seemingly attempting to ignore?
Those of you who refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee should know that the blood of every woman who dies in a back alley abortion is on your hands.
Posted by Gus at May 7, 2008 02:13 PMPlease tell me how Obama is going to be better than McCain. I think his policies are extremely weak and very middle of the road. His supporters are more Bush like than democrats. I see them turning on him after a few months in office. I think it is much more important to add to our numbers in the house and senate. That is where my focus is going to be.
Posted by D Jessup at May 7, 2008 02:13 PM"yes, binko. you represent your stereotype very well."
I'm seriously confused. What sterotype do you think I represent? And why are you attacking me on a personal level?
I look at Mrs. Clinton's words and actions and judge her to be a warmonger. Perhaps you look at her words and actions and judge her to be a peacenik. I wouldn't understand or agree with such a judgement but I would grant you the right to make your own conclusion.
But I really don't understand at all how you can accuse me of representing any stereotype, or even why you would stoop to such a low argument.
Posted by Binko at May 7, 2008 02:17 PMMisterOpus:
I'm sure that's exactly what Sargent intended. However, why not quote Garin and what he said, as opposed to Sargents interpretation? Sargent only quotes one word from Garin, "progress", at least from what you copied.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 7, 2008 02:22 PM"phid & tfitz, thanks for proving my point. "
tfitz, welcome! You're in pretty good company!
We're looking for a coordinator who can find our next TLC convention site. They recognize most of our voices over the phone and we can't rent a thing except for that space above Joe's Crab House and Auto Upholstery outside of Galveston. There aren't any poolboys, and experience tells us it's best not to leave Judith with too much time on her hands.
I think SoS is looking for someone to do a Hillary to his Obama during the talent show portion of the festivities. How do you look in a blond wig? Judith once did a skit on Cheney and hunting a while back, that's why the rule of no loaded guns had to be implemented (but I have heard T2 and Tiki Al healed nicely). iac does a dead-on impression of a drunk George Bush that can't be told from the real thing. It looks like dj moonbat will be back this year after being unable to show his face for a while. The Sports Illustrated lawsuits be damned, I for one never held the fiasco with the leggy Brazilian models against him.
By the way, the newbie buys the first round (we got us some free drinks! Weee-hah!).
Posted by phidipides at May 7, 2008 02:23 PMRace-baiting? Kinda hard to read anything else in that implication, but go ahead and try.
So it's race baiting just because Greg Sargent thinks it can have no other relevance than to Hillary saying she's more electable?
Sure we can pass it off as a "discussion" on demographics, but what's the point in discussing specifically with an obvious emphasis on the inroads with white voters?
Because she got creamed in NC. The only way to put a positive spin on it is to say, "But look at the gains we made in this democraphic!" I think you, and Greg Sargent want to find something offensive about his comments and so you have. To me it's nothing more than a strategist doing his best to spin a tail spanking in a positive light.
What's the obvious implication to that, which you are seemingly attempting to ignore?
Come on. I didn't ignore anything. I gave you a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his comments. The fact that you reject my take does not equate to me ignoring yours or Greg Sargents.
BTW, did you read the comments to that post? A perfect example of the utter character assassination that both Clintons have been subject to in this race. Some pretty vile shit said about them based on nothing than a presentation of factual demographic voting results.
Basement Angel states:
Rezko is on trial for bribery, among other things right now - so no, it's hasn't been debunked. And if Rezko is convicted on the bribery charge, his inexplicable assistance in Obama's home purchase is going to look a whole lot like a bribe. And of course, when asked why Rezko would spend 625k of his money to help Obama purchase his big, fancy house, no one has any answers.
The Rezko testimony had already ended a few days back, and with no fanfare or explosive stuff against Obama in any way:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
And the prosecution's "star witness" was, well, pretty hilarious:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-mondayapr08,1,5722569.story
But go ahead and hang your hat on that hope to smear our party's likely nominee. I'm sure you'll feel better about yourself in the morning. I know you Hillary supporters were hanging strong on this, and that it only proves how unelectable he is, but your goalposts just can't be moved back any farther. Sorry.
You might also want to read what the CONSERVATIVE Chicago Tribune editorial board had to say about this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story
As well as a nice comparison to one of Hillary's "connections" to Hsu:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/tale_of_the_tape_hsu_and_rezko.html
Speaking of the Rezko trial, here's an interesting piece on some of the defendants and their donations to Hillary:
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html
Strange that.
Isn't this association game fun?
Finally, a rundown on the Rezko bullshit:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/171056/015
I doubt that would satisfy you, but oh well, at least I try.
You haven't begun to hear about Rezko and Wright. If Obama is teh nominee, it's going to be 2 hour a day speculation on what the deal between Obama and Rezko was.
Wake me when Beelzebub returns while you're at it. You might want to read what one of the top GOP strategists and mouthpieces are saying to his GOP bretheren about Wright:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/politics/politico/main4076956.shtml
People are more concerned about McCain's ties to Bush than Obama to Wright, and rightfully so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Wright's 5 minutes of fame are up. Obama disassociated himself from him quickly, and people are ready to move on. How about you?
Obama's mob ties have been reaffirmed, not debunked.
Prove it with verifiable evidence.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 02:33 PMiac does a dead-on impression of a drunk George Bush that can't be told from the real thing.
Hey p-dip! No one's supposed to know 'bout that stuff, it'll keep 'em from signing up for the next convention. I think we should have a cage match setup for the next one, and any residual bad feelings can be worked out in the mud pit! Two go in, two come out, covered in mud! It'll be a hoot! Also, didn't we agree the newbie buys the first two rounds? (nudge nudge wink wink)
Posted by iamcoyote at May 7, 2008 02:33 PMTo all you Obambi Hussainoids, who have called me and mine racist I will happily vote for a black candidate but never this one. As for me now that the democrats have rejected their true base for latte liberals who live in cities like San Francisco or blacks me and many other working class whites are going to take our "bitterness" and go for the part which does respect us and our values.
All you have to do is compare their two voting records and policy positions to see that he is a better candidate, Hussein could never get offered a job at a law firm as prestigious as Rose.
Maybe after you dems loose again you will finally give us white working class voters the respect that we deserve as the builders of this country and the democratic base.
Also Obama is anti abortion, I just pray that the truth of all his ties to criminals comes to light. We do not need another criminal president like JFK who will drag this country into wars and further tarnish the presidency. He is not qualified and the people of Illinois should be ashamed of having him as their representative who has not done the work he promised to do in the senate while he has been grasping for the presidency.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 02:38 PMsnark, never, ever go into TPM's comments! They're on par with Huffpost's which are much worse than the old Yahoo boards. Any mention of Clinton is like throwing a cow into a pirahna tank!
