In Barack Obama’s speech following his win in North Carolina, he told American voters they could choose not to be distracted by phony issues raised by Rove’s Republicans and relentlessly enabled by the media. His message was directed at the fall campaign, but it was also aimed at the media, telling them he understands they’re distracting the country and knows how to deal with it.
As Clinton would graciously do in her speech, Obama first addressed concerns about a divided party:
Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided – that Senator Clinton’s supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her.
Well I’m here tonight to tell you that I don’t believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain. This election is about you – the American people . . .
This primary season may not be over, but when it is, we will have to remember who we are as Democrats . . . This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country. Because we all agree that at this defining moment in history – a moment when we’re facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril – we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term. We need change in America.
Fox, ABC, much of CNN and MSNBC’s axis of Matthews/Russert have so often polluted rather than informed the nation’s political discourse, it’s a wonder American voters can see through the media distractions and focus on issues important to them. But last night, Obama told voters he trusts them to see through the distractions and embrace the need for change; he hears their concerns, shares their values, because he and his family lived them:
[John McCain's] ideas for America are out of touch with these values. His plans for the future are nothing more than the failed policies of the past. And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.
Yes, we know what’s coming. We’ve seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain – to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown.
This is what they will do – no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run, it’s what kind of campaign we will run. It’s what we will do to make this year different. I didn’t get into [this] race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it. . . .
We will end it by telling the truth – forcefully, repeatedly, confidently – and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.
. . . I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.
No matter what happens next, this is exactly what Obama needed to say. The media spent weeks implying, but pretending not to say, that as a black man, Obama may not love his country, sympathizes with violence, is not patriotic and does not understand or relate to ordinary Americans’ concerns and hopes. No credible journalist believe this nonsense, yet MSM pundits like Russert and Matthews wallowed in these false images as though somehow they might be true. As Matthews conceded, Reverend Wright helps their ratings.
Obama essentially told Americans the media pundits are enablers, an obstacle to moving the country forward, but Americans don’t have to let the media distract them; they have a choice. So it was ironic listening to Tim Russert and the MSNBC gang virtually proclaim Obama the Democratic nominee. It was a moment of deserved humility, but only a moment.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

yo
Good Morning
It was a great night.
Good morning, Scarecrow. Excellent post.
Personally feeling a burden lifted this a.m.- think it may be from replaying Obama’s speech a couple times, & the happy anticipation of his debating St. John McBush very soon…
Good Morning Scarecrow -
in the few minutes I could stomach, heard Timmeh tell us all to hold our water, that they’d be a gettin’ to McMedia just you wait – uh huh
it was remarkable to watch tweety last nite decry the clinton campaign for their relentless focus on rev wright in their efforts to sink obama’s campaign; while completely ignoring his own and his network’s complicity in propelling that story.
Morning Scarecrow,
I’ll echo Marie,
had the pleasure of watching both speeches early this morning. Somehow I’m not all that sorry I missed the Timmeh & Tweety show tho
You must have been reading the foreign newspapers.
Morning Scarecrow.
good morning scarecrow!
man I hate it when I have nothing to add to these excellant posts but I believe you covered it all very nicely and I can add nothing
*sulks*
Mornin’ pups. What a night, eh? Coffee’s ready, hold out your cup.
My you are up early, better give yourself a double shot!
At last. And with time still left for the primary season, I guess this paycheck is the time to send some money. Since then I’ll be able to send some more later.
Thanks, Stimulus Package!
If Hillary really wants to help the party, she can start by getting the hell out of the race. It’s over. There is no path to the nomination, save a super delegate coup (which will never happen).
he certainly called out the media for its enabling and then the media going…who me?
it will be very interesting to see him try to campaign over their heads.
Thanks for posting the speech, Scarecrow, I hadn’t heard it yet.
I’m only part way through, but it strikes me that this has been a very long, grueling campaign, yet Obama looks comfortable in his new role as the presumptive nominee. He has amazing energy and is focused on our country, not on himself. I’m looking forward to the rest of this campaign. He can accomplish much.
I think we can help him with that
I could delete a hundred words or so if it makes you feel better.
