I laughed about that on another blog last night.
This primary season has been a real education for me. I now see these wannabee elite (I use the term jokingly) as the rest of the country sees them: arrogant and pompous.
"Embrace your inner elistist: Obama Bloggers '08"
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 09:39 AMi believe that the rift created by the obama camp within the democratic party will not be healed..no matter the size of the olive branch..the division is deep..and it is personal..the states you mentioned..for the most part will not be carried by obama..one reason i believe hillary is staying in for now is that the clintons truly believe ..obama is unelectable..i think he is..
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 09:39 AMdennis,
bowers is not officially a member of the obama camp, and we can hope he won't be.
young judith,
yeah- that post pretty well sums up the problems with a certain strain of the netroots.
Posted by Turkana at May 9, 2008 09:48 AMI'm sorry, but I think this post proves that Chris Bowers is probably an idiot.
Posted by andgarden at May 9, 2008 09:57 AMthere will always be those who want to pontificate for basically their own amusement. The article you reference has that air about it. We've seen plenty of that from some posters here at TLC, not to mention the George Will's of the world on the other side of the isle.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 09:57 AMWow. Just wow. I'm glad I'm not caught in his echo chamber.
Posted by Joelarama at May 9, 2008 10:04 AMThe Chris Bowers article reminds me of a Dr. Seuss book - Oh, the things that we'll do . . . the places we'll go.
At least he admits Obama is center right - and in the big scheme of things they will throw a bone to left.
He needs an awful lot of educated techno-wonks to overcome those of us abandoning ship.
Turkana - Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself. Sigh. sigh. sigh.
Posted by Redstar at May 9, 2008 10:30 AMyeah - Turkana, I know not all Obama bloggers think this - but it really is exactly what we dont need....
jamc - funny!
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 10:37 AMI agree with Turkana that Bowers misses the mark. The DLC and Republican-lite (Liebercrat) politics is indeed out the window, but the rest of Bowers' post is pretty silly. The Democrats are now and always will be the party of people who work for a living. Obama is trying to expand the coalition to include the young and those looking for a new kind of politics, but that doesn't mean we are abandoning our existing coalition.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 9, 2008 10:55 AMhow is it that obama has created the problem he has with the white working class
..and hillary is a racist for saying it
..karl rove would be proud
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 11:03 AMI'd hope most of you would travel over to TPM and read the speech they have up..Obama in Oregon today...letting John McBush have it on the economic front, big-time.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 11:09 AMHi Dennis
not only is clinton a racist for saying it - but not-rich whites are racists for not wanting him over her.
sicko stuff out there
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 11:12 AMPersonally, I find it grating to see the noble white working man put up on a blasted pedestal. There are lots of people disgusted with the Bush GOP. Narrow-casting appeals to "white working class men" or "soccer moms" or whatever is usually coupled with some extremely unimaginative gesture - e.g. flag pins. Insulting college educated and black voters, to pick two recent and relevant examples, isn't sticking it to the man. There are more college graduates than factory workers in America today, for one thing.
The Obama crew is going to be diverse, it is likely to be younger, and they won't have the cowards' crouch on a lot of issues that crippled the Democrats in recent elections. It remains to be seen what the practical policies look like. The campaign itself has been extremely disciplined, which is a likely indicator of policy development. I see Bowers simply projecting some aspects of the netroots onto an Obama administration. I suspect it'll be substantially better than his critics on the left wish to believe. We'll see.
Posted by Marc at May 9, 2008 11:15 AMi'm confused by all the judith's around here
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 11:25 AMHi Marc,
it isnt a pedestal - it is respect not only because they are Democrats, but because we need them to win.
Reminds me of an article I just read about an architect who designs thing no one can build. It takes years for the engineers etc to create products to make her vision a reality. And when the two come together some beautiful things are built.
Dismissing a whole buncha people isnt particulalry wise, imo.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 11:25 AMmarc,
bowers' post was not about diversity. it was exclusionary. the only one putting anyone on a pedestal was bowers- putting himself and those he deems like himself on a pedestal.
Posted by Turkana at May 9, 2008 11:26 AMdennis - there are two -
I am new - this will be my posting name.
there is a dennis hartley here, too. Is that one person or two?
anyway - if you prefer me not to address you i will refrain - I do not wish to confuse anyone.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 11:29 AMwell i'm not dennis hartley..and i do not mind being addressed..i've been called many things on this blog..especially lately..welcome to you
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 11:36 AM"i'm confused by all the judith's around here"
This is me, the original Judith. I now go by JudithOne so people don't get any more confused than they already are.
Turkana, I agree with your assessment that the post was not about diversity, but very exclusionary. Good luck with that line of thinking.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 11:38 AMThank you, Dennis - your posts are always very smart so I am happy you will engage with me if you like.
I think this blog is terrifiic - must be that west coast feel. :-)
this new democratic party being organized..may very well come to fruition...in about 50 years when all the present dems over 40 are dead..in the meantime..these people of keen intellect are on the verge of winning a battle..only to lose the war..and what a terrible shame it will be..a terrible shame
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 11:42 AMhello JudithOne.
"a terrible shame..."
yeah, you'll be pretty broken up over it, won't you dennis, that's why you just had to set your feet in concrete and declare you never, ever, ever will vote for a nominee other than Hillary, whose hand you once adoringly shook.
The one, the only, for you.....
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 11:54 AMNice post, Turkana. Another nice illustration of searching for whatever confirms your preconceptions and rejecting anything that doesn't.
Chris Bowers can write whatever he pleases. So can you.
P.S. By the way, what about those "bubbas" with an, uh, melanin excess in their skin? African-American working class voters no longer count as working class, is it? Melanin is destiny?
euzoius
I dont know you - I am new - but that kind of taunting makes you sound around 11.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 11:56 AMwell i never ever said that i would never vote for anyone other then hillary..so i don't know where that came from..and my disdain for barack wasn't inate..it was earned..and no i won't be all broken up...but i hope you and yours will .. as you should
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 11:59 AM
This primary season has been a real education for me. I now see these wannabee elite (I use the term jokingly) as the rest of the country sees them: arrogant and pompous.