BTW, anyone else get the impression that tenacitus is a right winger posing as a Clinton supporter?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 7, 2008 02:42 PMHeh. Turkana's holier-than thou attitude, as if Clinton's supporters weren't dishing out the trash talk just as good as they were getting it.
Sad, really.
Posted by naomi at May 7, 2008 02:43 PMWell then let's quote Garin then (along with Sargent):
Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.
"When we began in North Carolina," Garin said, "our internal polling and much of the public polling [showed] we were running exactly even with white voters."
Garin said that the Virginia electorate was the "closest white electorate in the country" to North Carolina, and added that Hillary "started even" among whites in North Carolina, and "ended up earning a significant win of 24 points."
"We obviously did not do as well as we would want or needed to among African American voters," Garin concluded.
So there's definitely "progress" that was made with white voters there, and I realize that Garin may have also stated other demographics, and perhaps he or the Hillary campaign will make that more clear soon. But what's fairly obvious here is that he's pointing out "progress" with white voters, but for what reason? His case, as is Hillary's, is to demonstrate her electibility. How could one not conclude that his statements about picking up more white voters be an implication as a consequence to picking up more white voters than Obama?
That's not a leap to make at all, and I don't see how that's much different than any of the race-baiting accusations thrown at the Obama camp.
And BTW, snark, my comment about ignoring things was at CG, not you. Just wanted to clear that up.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 02:44 PMIf the Clinton campaign had said there was progress because she made inroads in the African-American vote (she didn't, but let's say...), would that be race-baiting? Would it be "age-baiting" if she said she made inroads in the young vote? Obama could argue that he's more electable because he has a larger share of the African-American vote. Would that be race-baiting? Is it race-baiting for the Obama surrogates to say that if the superdelegates go for Clinton, there will be a big backlash in the African-American community?
Posted by CG at May 7, 2008 02:47 PMAlso Obama is anti abortion
Prove it, tenacitus. I'd be very interested in seeing you support this assertion with verifiable evidence.
Thanks.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 02:47 PMI will confess that I voted for Dole in '96. & Bush in 2000 But in 2004 I voted for Kerry. My big issue right now is the war. But no I am not a rightwinger, just an independent. My father voted for Reagan in 1980.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 02:48 PMSo what if it was about electability? White voters are a large demographic. If you're doing better with them, you can argue that you're more electable. If she were running against John Edwards and said the same thing, would it be race-baiting?
Posted by CG at May 7, 2008 02:52 PMJust to get an idea of how sickeningly ungracious Obama supporters are, take a look at Daily Kos. Those people are nuts. I will vote for Obama in November. But if there's anything that would tempt me to turn Republican, it would be the vicious behavior of Obama supporters. They are damned lucky that people like me would never consider voting for a Republican. But they'd be well served to remember that in November, they're going to have to be a little bit classy about getting millions of people to vote for a Democrat. The way they talk about Obama, the weepy, defensive, angry emotionalism, reminds me of the idiots I used to know in Campus Crusade for Christ. Their behavior put me off Jesus completely. And Jesus was a hell of a lot cooler than Barack Obama.
Posted by Alex at May 7, 2008 02:56 PMMisterOpus1,
Garin's last sentence;
"We obviously did not do as well as we would want or needed to among African American voters," Garin concluded.
So he trumpeted Clinton's "progress" amongst white voters and conceded that they didn't make the "progress" that they would have liked amongst black voters. He was trying to put a positive spin on a loss. It's what campaign strategists do.
His case, as is Hillary's, is to demonstrate her electibility. How could one not conclude that his statements about picking up more white voters be an implication as a consequence to picking up more white voters than Obama?
One can not conclude that because he started the conversation by referring to how they did amongst white voters in Virginia. He was comparing Clinton's performance to Clinton's performance. Christ, every one of these primaries is accompanied by exit polling that breaks down the vote by age, income, religion sex and race. But simply referring to how Clinton performed in these relative subcatagories is race-baiting? Is it somehow a surprise to you after umpteen primaries where Obama has gotten at least 8 out of 10 black votes that the Clinton campaign is not putting their eggs in the black vote basket anymore? Sorry, but ginning up racial outrage over a simple attempt at positive spin by a campaign strategist is just dumb. And actually comes much closer to race-baiting than anything Garin said.
Posted by snark at May 7, 2008 02:56 PMI think we should have a cage match setup for the next one, and any residual bad feelings can be worked out in the mud pit!
Thank god! I remember when you brought the motorcycle ball from the circus and we were going to have to ride tiny motorcycles and duct tape running chainsaws to our arms...where did you get that silly idea? Sheesh! Thank god Judith convinced you riding poolboys in the ball was safer...except dj would only ride on the shoulders of that leggy Brazilian model, and when her 8" stiletto heel got caught in the steel mesh it was lawsuit heaven. How the hell did he think she could run fast enough in heels to loop around the top? She was quick, but she needed tennis shoes for that.
Posted by phidipides at May 7, 2008 02:58 PMOf course, Turkana's post doesn't surprise me over her at TLCer, AKA the Hillary Blog, but I do find the tone completely sanctimonious, condescending and patronizing.
Lick your wounds. Vent all you want. Your candidate lost fair and square. To suggest that Hillary's supporters have been reasoned and respectful while Obama's have been mean and demeaning is laughable... particularly at this blog!
Time to get over it. Hillary lost.
In the long run, an Obama nomination is far better for the party. Obama has proven he can grow the party while Hillary proved she cannot.
Wow. This is altogether too much inside baseball. Allow me to provide the perspective of a reasonably liberal Fed working in Washington (on labor issues) who get his news and political fixes from TLC, HuffPost, Nation, Truthout, NYT, WSJ, Yahoo, Guardian and a few others: it was a hard fought fight. HRC lost it in February. Since that time it's been a spectacle of desperation. I never thought I would see the day a Dem would argue that America is too racist to elect a Black man. Sad.
Posted by Nick L. at May 7, 2008 03:12 PMWell, p-dip, we should try to keep the lawsuits and injuries to a minimum this time. It really cut into the booze budget! Total bummer!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 7, 2008 03:12 PMAnd to all the comments about 'the blood of women who die of back alley abortions' if we don't vote for Obama?
You'd be much more creditable if you could point to Obama's active support of and plans to support through appointments and action such things like; Plan B, R v W, family planning, and the like.