Good morning, everyone. Hope everyone understands that half the Dem electorate was happy last night, the other half not so much. It’s long past time to be reaching out.
I see that Attaturk had a nomination process for who might be the Democratic VP. Who won?
First pot was mine. Mornin’, El!
Have any press conferences been announced?
Obama called them out… it is a great speech indeed and thank you Scarecrow.
More please.
(followed by a lot of hard work!)
i’ve been so frustrated by the whole process that i’ve tuned it out (or at least turned it way down)… maybe too much though. has obama been laying out a concrete vision or even what we should be talking about if we weren’t so distracted by the idiots on the tv? can anyone suggest one or two speeches of obama’s that i should give a careful listen to?
thanks!
His language should continue to focus on “intervention” language. Sent him a letter this week with that very language in regards to his ability to separate himself from Rev. Wright’s comments and that our country needs more of that kind of courage.
I have been pointing out to many friends that his handling of Rev. Wright is a turning point not a down point. It takes courage to stand up to a friend and mentor of 20 years and say, “No, I cannot support this behavior.”
Pointed out the awful statements made by religious affiliations of McCain’s and that McCain has done nothing because such affiliations were tied to a Right wing base. Stated McCain does not have the courage to say no to his cronies.
Obama does because, in front of our nation, at the risk of splitting the African American vote, he said, “No, not appropriate talk or actions,” to a friend and mentor.
We need more of that…in Washington…real leadership.
By the way, McCain is running an ad here in Ohio which starts out with the words in bold: President McCain.
Seems a bit misleading…
I think that would be a path to certain GOP victory. Frankly the clintonistas have had their day. They tried to destroy the Democratic Party with the DLC and in consequence blessed the country with eight years of a traitorous presidency. Enough is enough. Let her vote for her buddy McSame or join him on the ticket but get the hell out of my life.
the only consensus, i think, was that we disagree – wildly.
did you expect any less? *g*
that’s why we need to value diversity of tactics – without it we are doomed.
I’m contributing this a.m. too, & also a bit o’ the folding for FDL, for their great coverage last night &, well, just in general. I know I’ve said it before- this site is a beacon. Thanx to all @ FDL.
That should be ad…
That’s what I get for writing a comment after checking math homework…
i didn’t think that was courage – i thought that was caving to the demands of the idiots on tv. made me very say. although i’m trying to understand that it was necessary, it was hardly something to be proud of.
It’s gettin’ very crowded, but if anyone sees Jane or Christy, please let them know I’ve saved a couple of seats for them on the Sen. Obama bandwagon.
Right up front.
Where we can all see the sunrise of a real “Morning in America.”
There were, however, some interesting choices for cabinet positions. (And a bit of a pull for Dodd for VP, but most of us thought he should stay in the Senate. I’d like to see him as Majority Leader, myself…)
ditto.
I’d really like to see the good Reverend Wright as VP…
(not kidding at all)
majority leader dodd sounds good to me too.
after that quote of schumer’s in yesterday’s hjc hearing, i’d like to see schumer out of any role in the dem leadership. i’m still shocked (even if i’m several years late in finding out about it).
angie – if you recommend obama’s speech last night, i’ll definitely try to give it a listen.
Mornin’, Firepups. Now is the time to really take it to the media. Million ton shit hammer time. And keep those emails, letters and calls to NYT comin’. They deserve every hit they take after Sunday’s neo-con love fest.
It’s not something that can be done easily with a stump speech; most politicians feel the need to keep it simple, focused on broad themes, rinse, repeat. You have to look through the websites for most details, and it turns out, both Clinton and Obama have extensive proposals on just about anything. As for “vision,” I thought Obama’s speech about the financial crisis and the evolving need for regulation reform was important; I did a post a while back on that.
As an example of the web material, I read a detailed critique from an expert on treatment of those with disabilities, comparing McCain, Clinton, Obama. McCain has a couple of paragraphs of platitudes; Clinton had a detailed list of proposals; Obama began with a vision statement to put it in context, followed by detailed proposals on reforms and/or support of pending legislation. It was characteristic of the way each of these candidates approaches issues.