"Embrace your inner elistist: Obama Bloggers '08"
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 09:39 AM
It has been an education for me, as well. I was an Edwards supporter so I saw the Clinton/Obama blogger fest from a different perspective. I saw Clinton supporters as looking for competency and accomplishment and broad, basically "moderate/conservative democratic-populist" platform and willing to suffer a "Corporate Democrat" to get the important things they need, like universal healthcare and fair wages. I also noticed Clinton supporters were, frankly gun-shy and skittish; after all, they're all quite well aware of Clinton Derangement Syndrome and the rampant misogyny of the "old boys club" press. This lead to, at times, a shoot-first, ask questions later mentality. And, at others, a classic us-against-the-world bunker-mentality.
The Obama supporters, well, they mostly reminded me of people at a religious revival. Zealots who would brook no question to Obama's shady dealings with the nuclear power industry and Rezko and failure to stand up for things when he was a Representative and a Senator and an obvious, at-times, decoupling of their rational facilities from their tongues. All-in-all, so disgusting that I'm pretty much permanently turned off from numerous blogs and "liberal" bastions. With the added "benefit" of being seriously turned off by their candidate.
A third thing I saw was rather than the "reality based community" that was "above the right-wing talking points" and dirty, "partisan" politics what I saw were entire swaths of bitter, air-head partisans mindless regurgitating talking points no better than the thoughtless freepers who parrot Limbaugh.
The worst were the "kossites" at Daily Kos, with seemingly everyday, someone giving their "testimonial" to the "uberness that is Obama" and how EEEEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLLLLLEEEEE HRC is, even if they're ideologically very similar on about 95% of everything. But also a number of other popular blogs, like AmericaBlog, became "Cult of OBama" destinations/zones as well.
As for November, 2008 I owe my vote to my country. Not the Democratic party who've been pussinilious since they got power back in 2006. I'm probably voting Green Party this year in protest. Just like I voted Nader in protest of Bush (I was for McCain before he became McInsane). Just like I voted Perot in protest of Bush & Clinton.
Posted by Moses at May 9, 2008 12:05 PMthere will always be those who want to pontificate for basically their own amusement. The article you reference has that air about it. We've seen plenty of that from some posters here at TLC, not to mention the George Will's of the world on the other side of the isle.Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 09:57 AM
OH THE IRONY!!!
Posted by Moses at May 9, 2008 12:09 PMHate to see long time regulars going at each other.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 12:10 PMwell if you won't be broken up over a McCain presidency (which you just admitted), what's the "terrible shame"?
What should have the highest priority, the good of the country, or you getting the precise nominee you want? Or do you think you'll approve of Repub McCain's policies and appointees over Dem Obama's? What's your answer, dennis?
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 12:13 PMHillary has submitted, from accounts, a 1997-style power point to Superdelegates claiming she is Most Electable. Curious. Obama has won more popular votes, more delegates, now more
superdelegates, more money raised, more states won...but he's not electable?
Yo Hillary- if you were the more electable you'd be the nominee right now....I just don't get this anymore. Obama is in Oregon giving campaign speeches slamming McBush, and Clinton's camp is making crude power points bragging about the under-educated white guy vote (hard working, of course). We need to get on with the GE.
dennis, I worry about November, too, and I would have preferred Hillary, but it's probably not gonna happen. One good thing about Obama is his ground game. I haven't seen that kind of organization since forever. I think it'll be really hard for him to kick the elitist tag, he's pissed off a lot of everyday people, but not as many as it seems like to us online. It's going to take a long time for the netroots to recover from this stupid primary, but I think we will, because we all know what's at stake. There are some sites I won't go back to for a long time, if ever, but I've found others that are even better.
I don't have to like Obama, it's prolly better not to be a true believer. He still needs our votes, so he's going to need to win us over. I'm willing to give him a chance to do so, but I'm not gonna be bullied into it, nor should anyone. Give it time!
Young Judith, there's still a lot of hard feelings going around, it's going to take a while for all of it to subside, I think. A lot of bad things have been said, it's going to take a lot to get it all out.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 12:18 PMThere's nothing new here. It's the Democratic Party we've known & loved since the 1960s - too pure to taint itself by pursuing those racist white guys. The party that can't win an election.
Ironic, though, that our only candidate in all this time to really reach out to the white working class was Bill Clinton. The most positive, inclusive, unifying, non-racist and popular. But hey - let's trash him in the name of unity! The youngsters won't know any better.
Posted by Denise at May 9, 2008 12:19 PMWe need to get on with the GE.
You're right. So why wait for Hillary to figure it out? Let's get on with it. She's doing what her donors expect her to do. Doesn't mean it's going to work, but they expect her to fight until the end. Can't blame her for that.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 12:20 PMI understand Turkana - Bowers is the target, not Obama. Nonetheless, nonetheless...I find the symbolic glorification of subgroups to be a recent trend that I really dislike. If you identify working class folks as a constituency - of course they are. However, a lot of the Democratic politicians have interpreted this to mean that there is a fixed set of properties which simply must be appeased. Identity politics was a disaster for progressives in the late 70s and early 80s, and allowed the reactionaries to do a great deal of damage.
I think that reviving unions, trade and globalization are good examples of genuine class issue, along with things like retirement and health care. Throwing red meat (that isn't even respected, or needed) on cultural matters is the sort of clumsy gesture that is entirely more typical for Democratic politicians, and it usually gets returned with contempt.
Posted by Marc at May 9, 2008 12:22 PMthe shame will be that the democratic party nominated another losing candidate...and i agree the good of the country should be the first priority..what was done in this primary is done..the race card was played and used..by them...despite the untrue claims that it was the clintons..sometimes things are said and done ..that while perhaps can be forgiven.. leave scars that cannot heal properly..i do not believe barack obama is..who he says he is..i think he is a serious hypocrite as well..and i do not think he will be elected..
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 12:27 PMMoses - thanks for your post.