Posted by linnen at May 7, 2008 03:19 PMI'll have to disagree on three things--
(1) that the Obama online supporters, who I have come to genuinely loathe in a way I had previously reserved for far right republicans, will have much impact on whether I vote for Obama; I doubt they'll have any impact except to the extent I think his campaign encouraged them;
(2) that the tone of this campaign didn't come from the top down--Axelrod may have orchestrated things, but Obama is the one ultimately calling the shots and he certainly did nothing to stop either Axelrod or Jesse Jackson Jr or anyone else associated with the campaign;
(3) that it's necessary I vote for Obama to make the world a better place--I'm not at all sure validating this campaign won't do sufficient damage to make up for whatever difference there is in Obama and McCain, and
(4) I'm not sure how much better things will be under Obama. If I thought he would do a lot better, I'd vote for him.
I'll subtract the essence of a post I made on anglachel's journal and repeated on my blog last night before bed--
********
I started out enthusiastic about him as my tentative second choice to my tentative first choice Hillary, then he dropped to my *last* choice among the democrats when I learned of his support for nuclear power, but I still would have voted for him and hoped someone changed his mind on this issue. His early campaign made me uneasy, but after Iowa I thought he would probably get the nomination, and read "The Audacity of Hope" in hopes of getting a better feel for him. This caused me to actively dislike him, but I *still* would have voted for him in the fall over a Republican, if he'd run even a Kerry-level campaign.
South Carolina finished this. Portraying two lifelong civil rights supporters as racists was unforgivable . . .
Combine support for nuclear and coal over solar as alternative energy sources with a deliberately misleading, race-baiting, misogynistic campaign to equal anything Karl Rove ever did, with the way Obama screwed over Alice Palmer, his asinine behavior about not wanting to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a fundraiser Newsom threw for him, and a book in which he repeatedly insults democrats and liberals while praising Republicans, and there's no way I'm voting for this guy.
I don't trust him on reproductive freedom, health care, social security, putting the interests of workers, consumers and small businesses ahead of big corporations, getting the privately funded mercanaries out of Iraq, or telecomm immunity. He's on record as taking a position that appalls me on alternative energy, which I consider to be arguably the single most important issue facing us today--both because of how it impacts humans directly and because of the its impact on the future of the entire planet, voted for the horrible Bush/Cheney energy bill, and is on record saying he had never given environmental issues much thought. Given his history of stabbing people in the back, his campaign's repeated lying and misinformation during this campaign, and that his supporters basically deliberately cheated at a whole bunch of caucuses in a way that should have had the whole democratic party screaming bloody murder and a whole bunch of his supporters in jail, there's nothing he could say to convince me I should trust him on, well, anything. I'd as soon vote for Jay Rockefeller (a devoted supporter of Obama who is the democrats most single-minded supporter of telecomm immunity). (I'll add here taht I don't trust *any* of the candidates on telecom immunity, but I do trust Hillary on the other issues)
If Obama gets the nomination, I shall devote myself to building grassroots support for particular issues and to trying to build up a third party of some sort.
***
Not saying that my mind *couldn't* be changed, but I think it is unlikely, and would most likely have to be a combination of Obama saying all the right things *and* McCain sounding truly frightening. The second of those is far more likely to happen . . .
It's amazing to me...someone who honestly tries to see through my own bias and tinted glasses... that someone as intellegent as I believe the poster to be, can see things so differently than I do.
Almost everything that you said about Clinton, I could have inserted Obama's name and vice versa.
Many philosophers have written about this phenomenon, but my experience with these primaries has been the first time I've truly seen it played out and it has been both extremely interesting and exasperating. How can we see things so differently?
I will continue to ponder upon this for a long time, and I'm sure I will not find an answer. But, I do think it will better prepare me for future interactions and communications. Diversity is a wonderful thing. It gets us out of our own head and makes us ask questions that we wouldn't normally ask. For that I am grateful, and it just so happens that my thoughts on who I think would make the better president will get his shot this year.
Next time, I will probably be on the losing end. That's okay. I will remember this feeling and know that there are a lot of people who have come before me...saddned and down and out. You put up a good fight, and you really believed in Clinton. I commend you for it and only hope that all the knuckle-head Obama supporters that are out there didn't turn you off so much that you won't vote for Obama in the general election
I welcome all of you and hope we all can hold Obama to some of his promises and together make this world a better place over the next 4-8 years.
Welcome and thank you!
Aside from splitting my third area of disagreement into two, another area where I wish to differ--
I keep reading all the futility online and hearing it in the media and keep forgetting--
This race isn't over. She can still win--*probably* will still win-- the popular vote, if things go as expected. With that to offset Obama's delegate victory, things will be up to the superdelegates. I realize the appearance of momentum after three landslide victories in the final four races (are there more than four left? and she has a shot at a fourth victory in Oregon) will be hard to get through the media onslaught, but surely it will be noticed by the superdelegates. I think she's a long way from beaten.
Posted by mojave_wolf at May 7, 2008 04:09 PMIf you follow the logic of a few of the posters, and todays network news, Hillary should withdraw for the good of the party and to insure that the Obama doesn't get hurt for the GE. It seems kind of like stopping a 12 round fight in the 8th round because one fighter is way ahead on points, and in finishing the fight may get injured before the next fight. It's hogwash. Obama has not won yet. Florida amd Michigan have not been settled yet, and without the benefit of those votes being supressed, he could still get caught. Without that issue being settled in a fair manner, many voters, like myself, that have not drank the coolade, will not consider Obama to be the ligitimate winner, and will vote (or withhold vote) accordingly. No amount of "pull together for the sake of the party" admonishment will motivate many of us to vote for a candidate that appears to have been chosen by the DNC and helped to win by preferential treatment, and every insinuation that people who do not vote for Obama are mostly racist only reinforces determination not to vote for him.
Posted by chesserct at May 7, 2008 04:13 PMSign me up as one Bare Minimum voter.
Posted by Radiowalla at May 7, 2008 04:19 PMNo, I don't have to support Obama. I've always voted Dem but if the current Dem party wants my vote, they have to put up a qualified candidate I can vote for. That candidate is Hillary and I will not hold my nose and vote for Senator Obama. He kicked my demographic to the curb early on and I won't believe any attempts to get it back now. Unity candidate my eye.
Posted by margarita at May 7, 2008 04:25 PMsnark,
He was comparing Clinton's performance to Clinton's performance. Christ, every one of these primaries is accompanied by exit polling that breaks down the vote by age, income, religion sex and race. But simply referring to how Clinton performed in these relative subcatagories is race-baiting?
If it isn't baiting, it has a means of tip-toeing the line a wee bit. If you listen to the conference call:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c6rC5ojS4w&e
This point of white voters in comparison to Virginia was emphasized first and foremost, as well as discussed in the most detail versus the other demographics of voters altogether. He discusses "progress", and the first and most point stressed was the group of white voters between NC and it's neighboring demographic state of Virginia.