If you haven’t heard Obama from last night, do listen. It’s worth your time.
Thanks much for supporting FDL. It does cost real money to run this site, and lots of folks work hard behind the scenes. It’s like Disney Land underground, and I still don’t know who Minnie Mouse is. But they appreciate your support.
believe a certain commenter (rhymes with e-b-l) was telling the naysayers that the 50 State flavuh of his campaign and it’s unprecedented success would provide a cushion allowing him to call them out – same commenter continues to hammer on how he speaks to intelligent adults and not fearful nine year olds
was not initially in either camp – just admired what Team Obama assembled and how beautifully it’s worked – lots of Crashing The Gate goodness
selise — I missed the Schumer quote. ??
really looking for a speech and not a webpage that the candidate may or may not have even read – although i don’t mean to discount their importance.
will look for the financial crisis speech, thanks for the recommend. wasn’t looking for one speech that says it all, just one that shows signs of being part of a coherent whole. sorta like i’ve described gore’s speeches when we’ve discussed them. since 2002, it doesn’t matter the topic (war, law, media), one can listen to gore and get an idea of his foundational principles and how his mind works to critique our present course and create a vision for an alternative direction and how his ideas have developed and matured with time.
don’t expect that in a stump speech, and maybe not even in any modern active politician… but if there are hints of that kind of thing, i will be very encouraged.
will see if i can make a short transcript for you real quick like….
amen.
Now that is a consummation devoutly to be wish’d. Barack Obama debating NeoGeorge III. Bring ‘im on.
I prefer to think of him as “Suck Chummer” or actually I prefer not to think of him at all
George W. Bush still got got two terms after debating the Dems
We need healing. And an inspirational candidate, an inspirational speaker, who can mobilize the sacrifices and the sense of unity of purpose that is sorely needed at this moment – in order to counter the media cynicism and the corporate greed and the republican desire to bury this country beneath a veneer of patriotic despotism.
Let us come together Dems. Let us be strong and hold to our highest values.
I see that Attaturk had a nomination process for who might be the Democratic VP. Who won?
I sat around for about an hour last night with an entire table full of Obama’s lawyers and asked them that very question.
Obama hasn’t even begun to think about a V.P. yet.
I believe McCain will be the very first presidential nominee running behind in the polls that demands fewer debates
his first two will be a brutal embarrassment, he will have senior moments and look like a weak old man compared to Obama and their campaign committee will see no benefit in future debates
I think he will embarrass himself and the party, (if embarrassing the party is even possible)
good, I was wondering why I have not been contacted and your data makes me feel a little better about that
well he didn’t get in through election, those two terms are the result of a silent coup
tells us more, spill bill…
I sat around for about an hour last night with an entire table full of Obama’s lawyers and asked them that very question.
Say What?? Do tell.
It was a hic-coup
Flesh out the conversation a little more when you can, jayt. Real “insiders” perspective*g*
lol!
Old theme, revisited. It gives me hope to watch/listen to Barack Obama, a man who is dignified and articulate. No winkies. No tap dancing. I totally get that substance must go deeper than that (and Obama has it). But I gotta tell you that my heart does its own little happy dance at the prospect of a president we can be proud of (of whom we can be proud). Our national nightmare is almost over!
You’re looking at it from a white point of view. His distancing himself from Wright probably offends many blacks, but Obama had no choice. To the extent that he risked black support, he showed courage. For some reason courage is in short supply in politicians these days. Everyone panders. Obama does it less then the rest. He may be a great president and he will be president. McCain will self destruct sometime between now and November.
Then, I would like to see that kind of “caving” by McCain, Bush and many others.
Amen, & well put.
Honey, you’re having a hard morning, aren’t you? *g* New breakfast food for you: Cabinet post-toasties! How ’bout that?
tells us more, spill bill…
Well first, I wasn’t gonna go to the HRC speech, but when Timmeh said Hillary’s about to address her supporters, I changed my mind and ran across the street to catch it.