I am a Clinton supporter and I want her to continue till the votes are all tallied. I will continue to send her money. I dont hate Obama, but I remain unimpressed with him compared to her. I think in a GE he will have a cred problem to overcome.
The Obama bloggers lost me a long time ago with their insular stupidity - I have sales people call me all the time trying to seel me stuff - you can tell the pros from the sleazebags who will lie and diss their competition. I wont do business with them.
But a vote for the green party or nader or whatever doent really do much for the country, I dont think.
See ya -
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 12:31 PMI doubt there is any way Obama can now appeal to working class voters, particularly not when his surrogates continue to condescend to them (Brazile anyone?) People know when they are being held in contempt. They know when they are being cynically courted, rather than actually treated as real and valued members of the party who have been the most hurt during the Bush years.
Quite frankly, they won't see Obama as the lesser of two evils in November, because they will not believe anything he says to them. I think it's too late for that. Throw in all the scandals that would have sunk any other politician - Rezko, Auchi, Ayres, et al - plus the race baiting and smearing he has done to get this nomination, plus his total lack of experience - and you have a true recipe for disaster. He is Dukakis with a lot more baggage. Do you really think people he has accused of being racist are going to run to the polls to vote for him? There isn't enough pandering in the world to heal that rift. It is inconceivable to me that any politician with a shred of intelligence would petulantly call people "Archie Bunkers" or xenophobic and expect them to come back to him in November. They won't do it, plain and simple.
Posted by CognitiveDissonance at May 9, 2008 12:33 PMThe Dems, I fear, have once again snatched defeat from victory. Obama is no problem for a number of people, but he is a big problem for a greater number of voters, who despise his race, his "elticism" (read education), his wife and his perceived sense of entitlement. Hillary may be hated by a chunk of voters, but she connected with the working poor and the middle class, groups with which Obama has done poorly. Not everyone is computer savvy, hip and post-racial, but lots of them vote. By the time the Rethugs, media, 527's et al get through trashing the obviously better candidate Obama, McCain will be hobbling into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and, as Lewis Black says, "we're fu****."
Posted by joanne at May 9, 2008 12:35 PMI should add, that I dont think the majority of the country actually reads blogs. I am unconvinced that the smears of a few dopes mean much yet.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 12:40 PM
He meant "warm & squishy", as in "the Bowers Movement is warm and squishy" because it's a steaming hot pile of exrement.
Posted by OxyCon at May 9, 2008 12:41 PMYo Hillary- if you were the more electable you'd be the nominee right now....I just don't get this anymore.
That's not really a valid argument. Using that logic, Obama is less electable because much of his support is in states that will not really be in play for the Dems in November. He's been beaten in many of the states that a Dem needs to carry in November to win. Ohhhh, but you say, in November those Clinton voters will vote for the Dem nominee. Well, the same is true for Clinton. If she's the nominee the Dems who supported Obama will support the Party's nominee. Comparing primary success to general election potential the way you are is bogus. Why? Because something like 35 million people combined have voted for Clinton and Obama over the course of the primaries. John Kerry lost to George Bush after getting just over 59 million votes. It's not the rank and file Dems that they need to attract, it's the rest of the electorate. Either one is going to need much deeper support in the General than they've gotten in the primaries in order to take the White House. Popularity amongst one's own party members does not equal electability.
Posted by at May 9, 2008 12:42 PMIf someone could please catalogue for me the statements that Obama has made to "insult" or show that he has no concern for the white working class voter, I'd really appreciate it.
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 12:42 PMSo essentially my big picture reading from Bowers post is that he's replacing (or trying to replace) one set of "Kewl kids" (the msm politico pundit world that loves to dictate what and how people should think and what is important when it comes to politicians,policies, and their respective party's) with another set of Kool(aid) kids. The elitist condescending dictatorial arrogance emanating from Bower's post just reeks and reminds me exactly of that feeling I get from the msm world conventional wisdom generators. Meet the new Kool-(aid) kids, same schtick as the Kewl kids. The A-list left blogosphere has become the very thing they've despised.
Turkana you're spot on in your reading of it. And CaPJ...I appreciate your honest thoughts.
It's just mots, and yet Bower's and co think we'll swallow it because it they say it represents change and new thinking and more importantly because they say it does....yowza! I think the turnip truck went the other way Mr. Bower's and you can take your exclusionary elitist vision and stuff it.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 12:46 PMIn answer to CognitiveDiss:
I share your concern. I dont hang out with people who insult me - I mean, isnt that just normal? Why would I expect other people to? Can he do it without non-rich whites in November? More to the point, why would he want to try? But, yeah - insult them once and I think it is see ya later. Unless of course they missed all the bruhaha cause they were working in which case if he is the nominee he damned well better start doing this right. The teevee peebbles are going to push it to the edge.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 12:56 PM
again, you people who want to vote for McBush...go fricking ahead, but don't show back up here a year from now whining about Iraq, the Economy, Congressional Gridlock and gas prices. A vote for McBush is the vote of a loser, for a loser. There are only two candidates in this race, if you want four more years of what you've just had eight years of, vote McBush.
AND-"That's not really a valid argument" - nothing ever is with you guys. Who are you, Lanny Davis?
Is that it, dennis? Is that it?
One freakin' sentence during a fund raiser? You seriously think that this is or should be considered an "insult" to working white Dems all over the country, small town or not? That Obama has "shown" by this statemment that he has NO concern for them, their problems and their crucial role in the Dem party?!
It's ridiculous on the face of it. And yet it becomes the basis of a fucking slogan among the Hillarians, with Hillary herself acting like only she can win the votes of working whites. What categorical nonsense.
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 01:03 PMAND-"That's not really a valid argument" - nothing ever is with you guys. Who are you, Lanny Davis?
Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't signed in.
That was me.
Sorry T2. From now on I'll just read your comments and accept them as 'received wisdom'.
You are obviously correct.
Is that better?