How else would I or Sargent interpret that?
I'll concede that he was pointing out a comparison of Clinton's vote to Clinton's vote in neighboring states, but the question again is asked as to why he pointed out white voters at all - yes we know that Clinton picked up more white voters, but why is this being pointed out by her chief strategist with such emphasis? Is this really something that we did not know?
The other thing I'm curious about is did anyone from the Obama campaign point out how many of the Black voters he received last night, especially as a means of demonstrating potential gains in the electibility argument? I honestly don't know, but I'm wondering if a similar argument from the Obama campaign was even made.
Is it somehow a surprise to you after umpteen primaries where Obama has gotten at least 8 out of 10 black votes that the Clinton campaign is not putting their eggs in the black vote basket anymore?
Not at all, but emphasizing how well they did with the white vote doesn't help their case out to me much at all.
Sorry, but ginning up racial outrage over a simple attempt at positive spin by a campaign strategist is just dumb. And actually comes much closer to race-baiting than anything Garin said.
Well I guess we'll disagree on that one. Does it come as low as shading his skin color darker than normal in an attack ad? No, but it does appear to continue an unfortunate trend.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 04:28 PMWell as a white blue collar guy I am beginning to think that the party for me is McCain's at least their nominee will not pander to reverse racists & he understands me and my values.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 04:34 PMposted by CG: I hope the Obama supporters on here (or the candidate himself) can change my mind about him because right now I think he will be a weak president, but I'll vote for him anyway. Hillary, on the other hand...I just wish people could see what I see in her. It comes out sometimes, but not often enough--the passionate, funny, charming woman that she is. Not to mention incredibly fucking smart and tireless. I'm not angry. I'm just sad.
I'm an Obama supporter and I have seen what you see in Hillary. I could vote for her, she's a special woman. I find that as this race comes to a close I'm not enjoying Hillary losing at all, I feel a sadness for her.
Well as a white blue collar guy I am beginning to think that the party for me is McCain's at least their nominee will not pander to reverse racists & he understands me and my values.
Indeed, like:
1. Endless wars in the Middle East, with a continuance of our presence and death to thousands of our troops, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and trillions of our taxpayer money
2. Continuing to cut taxes, especially for those who need it the least, and during a time of war, while allowing the deficit and debt to grow to ridiculous levels as China and the rest of the world collectively owns our ass in debt.
3. Privatized health care, which is nothing shy of an embarrassment for our country at this point
4. School loans going through the roof (mine included)
5. NCLB - enough said
6. Judges like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, who've done a masterful job of collectively screwing us over with their decisions thus far (as well as those to come)
7. Telecom amnesty in FISA legislation to those companies that willfully broke the law along with this Administration by invading and abusing our privacy rights.
8. Continual suspension of habeas corpus
9. Torture, torture, and more torture, which has done wonders to our public image worldwide.
10. Continual negligence of al Qaeda, you remember right? Those silly guys who actually attacked us on 9/11?
11. Continual pissing on the environment and willful ignorance of global warming.
12. Hell, a continual ignorance of science in general. A wonderful proponent of Intelligent Design, that bogus bullshit unsupported theory, McCain should do well in this category.
13. Willful ignorance of our housing crisis.
Yes, great values that you and McCain share, champ.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 04:44 PMeric in austin
i think it's going to turn out very badly for the american people who will be the real losers when this is said and done..this isn't over quite yet but if barry ( racist remark) is the nominee ..john mccain will beat him (racist remark)in the general election because he has alienated so many (racist remark)working class whites (racist remark)that i do think will be voting for him (god damned racist remark)they may go to mccain (because they are racists)but i guess we will have to wait and see (racist remark)..how it plays out..he needs pa and ohio (lots of racists there)so we'll have to see..they have got me wondering if i'm a racist..even though i never thought i was..i'm all confused..one thing i am quite sure of he won't be getting my vote (racist remark)nor my mother in law who has voted democratic her entire life...(she just became a racist too)..so we'll see how this campaign of new hope and vision for america turns out...
and oh eric..grow up
Posted by dennis at May 7, 2008 05:02 PMi might add mr. obama won't be getting my(racist) wifes vote either....
Posted by dennis at May 7, 2008 05:07 PMThanks for staying classy MisterOpus1
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 05:15 PMThat tired old crap about darkening Obama's skin?
You forgot about how they gave him a broader nose too!
Posted by snark at May 7, 2008 05:29 PMBut he has a broader nose
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 05:42 PMmisteropus,
thanks for demonstrating how lies about clinton become accepted as truth. the somali dress photo smear has been debunked.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012076.php
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 05:44 PMWell as a white blue collar guy I am beginning to think that the party for me is McCain's
I called it!
But he has a broader nose
Didn't I tell ya he was a right wing troll?
FYI, it's the remark about affirmative action what gave you away. It's a universal "tell."
Posted by iamcoyote at May 7, 2008 06:06 PMWell I guess it was fun while it lasted iamcoyote :-). I can't keep this up without laughing anymore.
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 06:10 PMDon't flatter yourself, I had you pegged almost immediately. Sorry, but the job of awkward instigator is filled. peter will show you the door. Bellhop! Where is that dang peter, anyhow?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 7, 2008 06:22 PMi hate to admit it, coyote, but i sometimes find peter's concern trolling amusing. it's not like he has anyone fooled, or thinks he has anyone fooled.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 06:27 PMFor all you Obama haters....go ahead, vote for McCain, you deserve McCain for 4 years. Your not true Democrats, probably never were. Just pouty little babies that need to run over to Redstate. Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out. little pissy babies
Posted by Joe at May 7, 2008 06:31 PMWell, I have been told that I am a better instigator in person. I guess I need to go back to the right wing troll school
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 06:36 PMTurkana, that's not the photo I was referring to. It was the attack ad released by Hillary:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
I have yet to see a valid excuse for this deliberate doctoring.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 06:42 PMAnd thank you, tenacitus, for staying utterly ignorant.
Go ahead and continue to support that man who will further the Bush Doctrine and neocon agenda to no end. I'm sure the pride just swells up in you.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 06:44 PMTurkana,
I've already said on other blogs that I will vote for Obama in the fall. Not happily, not proudly, but because I simply can't not vote. But the very worst thing that Clinton supporters need to be told right now is that they "must" vote for him, and that they "must" be "graceful in defeat."
I think that if Obama is indeed victorious -- and I will only consider him victorious if he gets 2209 delegate votes, not 2025 (which assumes the complete disenfranchisement of MI and FLA) -- then it is incumbent on him to be graceful in victory.