Afterward, I was hungry, so I went down to the corner pub for a sammich. While waiting, I noticed a table full of young people who were obviously Obama supporters – struck up a conversation, and it turned out that all those *kids* (damn, they were all so young) were his lawyers, and had happened to pick that place to watch the returns.
They were jazzed, big time, until that very last call that HRC was gonna squeak it out here in Indiana, at which time they all got up and went home. End of story.
jayt -
am very curious as to how Voter ID was beat back – nothing in the overnight numbers to suggest the suppression efforts worked – on the surface, looks like Absentee Ballots were the answer – guess more will come out in the days ahead but sure looks like Hoosier State was prepared :D
i don’t have a complete recording of yesterday’s hearing yet and the cspan archive is not complete either.
an audio clip (with video transcript) was played by trent franks in yesterday’s hjc hearing (the last part of this can been seen/heard in the beginning of the incomplete c-span archive (flash player)
transcript of senate judiciary committee hearing june 8, 2004 from wapo:
what utter bs and filth.
(he needs to go hide in the corner with Colin Powell)
gag.
am very curious as to how Voter ID was beat back
No it wasn’t. Voting did in fact require a picture ID with an issuance and expiration date.
This morning’s Star has a story about a bunch of nuns who were not allowed to vote. Other than that, no big deal – it was advertised pretty heavily, and I don’t think much of anyone was caught unaware.
Absentees? I guess I don’t know how the ID Law affected those.
Selise, Scarecrow has it right about one speech, I don’t think that will give you what you are looking for, and in all fairness, I don’t know that you could point to one by any candidate and get that.
However, when I saw him speak in Boise, my Rush Limbaugh loving FIL was in town, and I had heard all about all the platitudes I would be hearing at Obama’s speech, as FIL tried to convince us we were wasting out time to go. It is a common criticism of Obama.
My 3 person family came home all supporters – including the college kid who will vote in her first election. We heard that Iraq was a mistake, we needed to bring the troops home, and that instead of being belligerent and arrogant with other nations, including our allies, we needed to work on diplomacy and a foreign policy that made sense. That a strong leader isn’t afraid to talk to his enemies.
Did he detail his plan for bringing troops home, including departure dates? No. But it did give us a sense for him, as a leader, that I think was important.
Is he the liberal I’d want? Nope. I have no illusions about that. Can he do everything he says he will? Hell no. The Congress gets their say too.
The thing is, most of what I’ve written here could probably be applied to Hillary as well – I just didn’t get to stand in line to see her speak and be inspired by her (we’ll ignore my distaste for her campaign for the last two months.)
Where I think they are different, in outlook or style or whatever you want to call it, is right here, in the subject of this post. I think that when Obama talks about the “old” politics, a huge chunk of what he means is this nasty Rovian bullpucky. He not only disdains it, he tries not to engage in it. I think Clinton has been assimilated into it – I think she’s embraced it. It’s what she knows. Why else cozy up to Scaife, and O’Reilly, and people she should refuse to be in a room with, after what they’ve done to her?
So I think that gamble we are all taking is that we can, somehow, change that by not engaging in it. Part of me is terrified it is too big a roll of the dice, and we’re gonna end up with a kneecapped candidate and President Bush, redoux. But part of me has to believe in the organization he has built, in the “more and better democrats” we have from Blue America, and at the end of the day, I have to roll the dice, with Obama, on the better angels of the American people’s nature. Beating down my cynicism isn’t easy.
That was really longwinded. Sorry.
I think Obama has more backbone than Gore or Kerry combined. Gore has done a great job since the 2000 clusterf**k but Kerry was a loser from the start. And I don’t think McShitForBrains has the skills to engage in a discussion requiring the ability to think on his feet. Once he gets past the core of a talking point he rambles meaninglessly.
Selise, was that from last year? You’re date on it has it in the future?
we’re still runnin over that dog in the last thread!
Ooohhh!. Sanchez next up on CSPAN’s WJ. This could be good.
This is what every mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, GOP wing nut needs thrown back in their face anytime they pull out this fake patriotic B.S:
“I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.”
Let’s get it on, McBatshitCrazySaint et al!!!
From Tombstone, It’s not revenge we’re after, it’s a reckoning.