Posted by snark at May 9, 2008 01:12 PMWHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
The Big Tent of Democrats was remodeled into an exclusive VIP lounge where cool hipsters and AAs must provide the Official Hope & Unity Kool Aid card for VIP access.
Chris Bowers and the Obama Kool Aid Neo Democrat fascist regime will enjoy John McCain's "broad and squishy" you-know-what up their "you-know-where."
Posted by SM at May 9, 2008 01:24 PMeuzious
do you understand electoral politics?
outside of philadelphia obama lost 70-30%..god only knows what ohio would have been...he is not going to win florida now...what part of that don't you get?
Posted by dennis at May 9, 2008 01:28 PMcertainly a step in the right direction.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 01:29 PMdennis, you seem to be a hater.
I am a white man in my late fifties, blue-collar, involved in the union all my life. Obama's a fine person to lead the party. He's been respectful of his opponents, when he talks he's inclusive, not divisive. You should give him a chance. Open your heart, open your mind.
Have you sat down and talked with your friends of color about your perceptions?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 9, 2008 01:34 PMA Judith wrote: "Can he do it without non-rich whites in November?"
Interesting. He's done it with small donors against an opponent who's relied on a circle of wealthy patrons. And he won.
What's the dealbreaker? Why would anyone at a site called The Left Coaster vote for a Republican (or stay home) instead of voting for her/his own self-interests? What kind of self-destructive urge drives people to not support the winner?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 9, 2008 01:42 PMcertainly a step in the right direction.
I thought so.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2008 01:45 PMbob,
you do understand that winning a general election is vastly different than winning a nomination, right?
Posted by Turkana at May 9, 2008 01:48 PMWashington Post article--excerpt:
Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African-Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9-1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together.
Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.
The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African-American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won more Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won more pledged convention delegates and more of the popular vote as well. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that."
Posted by joel dan walls at May 9, 2008 01:50 PMbut seriously snark, I just have no use for people who claimed to be huge Clinton fans that now intend to vote GOP. I believe you have stated several times that although you have a preference, you'd support the eventual nominee. I've said that many times also, as have lots of the "old time" TLC bunch including our Master, Steve, and the "tepid" Clinton booster Turkana. These other people with such hate for Obama that they would screw us all with a GOP vote....I have not seen the justificaion for it. I can only draw one conclusion as to the source of their anger. And thats pissing me off a bit today.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 01:54 PMbut seriously snark, I just have no use for people who claimed to be huge Clinton fans that now intend to vote GOP.
None of that has anything to do with debating whether Obama's victory in the nomination battle means he is the more electable one.
If you really want to convince people to vote for Obama in November pissing on them isn't gonna bring them around.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2008 02:02 PMjoel,
i suggest you read big tent's takedown of that lame article:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/9/12553/88894
Posted by Turkana at May 9, 2008 02:10 PMMaybe Chris Bowers failed to notice that Obama has gotten just over one half of votes in the primaries/caucuses.
That is how far the Creative Class has gotten him: One half + a few more.
Obama cannot win the general election with only those voters.
The academics among Bower's "creatives should be able to tell him that because, presumably, academics can add.
Good riddance to "Bubbas?"
Maybe not.
I think I liked "You are obviously correct." better. The electable argument is nothing more than a code word. It's no secret code, either.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 02:31 PMT2, it's a shame we're letting you down here. I'm sure you were planning for us to be an easy sell. How frustrating!
You haven't yet understood that Barack Obama has a lot of work to do before some of us will be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why not help him do that instead of hanging around here demanding fealty? You're not convincing anybody.
Posted by hitchhiker at May 9, 2008 02:31 PM"This electability thing is a canard; it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans," Mr. Clinton told a crowd of several thousand people. "What you need to figure out is, Who would be the best president?"
Thanks Bill. The people have chosen.
Hitch- vote for whomever you damn well want. I vote Democratic.
when I wrote about doing it without non-rich whites, I was referring to Donna Brazile and the others on blogs saying Obama can do it without them. Clearly they went for Clinton and not him so this has to be a concern - but to her and to other Obama supporters it is not. They are the ones flipping the bird so anyone who thinks this is f*cked up should talk to them about it.
I do not think that is wise to say they arent needed or that they are racists anyway so eff them. It is stupid and irresponsible.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 03:04 PMelectability is a code word? wow - literacy in this country took a dive with the intro of the ipod.
woof.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 03:06 PMMoses, as a fellow Perotista, nice to seeya. I was more for the third party than a protest of either Bush or Clinton. Got to work for the campaign personally. Witnessed the comings and goings, witnessed the two parties sending their reps to talk him out of the third party candidacy. Witnessed the "Nightline" broadcast all in person. Was there to hear his announcement speech and the launching of the Reform Party. Fun stuff, great exposure. My leanings were more Republican and my fall back was Republican.
This race, this year, sure has brought many things to the in house Democrats that they would never admit were there before. Things they always accused Republicans of...they've all finally come home to roost within the Democratic Party. No more will Democrats just flatly be able to label Republicans the way they did. Democrats by half now know Democrats have the same perceived issues.
The demographics are quite astonishing right now. 90% of AA voting for Obama verses what 70% white males for Clinton! And how to unite those groups after all the name calling?
McOld, McYoung which one to pick? where's the substance, the wonks, Not with McYoung.
Posted by peter at May 9, 2008 03:10 PMI love Moses and SM here!! Your comments are right on and speak for me as well!
What a load of arrogant crap this Bowers post is, but at least it is honest in its contempt for all the non-kewl, non-Obama supporters. So democrats are now the party of exclusive eggheads - unbelievable! I thought democrats used to stand up for the working poor folks. Hilarious.
Bob in Pacifica - stop calling people racists just because you don't agree with them. It's morally reprehensible and you have been doing it forever. Grow up.
Posted by Reality at May 9, 2008 03:12 PMSeventied it!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 03:24 PMYoung Judith, there's still a lot of hard feelings going around, it's going to take a while for all of it to subside, I think. A lot of bad things have been said, it's going to take a lot to get it all out."
iamcoyote - -that is everywhere nowadies on the internents highway. too easy to say bad stuff..done it myself.