Obama says he's a uniter. I don't quite agree with you that he's not done anything divisive in this campaign, but if he really wants to be uniter, he's got to start with his party. Let him reach out to us.
Posted by litigatormom at May 7, 2008 06:53 PMDude, can't we all just get along? You love Opus & am crazy about Bill the Cat & Oliver Wendell Holmes. Surely all BerkleyBreathed supporters can unite?
I don't hate you for being a democrat, surely the big tent unity party can find room for me?
Posted by tenacitus at May 7, 2008 06:59 PMI have yet to see a valid excuse for this deliberate doctoring.
MisterOpus1,
Problem with your statement is that there is absolutely no evidence that the images were "doctored" in any conventional understanding of what that term means.
Frankly, I'm rather disappointed that you would resort to clinging to something so weak to validate your need to think poorly of Clinton.
Posted by snark at May 7, 2008 07:08 PMNo, if Obama is the Dem. nominee, I don't have to vote for him, even though I've voted Dem. since McGovern. He doesn't get my respect--am not comfortable with his "judgment" about Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, or his support of nuclear power, entertaining privatizing Social Security, throwing the Clintons under the bus about supposed racism. His hypocrisy (supposedly being "post-racial"---he's not, he's used that card too many times). From my observation, he's the one who has divided the Dem. party. Donna Brazile says that the "New Democratic Coalition" doesn't need working-class, women's, Latinos votes. Okay. I'm looking for that 3rd party to vote for---probably Green this time around, if Obama gets the Dem. nomination.
Posted by Prem at May 7, 2008 07:13 PMlitigatormom,
i didn't say he hasn't done anything divisive- clearly, he has. as has clinton. but that's politics. and one of the things that has most bothered me about this campaign has been the way clinton gets blamed for even things she didn't do (as is evident in this very thread!), while obama is given a pass on everything. that's the media's fault, but it's also the fault of many prominent bloggers. and i agree that obama must reach out, but i think he will. i expect him to be gracious in victory, even as i don't expect it from many of his supporters...
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 07:17 PMmisteropus,
that was debunked by factcheck, and others. and that markos ran with that smear- several times, over a few days- was what drove many rational people from his site.
Posted by Turkana at May 7, 2008 07:19 PMBill Clinton == Racist (LOL!)
nuff said.
Turkana, STFU. Not voting for a scumbag, sorry.
It will be a good thing to let McCain own the war for 4 more years.
Posted by A at May 7, 2008 07:25 PMI can't support him anymore than I could support the Republicans.
And don't bother calling me immature or racist, it's already been done. Or as the cool people are fond of tossing out: Been There, Done That!
Posted by a sc atheist at May 7, 2008 07:25 PMCoyote and Turkana, I'm here. It took a while, and two buckets of popcorn, to get to the bottom of this thread. I enjoyed the popcorn and what Democrats have sown this year. Please note I had nothing to do with this stuff. What a fine group of Democrats we have running...
"What ever happened to my Democratic Party? Why doesn’t the donkey love me anymore?" Saw this over at Corrente, seems to fit.
"Sitting out November
Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Wed, 2008-05-07 10:06.
* Dem on Dem Violence
* 2008 non-election
I finally realized why I was having such a hard time saying that I’d vote for Obama if he is the nominee.
I’ve been voting straight ticket Democratic just about my entire adult life, and one of the big reasons is that I find the GOP’s use of its Southern Strategy abhorrent.
Obama’s use of race baiting in an effort to create huge margins and massive turnout in the AA community is his own “Southern Strategy.” Every time I think about what they’ve done to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the name of securing the nomination, I feel ill.
So I’m sitting November out if Obama is the nominee. I’m not going to vote for a “Democrat” who employs the tactics I find most abhorrent in Republicans." more from Corrente
Someone up there still thinks Captain Quarters is still active...that guy has gone to work over at Hot Air and that Michelle chick's site.
One has to wonder...what if Clinton pauses or stops her run before WV and Kentucky and still wins those two. What message would that have sent? More telling than those 22 to 26% that still wanted to cast their votes for Paul, Romney, or the Huckster.
McOld verses McYoung, or his sixteenth cousin if you want.
Oh, and has he disowned his white grandmother yet? He did disown Wright after he said he couldn't back in March in Philly. Everyone said it was a great speech...but it was only a speech and nothing more. That's all he knows...
Real stand up guy.
McOld vs. McYoung, not the epic race Democrats promised this year.
The only change I want is more in my pocket. This guy wants to separate me from my change way too much.
No sale
Turkana and snark,
Factcheck doesn't dismiss the possibility, rather, they said the evidence was inconclusive:
Still, the Clinton ad makers may have darkened the Obama images intentionally, to some degree. When it comes to video editing, the possibilities are overwhelming. But that doesn't necessarily mean their motives were racist. We note that the entire ad is cast in dark tones and even Hillary Clinton herself appears in shadows, as though she were working late into the night.
I've been down this road before with other Clinton supporters elsewhere. For factcheck and the Hillary camp to be so dismissive of this work and blame it on it being an amateur job using iMovie and seemingly don't edit their own work is pretty pathetic at best. Is it "racist"? Even if it wasn't, that's not a whole lot less insulting. Good grief, making an African American man even darker because of "basic advertising 101" tells us how to make our adversaries more ominous and less appealing?
Umm, yeah. Sorry if I'm a bit incredulous here.
And let me be clear on something if I hadn't earlier. I don't think Hillary is a racist - "as far as I know." ;)
But I do think her campaign was playing racial politics, and that got her into a bit of trouble. You want to blame the Obamabots for trumping this up? Well gee, of course we just can't point our little fingers at the Hillary group for partaking in this obvious tactic, and we must therefore conclude that Obama has somehow duped some 90% of the African American community lately. Strange.
And this whole thing takes nothing away from the fact that Hillary's campaign was lying about the source as the diarist Troutnut at DKos revealed in both of his updates that I posted earlier.
Sorry, snark, I did try, but you want to continue down this road of nostalgia, that's fine with me too. My finals are done, and I've got oodles of time to go down memory road if you so desire. I was hoping that we could try and start looking forward instead, but if it takes you to get over the fact that Clinton had her hands pretty damn dirty as well, if not dirtier at times, then so be it.
It was a hard-fought campaign by both sides. Both sides did things that were regrettable, as is usually the case with campaign politics. But honest to god, man, doing what you're doing now and fighting with me on these past issues will not help you or the Democratic party overcome McCain.