Dems ‘08
The ID requirement is not part of the absentee ballot process. That is where the real voter fraud is possible, IMO. We are still trying to figure out how to fix the “absentee ballot problem.”
It will be interesting to see how many people were disenfranchised. Nuns. That’s a good one. Maybe some Catholics will get into some “high dungeon” over that.
How can that date be correct?
Thanks selise — I think you meant 2004?
retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez is coming up on CSPAN for the next hour
re: Obama’s lawyers: it was a pretty non-shop-talk get-together. But I got the distinct impression that they were pulling hard for that Indiana win, at which point they figured it was over. When it didn’t quite come through, they just kinda trudged out the door, like “oh well, back to work tomorrow”.
like everything else they’ve tried, there are loopholes and sloppiness a plenty – including no ID requirement for Absentee Ballots
my initial thoughts are they set this crap up with a 04 mindset – and people like that idiot Schlozman thinking “shiftless and lazy” types wouldn’t bother with mailing in an Absentee
no one could have anticipated unprecedented numbers of Americans coming out to register and exercise citizenship . . . their epitaph
The punditocracy has been served notice. Their demise as shapers of public opinion looms. The American people are soon to learn the corruption of the Republican Party and the complicity of the corporate media. Let’s hope that the Republican Party will begin an exile to the wilderness for generations to come. Let’s hope that the celebrity pundits merely fade into the sunset to enjoy their unearned golden years of retirement.
wigwam and scarecrow – of course you are correct! 2004.
shoot.
dear mods, would fix it for me – i hate to make people as confused as i am. so sorry.
Oh, the pundits won’t go away; and they can’t be embarrassed. Self awareness is a rare trait.
How sad and yet how exhilarating that statement is.
Also, on the primary? John Cole nails it. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10294#comments
Read the whole thing.
I already fixed it.
How’d I miss that firefight in the last thread? Gotta get up earlier, I suppose. My Lai, Powell, credibility – all in one thread. My, my, my.
and don’t worry about that date selise – he’ll say something equally disgusting in 6/08 – which is right around the time SCOTUS releases it’s MCA opinion :D
that wasn’t long-winded – that was a great explanation of where you are coming from. very helpful to me, thank you.
i’m with you on clinton, just haven’t been won over by obama yet (and may never be). but it took a long time for dean to win me over, so i’m willing to keep the jury out for a while yet.
We are not supposed to carry FF’s to other threads. See mods, I play by the rules!
I hope you are correct. The demise of the Republic Party and their celebrity pundits would make a great legacy for the Decider. However, they won’t go quietly or with dignity. The coming racist attacks, both subtle and direct, will be breathtaking.
Now at MSNBC.com
“A campaign aide says Hillary Clinton loaned herself $6.4 million in the past month”
good morning…im feeling more hopefull,as the celebrity newsreaders display their absolute cluelessness!
So, this was Ashcroft, whom Schumer was telling that torture is okay depending on circumstances, such as the ticking-time-bomb scenario. No wonder he likes Mukasey.
In Florida they’ll mail any registered voter an absentee ballot. The trick is the inner envelope the ballot is returned in has a place for a signature of the voter. That signature block area is over where the flap attaches to the main surface. If it doesn’t match the signature on file exactly it’s not counted. I don’t mail mine back in, I take to the Supervisor of Elections office. They will, upon request, verify the signature then and there.
and Mikka Br????? whatever the spelling is…..is sooooooo very PATHETIC,i actually feel very sorry for her lack of any persona
i lived in Fl for 40 years,it has become absolutely corrupted,guess cause it grew like dread locks,fast and loose
I liked Congressman Ellison and Ms Cohen’s handling of the ticking time bomb flim flam -
Oh, I wasn’t wanting to continue, I was just commenting on missing it.
Hey kdh22 – been lookin’ for ya. How have you been? I’ll be in your neck of the woods mid June.
was it Tweets, that suggested Obama pay her debt?he smokes weird stuff that guy
I was resisting telling you to go back there. Seems I’m blinded to the truth about Powell by “bitterness”.
wow, we disagree so profoundly i don’t know where to start.