I fully admit I've done it, too, young Judith - as you can see in the open thread, heh - and I'll probably do it again. But I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of this primary. Every single blog I used to go to has gone from media critique to amateur pundit since, hell, since last June. A whole fookin' year! I used to get news of what's going on from the blogs, you know, real scandals and why they were important to follow, now the blogs are all trying to tell me what to think and where to send money. And all the commenters are trying to tell me what to think about shit I don't really care about anyway, it's like cable news, only quieter.
The Republicans are happy because we're looking like we're ripping each other apart, and the Dems are liking it because it's distracting from the fact that their lack of any substantial movement on vital bills, regulation, the justice department fiasco, telcom immunity, etc is being ignored for the bread and circus shit. It's a smokescreen, man! Stop buying into the damn game!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 04:55 PMiamcoyote - yep, I said to someone else that this is like the roman games to keep the plebs happy while the corporate rich giggle and fuck.
Iamcoyote, hoorah!and yipee!!!!!!!!!!
My sentiments exactly!! DITTO!
I don't remember Democrats being so mean-spirited! That was usually left to the Republicans.
What is happening on the Blog? Let the nomination run its course, and let's get back to something other than Obama and Hillary 24/7.
There was an important bill that was to come before the Congress Thursday, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled the bill from the schedule Wednesday night after conservative-to-moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats revolted over Democratic leaders' insistence on including in the war funding bill an unrelated provision to sharply increase education benefits for veterans under the GI Bill.
White House renews veto threat against troop funding bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_go_co/bush_iraq_funding_5
See what I mean, there are important issues ongoing.
Can we invent, and use the phrase:
Bowerism
?
Posted by lectric lady at May 9, 2008 06:31 PMJudithOne - oh I sure do remember Democrats being so mean - there has always bben a strain of contempt amongst certain sorts of Dems toward poor or Southern people:
"Oh why oh why do those boobs vote against their best interests?" pick the year - 2004 or 2008.
Been quite an eye-opener to see this from the inside this time round.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:37 PMJudithOne - oh I sure do remember Democrats being so mean - there has always been a strain of contempt amongst certain sorts of Dems towards less than rich whites and southern people:
"Oh why oh why do those boobs vote against their best interests?" pick the year - 2004 or 2008.
Been quite an eye-opener to see this from the inside this time round.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:37 PMChris Bowers' pompous blathering may be idiotic, but we don't know that Obama necessarily agrees with it. (Donna Brazile? Yeah, she's on board.)
The problem is that Obama's rhetoric, like that of many of his bloggers, is thematically issue-free. Things like universal health care are just props in the Transformation Play that will be the Obama Administration. Everything is negotiable. The play's the thing.
Posted by cygnus at May 9, 2008 06:40 PMYes, cygnus! You hit it on the head.
The country at large, unlike us, don't give a hoot about what bloggers like Chris Bowers and Kos think or say.
What disturbs me is that now Donna Brazile, Ted Kennedy and others that ARE listened to are publicly espousing the "throw the white workinfolk to the curb" meme. THEY are the ones that are going to destroy any attempts of Obama to reconcile and unite the party.
He had better get a grip and get it FAST! or he is through.
Posted by lectric lady at May 9, 2008 06:49 PMEightied it!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 9, 2008 06:51 PMWoohoo, SoS! Lookit us go!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 07:13 PMTurkana, of course winning a general election is different from winning a nomination. So why would anyone who is a Democrat who's intelligent enough not to vote against his/her own self-interests help the Republican win?
I'm an old white guy. I'm blue-collar. Obama seems okay to me. I find Clinton to be too bellicose, too embedded with the corporate agenda (trade deals, etc.). I didn't like how the Clintons used their oppo research (re: Robert Parry). Having a daughter who's working for a hedge fund pretty much defines Clinton family values for me. Anyway, I would have voted for her if she had won.
I'm a Democrat. I have not in my lifetime had a viable Democratic candidate who was worse than the Republican. So what's the big deal?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 9, 2008 07:42 PMBy the way, how did Brazile condescend to working class voters? Is it my imagination or does "elitist" mean "uppity" now?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 9, 2008 07:47 PMso since I have bucks and nobody in my family will have to go to war isnt it in my best interest to vote GOP so my taxes stay low?
My job is recession proff - I have no debt so I wont go under if the economy continues to slide -and I live near all public transport so the price of oil doesnt harm me.
So why do I vote for Democrats? For social infrastructure that is supposed to work for everyone - not just people I consider good enough to care about. The new wave like Bowers and his ilk are not my co travellers in this.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 07:50 PMbob - I have only been here a short time but you really come across as just wanting to stir up nastiness. Do you get ignored if you say interesting, substantive things that make a contribution to actual dialogue?
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 07:53 PMIgnore him, young Judith. If you ordered a cup of black coffee, he'd bitch slap you for being racist. ;-)
Perhaps the OS would like the Clintons and their Dem voters to sit silently behind a curtain, the way the women delegates were forced to do at the First Anti-Slavery Convention.
Of course, it would have to be an awfully big curtain, since the Clinton voters make up half the Dems.
While they're at it, maybe they can tell the Clintons and their voters; "You can vote for us and send money to us, but we don't want any input from you, much less sharing any power with you. After all, the Democratic Party has a long tradition of losing nobly, and the only Dem President who's won two terms is an awful embarrassment to us."
That way, the OS can be assured that the Dems lose again in 2008. That's what they want, right?
Posted by Blue Jean at May 9, 2008 08:38 PMhi blue jean!
great comments. if the masses are entertained by the blood letting who am I to stand in the way?
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 08:52 PMDang. The last signal I saw Obama send to the blogosphere was his appearance on Fox and it was pretty funny to read Matt Stoller's whiney screed complaining about it.
Obama is going to want to appeal to younger voters, people he has mobilized and I don't doubt that he will avoid doing anything to dampen their enthusiasm.