Take your time to heal, but don't take too long. We will need your help, and the sooner the better.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 09:37 PMNo, I don't have to support anything.
Quite frankly, I cannot imagine Republicans ever allowing any candidate to be treated the way Democrats have treated Hillary Clinton.
Now it is time for the Democrats to learn that what you plant is what grows. Apparently nothing short of this will teach the gloating frat boy crowd that when someone calls one of your party's candidates a F-- W---, you don't let them get away with that, because people don't vote for slime. Obama's silence is his defeat. He will get no more respect than he is earned - and that's not much.
I gave the Democratic party a lifetime of loyalty and in return the party filthed me. How dare you lecture me on what I "owe"? Your nasty little woman-violence party doesn't deserve to win anything, let alone the right to rule the nation. You earn that right by holding fair and legitimate elections, but the crooked party with its thumb on the scale decided it would rather have the nominee it wants - and the price paid for that is, the nominee is going to go down in flames in November. So who cares what the Democratic party wants now? It's too late. GOODBYE.
Posted by um no at May 7, 2008 09:41 PMVery classy post, Turkana.
Posted by 4jkb4ia at May 7, 2008 10:03 PM"It isn't necessary that those who support Clinton now enthusiastically come to support Obama, but it is necessary that they come to support him. Even at the bare minimum level. And that bare minimum level is to vote for him, in November. You don't have to like doing so, but you do have to do so."
Like FUCK we do!
Posted by Jimbo at May 7, 2008 10:05 PMAnd, of course, Hillary's pattern continues in today's USAToday paper:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions. The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.
A pattern emerging indeed, Senator Clinton. Her embarrassment continues:
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."
Huh. In other words, in the GE, the votes that matter are from the working-class white folk, and those folks just won't vote for a black man. So Hillary's our only hope to garner up the working-class white vote.
What a pity. And I thought she might actually consider being a little more gracious in her defeat. But of course, there's no racial politics involved here at all. She's ONLY speaking about a demographic, and not attempting to be pursuasive on picking up the white vote which Obama clearly cannot do himself as a black man.
Yep, stay classy Hillary. Bang up job so far, dear.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 10:08 PMLet me come back to a quote from Hillary in that USAToday piece, because I want Hillary supporters to comment on this:
"working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"
Okay, I really hope she didn't or wasn't attempting to imply that African Americans are therefore NOT "working, hard-working Americans." This wasn't what she meant to say, right?
Because as it stands, that's one of the most ridiculous things she's said yet. Good grief.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 7, 2008 10:21 PMNews for you. The alternative is not unthinkable, the alternative is preferable. And there are large numbers of us who will revel in seeing Barack Obama defeated. And yes, revel is the word. Words do matter. Tell that to Barack when he asks why he lost in November. So do values. Nominate another effete liberal and lose.
I'd rather win with McCain. Democrats for McCain!
great post turkana!
i do disagree with you on one major point. i think hillary does still have a path to the nomination. she would have to win the popular vote, which is still an extreme longshot, but i think it is possible.
if you count florida, (which held a real election) and if you count all of the caucus states, she is down by about 526K votes. If she wins KY, WV, PR by huge margins, and keeps it extremely close in OR, she has a shot at making up the ground. and if she does, she will have an actual argument that she won more votes, and she also has a really strong argument that she is much more electable than obama in the GE. and if enough of the superdelegates buy the arguments, then she would win.
i know this scenario may be a stretch, but i'm really starting to think that obama would be a disaster for dems in the general election. i haven't quite given up hope on hillary.
Posted by rjarnold at May 7, 2008 11:21 PMThanks for the post, Turkana.
BTW, while I eventually found the virulent anti-Obama rhetoric at the leftcoaster to be too much to bear, I always appreciated, and still appreciate, your posts on climate change. They served as a reminder that when we focus on issues and not the horse race we all generally agree.
Posted by space at May 7, 2008 11:46 PMGreat post. There is no question or debate that McCain would be far worse than even Bush, because we would lose even more of our Democracy. If I thought it would mean a living hell for the racist, sexist asshole Obama's supporters, I might consider not voting. But who would that punish besides the women, and decent and even spectacular Obama and Clinton supporters who were also victims of the media, the so-called progressive shrillosphere, and Donna Brazile and Jesse Jackson Jr's nasty old selves. Maybe that's anger at being betrayed and marginalized and insulted by my own Party. If that had not occurred I would be the first to carry the anti-McCain flag on behalf of the Democratic Party, but at this point all I can promise is that I'll vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. And then I'll use all the same low-life Republican style tactics used by some Obama supporters to make sure McCain doesn't get anywhere near The White House. I guess it just proves that you have to get lower than Republicans and conosort with self promoting media scum like Arianna Huffington and Aravosis if you ever want to get a Democrat in The White House while filling the deep psychic void of so many in the progressive movement. Oh well. Life has always been harsh, and politics a nasty blood sport.
Posted by jeter at May 8, 2008 01:02 AMLifelong Democrat here...Absolutely NO WAY WILL I VOTE FOR OBAMA. He and his supporters have single-handedly destroyed the Democratic Party by calling anyone that doesn't support him a RACIST. I AM SO LIVID WITH THE RACIST CRAP THAT HE HAS SPREAD IN THIS CAMPAIGN THAT I WILL GRATEFULLY PULL THE LEVER FOR MCCAIN TO ENSURE HIS DEFEAT.
Posted by NoWayObama at May 8, 2008 02:14 AMI don't "have" to do a God damned thing. If John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Donna Brazile, and Howard Dean each held a gun to my head and ordered me to vote for Obama or die, I'd choose death over voting for that sexist, race-baiting, lying, cowardly creep. It's not going to happen.
If he wanted my vote, he should have asked for it a long time ago. Instead, though I'm a life-long, loyal Democrat, I've been pushed out of the Democratic Party. Fine, they can get along without my vote. I won't even vote for any candidate who has endorsed Obama. Forget it. He will lose in the general, and I'll cheer when it happens.
Obama is the one responsible for getting or not getting our votes. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Ga6thDem at May 8, 2008 05:33 AMSorry, snark, I did try, but you want to continue down this road of nostalgia, that's fine with me too.
Um, MisterOpus1, it was you who brought this back up. Not me. You called it 'deliberate doctoring'. Factcheck said there's no evidence that it was deliberately done to darken Obama. If you'd like to throw out old trumped up charges and not have people respond that's fine. Doesn't reflect very well on you however.
I was hoping that we could try and start looking forward instead,...
Again, it was you who went looking backwards.
...but if it takes you to get over the fact that Clinton had her hands pretty damn dirty as well, if not dirtier at times, then so be it.