1) obama didn’t distance himself from wright (that was done in obama’s speech on race), obama repudiated him and what he said (even when true).
2) you say obama had no choice – then how is it an act of courage?
3) perhaps you mean political courage and i was meaning moral courage? that might be part of our disagreement.
4) i think political courage is standing with the marginalized, the less powerful and not conceding to the demands of a bunch of rich white assholes on the tv.
5) don’t understand the reference to “white point of view” and “offends many blacks”.
but i do understand i’m apparently in the minority on this one.
if i can just wrap my head around the expediency argument, i’ll be ok. but everytime i think about courage and what i think would have been the right thing to do…. well, it makes it harder for me to get to the expediency rational.
I have heard that there is not good verification of signatures on ballots. I have thought that would be a solution to the absentee fraud, but it is not practiced in my state, so the absentee is where the total fraud would happen. Republicans win every time with absentee ballots, in the close races in NM.
Yeah. Something like if Obama agrees to pay Hillary’s debt, Hillary would drop out. Don’t know if it was his idea or something floated by one of the campaigns. I was half-listening at that point.
selise, I was won over by the young voters who are showing up in droves to support Obama. I think he is engaging a generation that has not participated. They are inspired, perhaps not the way I would hope, but they are the future. I am with them.
Politically, Obama is not much different than Clinton in many ways, but I think he is different in his temperment. I like that too.
Perfection is not possible. And the one thing we need to remember is that we can’t do anything unless we are the majority party and have the WH.
i believe practically everything Wright says,however,he could write a book,and not go granstanding at this minute in time…His friend is on a very important mission of his own….helping to take back America from a sociopathic cabal….he can wait for his 15 minutes,or just do the memoir thing……………imo
Thanks for the link to Cole. Well done rant. I share the notion that it’s a relief to be treated as an adult — but it’s interesting that Cole, as a reformed Reaganoholic, wants payback for what Bush/Cheney did to his former party — yet Obama almost never suggests payback. He took the reconcilation part from Wright, not the righteous indignation part.
Many of us crave “justice,” which also has more than a tinge of retribution; we want to see the war criminals before the Hague, not just for revenge but to reestablish the principle of justice/law — but that is not what Obama seems to be about (nor Clinton, either). There was no Dem candidate who spoke to that anger, although Gore once did.
in my barely caffeinated state I get it now – they were so careless about Absentees in Indiana ID bec it’s usually their baby – bwaahaahaa!
ya know,there is no down side for the Liars and power seekers
I wouldn’t rule out some help in retiring campaign debt; it’s just ironic (!!) that Obama might be asked to pay for ads that attacked him. Now that’s Christian charity for you.
not looking for perfection.
but i am trying to keep my head in the game and not gloss over stuff because he’s my candidate. i see my role as that of a skeptical citizen, not a cheerleader.
I am with them.
———————–
i am too….a healthy ZEST for living,and PEACE is in the air
morning all …
thanks for the speech link scarecrow…
and i’m feeling positive today! seeing the light at the end of the tunnel!
I certainly can’t argue that point. But we’re workin’ on it. This past legislative session has the natives out with pitchforks and torches. The state’s economy is on the event horizon and they want to pass bills like teaching creationism in schools (failed), “I Believe” Christian license plate (failed), relieving CSX from any liability if the state purchased 61 miles of track for a light rail system (failed), taking guns to work (passed). People here, of all stripes, are hot. For the first time in I don’t know how many years registered Dems outnumber Rethugs in Pinellas County. We’ve been registering ‘em like crazy. All those folks who moved here from elsewhere and wanted to turn Florida into the shithole they came from got a number of wake up calls this year already. Sarasota County just passed ordinances that really restricts development in the future. Right down the street from me there’s a new 8-unit condo complex. Been empty for almost a year. I heard yesterday that it’s now in foreclosure. Things are beginning to change here. About time.
I just think that if you listen to him and read his first book, you have to conclude that, if he is insincere, he is the best actor and liar I have ever seen. In may case, that satisfies my requirement that his basic intent is good. With regard to his intelligence, I don’t think his background and his speaking ability leave any question. He has an additional rare ability to inspire young people, which is no small thing.