Unlike Hillary -- testicular fortitude -- Clinton, however, Barack Obama actually organized in the dying and dead steel towns of northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana.
He actually knows the people HRC pretends she knows. Better than Clinton (and better than you, Turkana) Obama will know how to appeal to these people if he wants. Whether he does so will depend on whether he perceives any trade off with other groups that may be more reliable supporters for him.
One appeal to lunch bucket white older Democrats could be explicit class appeals based on populist economics. The problem with this approach is that it will alienate the media and wealthy, influential elites the moment they perceive Obama really means it.
The way lunch bucket Democrats are usually appealed to in the absence of populist economics is to send out racist dog whistles and to stir up resentment against educated whites -- people like Chris Bowers. This has been Hillary Clinton's approach -- what with Barfenburger railing against Birkenstock wearing latte sipping efite nattering nabobs of negativism.
That is also how Republicans have tried to appeal to the Archie Bunker crowd.
I don't expect Obama to come out snarling at people who drive Volvos, read the New York Times, drink latte or who have educations.
And I doubt that he'll be sending out racial dog whistles either.
Whether Obama gambles on populist economics will be fascinating to watch. He will have to be very convincing for older white conservative Democrats to support him against every racial and cultural tribal instinct they share. And if he's that convincing, he'll be a scary black man to the Night of the Living Broders.
Personally, I'm hoping Obama promises to hang Jeffery Skilling and the executives of the major investment banks. Or at least cut their heads off.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by kaleidescope at May 9, 2008 09:15 PMkaleidoscope,
what a load of bigoted crap. par for the course during this primary.
white people aren't afraid of obama because he's black. i'm so tired of this racist stereotype. white people are starting to dislike obama because he and his surrogates and his campaign and his church and his values have been exposed to them as white-people-hating racists. it's simple and obvious. no one wants to be held in contempt.
Posted by at May 10, 2008 05:35 AMOkay, maybe in a month people here will recognize that Obama won and the choice is to either vote for John McCain or Obama. Or maybe two months.
For young Judith, if you are voting strictly for your own personal self-interests, you go right ahead and vote Republican. You can fly abroad and get your abortion if needed. Maybe your class interests are better represented by a Republican in the White House. Maybe you don't mind people dying in wars fought for corporate profits. Maybe your hedge fund investments make you lots of money on inflated oil and rice futures. I just thought that that the "Left" in the title of the blog stood for something.
Blue Jean, you do whatever you think is right. Your candidate lost. You want to go to Denver and protest that the candidate who didn't win the popular vote, didn't win the delegate count and didn't win the majority of states and is now even losing the superdelegates should be the nominee, then maybe you should, as you so meanly put it, "bitch-slap" yourself. Or wake up and smell the coffee.
Or maybe, like young Judith, you should help elect real feminists like John McCain. I have suspected for some time now that many posters in the blogworld who pretend to be Hillary supporters are really just Republicans in drag, here to divide and conquer the Dems. Young Judith practically admits it.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 10, 2008 06:53 AMbob - you have made it clear to me in your last post - which completely misrepresents mine and my meaning - that you are either capable of reading more than a sentence or are simply not interested in honest discourse.
Either way you are pretty boring. The other posters are right - I am ignoring you.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 08:12 AMI agree "at" - and dont think the GOP doesnt have quite a lot of material to use already. God, just that Granny thing alone. Yeeesh.
If Obama is it then he will hide behind surrogates as will McCain. McCain wiill put his mommy on teevee and his surrogates will use all that anti-white folk stuff - anti McCain's mommmy stuff - all over the place. Might not be enough if Krugman is right - but why give them more ammo?
The posters here who keep playing the racism tune will bring Obama down so if that is your intent - keep playing. If it is not, you really should shut up.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 08:17 AMThanks, young Judith. My sentiments exactly.
Or wake up and smell the coffee.
What's the matter, Bob? Too much caffeine? Or is destroying the Clintons and their allies far more important to you than seeing the Democratic party win in November?
FYI, I've voted Dem for 20 years, and I've yet to vote Republican. I have, however, seen more than one Dem candidacy implode because they felt they were too good to reach out to blue collar, the elderly, the rural voters, etc. Actually, I was going to vote Obama, much as it pains me to do it, but if he's going to hang a big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner in Denver, I could always stay home, since I'm obviously not good enough to vote for him and he doesn't need it anyway. Fortunately, he seems to be a lot classier than a lot of his supporters.
While you're busy driving out everybody who didn't vote Obama as their first choice (since doing so seems to make them all "racists" in your opinion, even if they've been working for civil rights longer than BO's been alive), then McCain's been busy courting them. Funny thing; most voters tend to give their votes to people who ask them politely and respectfully, not the one who says "If you don't vote for me, you're a racist, so screw you."
If you're a Republican troll, then fine; you're doing an excellent job of driving Democrats away from Obama. If you're really a Dem, then I fear for the Dem party's chances in November.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 08:42 AMWhat bothers me is that allegedly progressive democrats, e.g. people posting on these boards, are willfully misrepresenting what leading Democrats are saying, and projecting bias against women as the reason why their candidate failed. There are plenty of other reasons, sorry. In fact, I think that a fair fraction of those posting here are voting for Clinton because she's a woman, and assuming that those voting for Obama are doing so because he's a man. I'm here to tell you that's projection, not reality. When I look at Clinton I don't see a progressive icon. I see a candidate who voted for the Iraq war, and who has never made amends for it.
On the demographics of the Obama party: when I read the posts here, I get the same up-is-down sense that republicans give me. I heard the entire Donna Brazile quote, and it is mainfestly obvious that Begala was being called on an insulting division of Democrats into folks who don't count ("eggheads" and blacks) and those who do (white folks who didn't graduate college.) To demonize her for that exchange is flatly Orwellian. Kennedy was making a pretty blunt, and I believe correct, point: Clinton has not been a leader, was wrong on the war, and has run a destructive campaign. None of these things qualify her to a spot on the ticket. Again, that's not writing her *supporters* out of anything, except if one is unbound by any sense of logic or principle. It's saying that running a venomous and lousy campaign has consequences.