If you could show me somewhere that I said Clinton did not have her hands dirty I'd like to read it. I've said all along, and I restated it yesterday, that Clinton has run a typical political campaign. And the biggest problem I have with Obama supporters is their incessant need to villianize and demonize her while maintaining the fiction that what Obama is engaged in is somehow "above" politics as usual. So you can argue against stawmen if you'd like or you can address the things I've said. Take your pick.
But honest to god, man, doing what you're doing now and fighting with me on these past issues will not help you or the Democratic party overcome McCain.
Who's fighting? Ohhhh...I see...we're just supposed to accept your comments as received wisdom and not respond? Is that it? I'll say it again, we wouldn't be "fighting" on these old issues if you didn't feel some perverse need to keep bringing them up.
Take your time to heal, but don't take too long.
I don't have any healing to do. I'm firmly rooted in a reality based outlook. Is the same true for you?
We will need your help, and the sooner the better.
Not for nothing, but your approach to conversing on these threads isn't doing much to help you in that respect. Just a thought.
MisterOpus1,
Regarding Clinton's quoted comments in the USA Today piece I'll refer you to this post at MYDD.
It prettymuch sums up my assessment of the sudden hysteria over the fact that campaigns, the news media and, yes, the blogs track how different demographic groups vote. Was her comment worded in a way that would allow people seeking a slight to find one? Unfortunately, yes. And that's her fault. She knows, as a candidate for the presidency, that everything she says will be parsed to death.
Posted by snark at May 8, 2008 06:02 AMSnark,
I don't take to ad hominem arguments very often, but in this case I have to make an exception. The next time you bring me a "democrat" analyst like that Bush-endorsing, Newsmax writing twit who's further to the neocon right than Lieberman like Ed Koch to support your arguments on Hillary, I'll just ignore them altogether. I don't think you could make your case any worse for helping the Democratic party than to bring up Koch as a defender to Hillary.
Who's next, Zell Miller?? Sheesh.
It's time to move forward, snark, not back to the same patterns of Democratic failure and capitulation to the Republicans. No thanks.
And of course in the Huff Post original article, Koch continually bangs the Wright drum ad nauseum. The funny and sad difference that should be noted here is that Obama has no control over what Wright says (obviously), but there's absolutely no excuse for what Clinton just said.
And I have yet to hear an excuse from you over her statement that I outlined.
I'll get to your other reply later.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 8, 2008 06:58 AMAs a sidenote, there are times when Hillary supporters need not blame anyone but themselves:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/report_mark_penn_thought_dem_p.php
Wait, that was Obama and the DNC's fault too, of course. Money well spent, Hillary.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 8, 2008 07:13 AMSnark,
Um, MisterOpus1, it was you who brought this back up. Not me. You called it 'deliberate doctoring'.
And prior to that it was Turkana and yourself telling me about the darkening of skin (to which Turkana mistook my point with another photo), and that was a response to me discussing the Garin call (which I'm not sure you responded to on that) comparing it to the darkening attack ad, to which I brought that item up to a long list of "race-baiting" assertions against Obama prior to that by various posters.
So sure, I did bring this particular item up in a long spiral spew of racial charges against Obama prior to that. I wanted to bring a bit of perspective against Hillary to counter-balance that, sorry. I guess I couldn't help responding to it anymore than you responding to me.
Factcheck said there's no evidence that it was deliberately done to darken Obama. If you'd like to throw out old trumped up charges and not have people respond that's fine. Doesn't reflect very well on you however.
Incorrect. Factcheck stated repeatedly that there was indeed deliberate darkening done, but that they could not conclude the motive was racial.
If you could show me somewhere that I said Clinton did not have her hands dirty I'd like to read it. I've said all along, and I restated it yesterday, that Clinton has run a typical political campaign. And the biggest problem I have with Obama supporters is their incessant need to villianize and demonize her while maintaining the fiction that what Obama is engaged in is somehow "above" politics as usual. So you can argue against straw men if you'd like or you can address the things I've said. Take your pick.
Yes, I got your point about Obama long ago, and I've conceded that point long ago as well. So they've both ran "typical" (aka dirty) campaigns. Geez, what are we arguing about again? Seems we agree here.
I'll say it again, we wouldn't be "fighting" on these old issues if you didn't feel some perverse need to keep bringing them up.
The need was to respond to those race-baiting charges against Obama that purvey through this entire blog. You've accused Obama supporters of holding themselves above the fray but still giving a few kidney punches underneath, yet I get the exact same feeling about Hillary supporters here as if Obama is the freaking Anti-Christ while Hillary is some anointed Saint.
You know what, I get it. I see exactly what you refer about Obama supporters at DKos (admittedly I've been a part of that there), and conceded your point. But I see the exact same mind frame about Hillary here as well as TalkLeft, NoQuarter, MyDD (not all but some of the bloggers there), etc. I'm glad you concede that Hillary has run a "typical" campaign, but I have my doubts about numerous other posters here who have difficulties seeing this as well.
I don't have any healing to do. I'm firmly rooted in a reality based outlook. Is the same true for you?
Perception is reality, and it's pretty obvious we do not share the same perception. Hopefully we will in the coming months.
Not for nothing, but your approach to conversing on these threads isn't doing much to help you in that respect. Just a thought.
As stated previously, I appreciate your thoughts even when I disagree with them. But let me ask you something. Just as you feel passionate about Obama supporters having foggy goggles on their candidate doing no wrong, I have similar feelings about Hillary supporters. Should I let charges against Obama go unanswered, especially when a comparison is being made to Hillary?
Perhaps it's not the best way to help Hillary supporters heal, and I realize that. But to me healing does not entail throwing out race-baiting charges without a perspective on their own candidate. Perhaps I should have expected it regardless, essentially walking into a lions den like this, but then again I didn't quite expect it to be this way here after I've been away for so long.
I think I'll likely do you and everyone a favor and make an exit soon. My own feelings and arguments are obviously getting in the way of things here. I honestly respect this blog and the bloggers on it enough to do that, despite me disagreeing with who's obviously their favored candidate.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 8, 2008 07:59 AMIf I thought Obama was remotely competent, I would support him. He is about as qualified as Bush---and running a similar campaign, btw.
There is not a chance in hell I will support such a horrible candidate.
Edwards was ok. Biden was ok. I liked Hillary.
Obama? He's the weakest candidate I have seen in 40 years---except that he has some charisma.
He also is the corporate elites' choice, which is why he was able to win.
Spare me the lecture about Obama running a "brilliant campaign". I have never seen a man shoot himself in the foot as much as Obama.
He produces more gaffes than W.
You made your bed, people
You can lie in it.