With regard to specific programs, I sometimes think he is wrong on minutia, but believe it is obvious that he is a pragmatist, rather than an ideologue and will adapt as necessary to work toward the best solution. His campaign shows quite a bit in regard to leadership and organizational skill. Otherwise, I think that detail can sometimes be mileading. I’m old enough to remember that the big issue in the Kennedy-Nixon debates was whether or not the U.S. would come to the aid of Quemoy and Matsu if invaded by mainland China.
Riiiiight.
it ENCOURAGES that crap,imo…average americans pay a price for BAD decisions,lying politicians not so much
Well said.
Wes Clark for VP. He can mend the rift with the Clinton camp and spend the whole campaign talking about how to get out of Iraq,
Yup. The shit hit the fan yesterday on the UF budget. Things are going to get uglier in FL very fast.
Yeah, the D party needs a war monger on the ticket to compete with the Rs.
oh good for you….when a community gets together,there is power in numbers,and change can happen..
And I’m helping make it as ugly as possible. People like Ronda Storms drive me batshit crazy.
that’s a good point – sometimes what we call justice is at least partly revenge.
too often we accept the reactionary definitions of justice as retribution and reconciliation as the silencing of the marginalized who have been treated unjustly.
what does justice look like without revenge?
what does reconciliation look like without the silencing of those who’ve been wronged?
i think if we could answer these questions we’d be on our way to finding some progressive definitions.
“Yes, we know what’s coming. We’ve seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along”
Didn’t Obama mean to say KNOWING the media will play along…
Also, I’m not sure I can vote for Clinton. I certainly won’t vote for McSame, but I’m not sure I can hold my nose and pull the lever for HRC. Her campaign tactics have left such a sour taste in my mouth I would consider writing someone else in instead. I am one of the Dems that is definitely divided.
wadda ya think of Webb for veep?
Howard Fineman indicated that Bill will insist the campaign debt be part of any brokered deal. Fineman thought this would be done on May 21st. The day the DNC rules committee meets.
yep, and Kennedy’s big hit on Nixon: that the Republicans had allowed a “missile gap” in the Soviet’s favor. Turns out it was nonsense (and probably spread by neocons?)
This year’s equivalent is that we can “win” in Afghanistan if only we surge more troops there, and both parties are afflicted by this.
what does justice look like without revenge?
what does reconciliation look like without the silencing of those who’ve been wronged
—————–
S.Africa…Truth and Reconcilliation
Think about just two words. Supreme. Court.
How many Alito’s would you like to see on the Court?
The celebrity pundits may not go quietly but go they must. They have to be challanged, ridiculed, exposed at every opportunity. Ultimately they deserve being pulled down from their pedestals of ego and greed. New journalists such as Jane, Marcy, et al must replace the corrupt and complicit shapers of public opionion in the corporate media. The new journalism should inform the public rather than manipulate the public. The old media is dead, long live the new media.
I’m off D prez politics. Dislike both candidates so it’ll be another election where my vote is cast against a candidate, not for one.
Don’t think the Veep matters much, but do have a deep animosity against further militarization of everything in the U.S. On that score, I wouldn’t favor Webb either.
eCAHN: you gotta win the independents.
its always about the money…so mark PENN will get 10 million out of the dem warchest….fogetaboutit
That one is a puzzler for me. Before officially signing on with Hill, Wes was making some unpleasant noise about the lunatic fringe of the Israeli lobby.
With Hillary’s recent refrain of “Bomb Bomb Iran”, I wonder how he sits with this.
I understand from HuffPo that he’s urging her to quit.
sadlyyes – i think we are in violent agreement on this one. *g*
Well, putting a military on the ticket is the only sure way you can lose my vote.
SouthernDragon, I know inherently you’re correct.
I just don’t know if my gag reflex will allow it.