Yea, it stinks when your candidate doesn't win in the primary. Been there more than once. The other candidates in your party are more likely to reflect your views than those in the other party. If they don't, be honest, move over, and start advocating for
1) a total abortion ban-you *do* know that McCain has a lifelong hard right record on that, correct?
2) a minimum of 4 more years in Iraq (there is no way we will leave Iraq as long as McCain is in the White House;
3) endless budget deficits, e.g. a continuation of Bush economics;
4) no action on health care in any way, shape, or form.
Those 4 are guaranteed outcomes. That's what you're getting with McCain, and I haven't even gotten into what I think is likely (other wars provoked in Iran and Syria, climate change inaction, and so on.) I think that 1) and 2) are certain to be different for Obama, 2) at minimum by a huge difference in scope of engagement, and that 3) and 4) are also likely to be quite different (Obama will kill extensions of the Bush tax breaks for the rich, and will do something on health care.) That's what we're looking forward at.
Posted by Marc at May 10, 2008 08:49 AMBTW, Bob, I will be at the convention in Denver, regardless of who the nominee is. I'd be proud to see personally the moment when the first black nominee (or the first female nominee, or both) makes the acceptance speech. I'd ask to meet you there, but I think you'll probably be resting up for the Republican convention, since they're your true calling.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 08:50 AMClinton has not been a leader, was wrong on the war, and has run a destructive campaign. None of these things qualify her to a spot on the ticket. Again, that's not writing her *supporters* out of anything, except if one is unbound by any sense of logic or principle. It's saying that running a venomous and lousy campaign has consequences.
Marc, if you really care about all those things, then by the same token, you shouldn't be writing off half the Dem party as "unbound by any sense of logic or principle." Most of the likely VP picks like Dodd or Edwards, were "wrong on the war", and they lost early, which, by your logic, means they aren't leaders and ran far lousier campaigns then she did. Are you going to write off any and all tickets who have someone who voted for the AUMF, even when Obama's on the top?
If so, I have a nice couch you can stay home on. I won't be using it, since I'll be voting Dem.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 08:59 AMMarc - what a bunch of chewy blather. You have no idea why anybody would vote for Clinton and that is your limitation, not mine.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 09:32 AMMy wife, father, sister, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and mother voted for Clinton. My daugher, son, brother, sister-in-law x2, brother-in-law x2 and I voted for Obama. I am very well aware of the motivations, and I doubt that any of us don't have some mixture like that in our families. There is nothing wrong, and in fact a lot right, in wanting the USA to break boundaries about who can be president. There is something wrong with assuming that anyone with the opposite opinion is a bigot.
Edwards made amends, and Dodd was right on the war and very good on civil liberties. My point, simply put, was that there are clearly ways of reading what Kennedy said that do not exclude whole swaths of people. You can check the statements and clips yourself, and it is worth doing. Especially when it is being used as ammunition against someone, like Brazile or Kennedy, for whom the charges ring false to begin with.
Posted by Marc at May 10, 2008 10:04 AMNow the young Judith is telling people to shut up. The cute facade is starting to slip.
I'm beginning to suspect that all the dipsy shit around the name, judith, was just a ploy to smooth the way for another troll. She's made too many spurious and unresponsive replies to Bob, for instance; completely misreading and distorting the tone of his writing. She's no ingenue. I think she's a fake.
Posted by Copeland at May 10, 2008 10:38 AMcopland -
I said calling people racists would hurt obama so if you want to help him, shut up/stop saying it.
But if you want to hurt him you sure can keep doing it if ya like.
Up to you.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:01 AM
marc - you said people here looked like they voted for her because she is a woman which nobody said and is an assumption that is chewy blather.
If you did not mean to say that and acknowledge that isnt true - then cool!
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:04 AMare copeland and bob the same person? I think so.
I am ignoring them both as they seem to share the same lack of synaptic fluid.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:06 AM
My point, simply put, was that there are clearly ways of reading what Kennedy said that do not exclude whole swaths of people. You can check the statements and clips yourself, and it is worth doing. Especially when it is being used as ammunition against someone, like Brazile or Kennedy, for whom the charges ring false to begin with.
Thank you, Marc, for explaining. If you're mad about how Kennedy and Brazile are being framed for "false charges", then imagine how mad Clinton voters are about the false framing of racism. And cube it.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 11:07 AMwell said, blue jean.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:09 AMNow I know you're a troll, Judith. You busted yourself. My indentity is verifiable; and the management here can read IP adresses and can tell who is a sockpuppet and who is not. You're really not very bright; but nice try.
Posted by Copeland at May 10, 2008 11:11 AMI am ignoring them both as they seem to share the same lack of synaptic fluid.
Ohh, snap!
And Marc, yes, there are people who vote for HRC because they want to see a female president in their lifetimes, just as there are people who vote for BO because they want to see a black president in their lifetimes. Nothing wrong with that. Voting for HRC doesn't make you a racist, just like voting for BO doesn't make you a sexist.
FYI, she has stated she regrets her vote for the AUMF.
I say that NY was in a grip of terror in 2003; any Senator who voted against it would have lost her seat, and she wouldn't be a candidate right now, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 11:15 AMcopeland - when I read your few posts I think:
well, here's one that did get left behind.
No go along and rant the troll crap at someone who cares.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:18 AMThanks, young Judith.
You're really not very bright; but nice try.
You're the one who seems intent on insulting other posters, Copeland, so if you're looking for trolls and sockpuppets, check the mirror.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 11:18 AMBlue jean - would you vote for Carly Fiorina?
I wouldnt.