It's Not My Party & I'll Cry If I Want To
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 8, 2008 08:46 AMI love how the rhetoric has changed...
"Now that Obama is the nominee, America needs YOU to support him."
What about the America that needs a health care plan they can count on? Or knowing that Social Security is safe? I've BEEN supporting THAT America.
You show me how a missing vote for Obama will ensure a packed GOP Supreme Court, and I'll show you a Dem majority in the Senate and House that won't allow it to happen. I'm willing to let one of two things happen:
1) Watch Obama win the presidency and begin a 4 year 'admin of disappointment'
2) Watch Obama lose handily to McCain, and watch Hillary sweep the nomination in 2012, after you asshats realize what is necessary in a friggin' CIC, and here's a hint: It isn't HOPE.
Ah, well. Let's all kiss and make up, sweep the rampant race baiting and misogyny under the rug (to pull out next time a woman runs for president) and elect our Snob-in-Chief.
Posted by blogtopus at May 8, 2008 09:12 AMMarkL writes:
He also is the corporate elites' choice, which is why he was able to win.
Good grief. Pot meeting the freaking kettle, and then some:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008
Yeah, having 5% of donors at $4,600 versus Hillary's 22% above that "snobbish" figure really makes him a snob, eh blogtopus?
The majority of his contributions came from small donations, not from corporate elitists like your loving "people" candidate Hillary. Please don't try to pull the corporate BS line again without a bit of perspective towards your own candidate of choice.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 8, 2008 09:21 AMblogtopus writes:
What about the America that needs a health care plan they can count on?
It's nice to finally see some questions on substance. Honestly I tend to support both plans of Hillary and Obama, but in different frames of time. As things are now with the gigantic debt and deficit that Bush has created, I tend to lean a little more toward Obama's considering he would not put a mandated payroll tax on the program as Hillary would. I think if times were a bit more prosperous, Hillary's plan would likely work, but right now times are not ideal for that. So for me, Obama's plan is a step in the right direction given the current circumstances, and would lead towards a mandated plan like Hillary's. But that's just my thoughts on it.
Or knowing that Social Security is safe? I've BEEN supporting THAT America.
Umm, where exactly did Obama ever give you the impression that he would not protect SS, especially ensuring it would not be privatized? Have you actually read his stance on policies? Perhaps you should before you make blind attacks like this.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 8, 2008 09:27 AMTurkana sez: Instead of writing directly about the campaign, or about the candidates, I want to write directly to their most passionate supporters. But too many of Obama's most passionate supporters are incapable of either reason or comity, so I won't bother with them.
Ah, the nice, hermetic, self-referential blogosphere, or shrillosphere, or whatever you want to call it....
I'm an Obama supporter. I came to support him only after Super Tuesday, when I saw the choice was clearly between him and Clinton. I weighed the choice, discussed it with lots of people, and made my choice. Guess what, Turkana? I used reason. I didn't scream at people. I didn't hector people. I didn't denounce Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" (a word which, if you pay attention, has been deployed ironically with considerable frequency by Clinton supporters right here on The Left Coaster.) The other Obama supporters I meet in my daily life do not call Clinton names. They simply prefer Obama.
Of course there are people posting nasty comments about Clinton in the blogosphere. That is a fact, just as it's a fact that there have been nasty comments made about Obama. So what? You can CHOOSE to focus on the nastiness, or you can choose to look beyond it. You can CHOOSE to read those nasty comments and jump to the conclusion that they're representative of all the candidate's supporters, or you can CHOOSE to recognize that the fraction of the electorate posting to blogs is tiny.
So, Turkana, what you've done is a nice job of dissing Obama supporters, exactly the way you say they've been dissing Clinton supporters. Those Obama supporters are, in your judgment, incapable of reason or even basic courtesy, so you "won't bother with them."
Posted by at May 8, 2008 09:38 AMI hear ya, Turkana.
But I gotta tell ya, that this morning on Diby's site I got called a "racist inbred" for supporting Hillary.
If THIS and the new Donna Brazille Democratic Party is what we're being encouraged to be a part of, then I'll have to say No Thank You.
Due respect.
Posted by Mary at May 8, 2008 09:47 AMPaul Krugman blog is interesting on the connection between economic factors and voting patterns.
Posted by joel dan walls at May 8, 2008 10:08 AMNot so fast.
The primary season isn't over.
Not yet.
Michigan and Florida delegations have to be seated (and it appears that they will).
Until there is an official pronouncement at the Democratic Convention, no one is the Standard Bearer apparent.
At this juncture, I will not be voting for Obama. For the simple fact he hasn't even completed a single term in the US Congress. Hillary has done that. JFK did that also.
No lengthy exposure or experience in dealing with, or working within, a complex, byzantine bureaucracy. One can't sloganeer themselves into improving such a bureaucracy. The alleged "antidote" for "politics as usual" is indeed a poltician of the "as usual" type.
Also, if Obama attracts people like SnarkyShark who calls those who didn't vote for Obama "white racist crackers" then that tells everything. Candidates that stoop to use race to win southern states, and that also attract racists are not going to be my candidate, or represent my interests and goals.
I originally was for John Edwards. But he dropped out. And the best candidate (as it turns out, she was the best at the beginning also) was and is Hillary Clinton.
And I am pleased and proud to say I have voted for her.
Like I said, let the primary season play out all the way.
Some drama on the DNC front:
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1003
I say, go Harvey Weinstein. Stand up for what you believe in.
I am standing up for what I believe in.
I am not worried.
Obama supporters better be.
Posted by Troubled American at May 8, 2008 10:40 AMYou speak for me,
Only more eloquently.
Thank you, Turkana
I supported John Edwards Enthusiatically until his campaign was finally strangled by the blackout. Since then I've had no emotional connection to the race and frankly don't understand the passion people develop for the two cautious, creeping, calculating, centists. I'm happy to vote for Obama over Bush's revenant. The only thing that encourages me about this primary campaign is that every face to face encounter I've had with Obamanists has been more positive, normal and human than what happens online.
Posted by Barry at May 8, 2008 11:25 AMToday, Saturday May 10th, I'm going to join tens of thousands of other Barack Obama supporters registering voters in all 50 States.
Here in Oakland, we are headed to Hayward California, just south of Oakland. We are making our home base somewhere where we will maximize our impact in bringing new voters into the folds. Others are working in Richmond, CA.
Hayward is a working class city made up of a diverse array of Americans. Richmond is too.
Obama had this effort planned BEFORE the results of NC and IN were known.
There are activists registering voters in ALL 50 states for Obama.
Posted by kid oakland at May 10, 2008 07:10 AM