Blue jean - fyi, I mention her since I have heard that she is being pushed toward Mccain as possible VP choice.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:27 AMI wonder if the crestfallen Clinton folks, who post here, even notice that Joe Lieberman (whose Senate seat was saved from the bad, bad, progressive, Lamont) is sticking like stink to John McCain these days. And for the Glory that was Clintonia, the heyday of the 90s, I think it can be summed up in the words of John Emerson, who writes at Seeing The Forest:
Bill Clinton defeated the Congressional Democrats so thoroughly during his terms as President that the Republicans ended up getting control of Congress. With the dog-in-the-manger DLC, you always have to ask whether their goal is to take office, or whether it's just to make sure that no one to the left of them ever wins. They talk as though their centrism is a response to political necessity, but they often act as though they are motivated primarily by a bitter hatred of anyone more liberal than they are.Moreover, I am very suspicious of the wedge issue of the "Bubbas" that moves with a Dinosaur pedigree all the way back to George Wallace, in the 60s, and his contempt for the "pointy-headed intellectuals".
I find it very telling that in the body of the post, at the top of this thread, the author uses the word "seduce" to describe what Obama must do to win over Clinton people whose feelings have been hurt. This framing has a weasely quality to it; for it implies trickery.
My antenna goes up at demogoguery, because I think Bowers is a "soft target" anyway. This fits precisely the frame of hardhats versus "pointy-heads" that Nixon exploited so long ago, and which still echoes through our history with the sound of police batons striking the skulls of demonstrators.
The "creatives" are too easy a target. And the meme of "hard-working white guys" as Clinton's rhetorical weapon, is a cheap shot, and slightly, ever so slightly, thuggish.
Posted by Copeland at May 10, 2008 12:08 PM-Copeland,
That was a serious, well written and thoughtful post.
Now, what have you done with the real Copeland? ;-)
-Young Judith
Would I vote for her? I don't know--I don't know enough about her. If she's going to be on the Republican ticket, then no, even though McPain might die in office and make her President. I do think the GOP is going to look seriously at picking a female Veep, but I would guess it would be someone like Dole or Snowe (on second thought, not Snowe, since they need her Senate seat in Maine.), but in the end, they won't do it.
Would they have picked a black Republican for Veep if Hillary had won the nod? Probably, but since there aren't any AA GOPers, the question is moot. ;-)
Anyway, this is all speculation. Obama may yet offer the Veep to Hillary. (not saying he wants to, or that she'll take it, but the elders will probably ask it, for the sake of the party.) If she refuses, he may offer the Veep spot to Sebelius or Feinstein, since California's safe, she can help him win over religious blocks, and she has more experience. But in the end, he'll probably go with Dodd or something like that.
What do you think?
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 04:38 PMFirst off, McCain could pick Condi if he was looking for an African American. I kinda doubt he wants the Bush baggage, though.
No, Obama would not ask Clinton unless forced imo. Simply my sense.
(and I agree - Copeland's post was great.)
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 04:52 PMInteresting article about West Virginia in the LA Times on Saturday. A few excerpts:
Fearful that the GOP will exploit Obama's "otherness," many still insist that Clinton's ebbing campaign offers the Democrats a better shot come November. Even those who say they would support Obama worry about his electability, convinced that many of their neighbors will defect to the presumed Republican nominee, John McCain.
"My worry is there's just too many people in this country who aren't ready to elect a black president," said Charles L. Silliman, a retired Air Force officer who is Hardy County's Democratic Party co-chairman. "There's a lot to like about him. But I'm just afraid that too many people will vote against him based on their fears and prejudice."
Silliman and his wife, Carmen, are Clinton supporters, drawn by her healthcare plan and her endurance on the campaign trail. Still, the couple repeatedly have found themselves defending Obama, correcting acquaintances who relay baseless rumors about his name and religion.
Carmen Silliman has collected a sheaf of poisonous e-mails that have flowed into her in-box. "We do not need a Muslim to lead the good ole USA," reads one. Obama is, in fact, a Christian.
Neil Gillies, an Obama supporter who runs a local environmental nonprofit group, glumly recounted the gibes that his wife, a schoolteacher, hears regularly from her students. "They're convinced [Obama] is a Muslim, a terrorist, a guy who's coming to take away their guns," Gillies said. "It's just sad."
...
But socially conservative church groups and gun-rights supporters here have helped tilt the vote Republican in recent presidential elections. In 2004, Hardy County lined up for George W. Bush by a 3-1 ratio.
...
Hand-lettered campaign signs promoting Democrats running for family-court judge and assessor cluster along Hardy County's winding roads. There are only a few signs for either Obama or Clinton, but in one yard, a placard with a red slash on it mocks, "Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Mama."
The sign belongs to Eric Hardy, 38, a former Democrat who works at a woodworking plant. Now a die-hard Republican and president of the West Virginia Coon Hunters Assn., Hardy opposes any Democrat "who wants to go after my guns."
*****************
Notice that bit about voting 75% for Dubya in 2004? Is Hillary Clinton trying to make the case that Obama's doomed, but she's the one sho can turn that around? Can ANYONE turn that around?
I was in NYC recently and somebody told me he was Muslim so dont blame it on geography. I corrected the guy and since he knew I was for Clinton he believed me. Or so he said.
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 06:32 PMI think Bowers, like Brazile, did us all a big favor.
Now we can just lie down under the bus, instead of waiting to be thrown under it. Say, when's that big party where Obama's coronating himself? I want to pencil it in. Will there be balloons? Ponies?
Posted by lambert strether at May 10, 2008 07:14 PMYeah, I forgot about Condi. And General Colin Powell as well. My bad.
I should have said "There aren't any prominent black GOPers who don't remind the voters about the Iraq SNAFU."
Posted by Blue Jean at May 10, 2008 07:38 PMExcept for JC Watts, who isn't in office any more.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 11, 2008 09:42 AMI thought of Colin but he s damaged goods in everyone's eyes and I didnt want to go there.
I think McCain is in a pickle. He cant pick a hard line republican or forget going after disenchanted Dems. I was thinking Hagel - though he supposedly retired.
Posted by the young Judith at May 11, 2008 10:43 AMYoung Judith,
I made a snap judgment about you upthread, which upon reflection I now regret very much. I believe it was more than harsh, and was wrong. I just want to say I'm sorry.
Posted by Copeland at May 11, 2008 07:36 PM