Also, HRC seems more and more to be following in the steps of Joe Lieberman, what good is that for the Dems or our country?
yesterday the Pentagon said they could not meet troop levels for Afghanistan,because of Iraq
I think there are several Dem Senators who would make excellent VPs, but I hate to lose another Senator, even though they vote in a tie. We’re going to need every vote to beat Mitch McConnell’s obstructionists, because i don’t think there into this Obama unity thing.
wow — that’s too much. buy us off and we’ll go away? talk about putting yourself first …
i watched some of it…TRULLY gut wrenching,im tearing up now..it would be a very good start
Clark is a brilliant man. He’s a genuine progressive on domestic matters. He knows foreign policy, defense policy and he used to teach economics. Bill and Hill would support him enthusiastically.
true dat
So, you’re saying you would be opposed to Sam Nunn? ;)
imo, our culture, our economy, our politics is militarized far far to much already. we don’t need to make the problem any bigger than it already is.
Who would you want as a candidate?
Didn’t know he was military & didn’t know he was under consideration for Veep.
…when we’re facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril – we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term. We need change in America.
Repeat often!
i do not like him
ding ding ding
my plan it to remind myself of the issue of judicial nominations on the first of nov.
until then, i’m not going to give myself a hard time about it.
that was just inspiring
Don’t care, as long as it’s not military.
Yeah, I would hope that Obama’s side can negotiate a deal where they pay the legitimate debts of her campaign, but don’t reward extravagant fees to the losers who were her “advisors”.
eCAHM: you think I’m not tired of my tax dollars going to feed the Military Industrial Complex? I was talking to a friend in England about how much money you need to make to live decently in the U.K., and I was amazed at how low an annual salary he quoted. I told him over here we have to factor in the cost of health insurance. He said “our taxes pay for healthcare.” I said “our taxes pay for war.”
.
worked so well in NC yesterday didn’t it ?? -
Raleigh News & Observer this am -
Governor (R)
Pat McCrory 233,877
Fred Smith 186,402
Bill Graham 46,800
Bob Orr 34,104
Elbie Powers 4,451
Governor (D)
Beverly Perdue 845,698
Richard Moore 601,071
pls note losing Dem had almost 3 times votes of winning Republic
ooh and
U.S. Senate (R)
Elizabeth Dole 461,085
Pete Di Lauro 51,552
U.S. Senate (D)
Kay Hagan 811,566
Bring It On !
From HuffPo
McCain’s Rough Night Overshadowed By Clinton’s
i WONT CONTRIBUTE a red cent to that POS
i would have liked a gore/obabma ticket a lot. given where we are now?
definitely not an ex-mil veep. gotta figure that whoever is veep now is presumptive nominee in ‘16. interesting question …
Thank you so much for your clear headed courage on this matter. I think a lot of rank and file Democrats have internalized the propaganda that liberals have to compromise every moral point in order to get elected. This is why we have Blue-and-Bush Dogs today, because we have continued to elect our reps despite knowing how much they have “repudiated” of their own base.
Yep.
We elect more and better Democrats to Congress. If we get Dems to stand by their oath to defend the Constitution we can prevent the kind of crap the Bushites have been practicing for the last 8 years. Bush may have given Clinton the idea that she can run an imperial presidency; we need to show her, if she prevails, that she can’t.
General Eisenhower agreed with you.
Duh.
We could run Wesley Clark up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. That image alone would be worth it. *g*
He’s not military, per se. He is heavily pro-military. His name has popped up from time-to-time. He would add a southern flavor to the ticket.
Not promoting him. Just pointing out what has been said.
Selise,
can you please explain further?
Much appreciated.
Yes, look at those numbers and then remember that Bush took NC by 12 points in 2004. I don’t see how McCain can take that state this year. The R’s had to be doing a big GOTV effort for the governor and Senate races, yet they were absolutely massacred on turnout.
SHOULD WE pay for this stuff too
Dr. Council said that she had been contacted numerous times by both campaigns, though she said the Clinton campaign has been more aggressive. She seemed upset about calls from the campaign.
“They asked me what it would take to get my vote and I said, ‘I don’t think I heard you right,’” Dr. Council told RAW STORY Tuesday. “‘I know I didn’t hear you imply that my vote was for sale.’ ‘Oh no,’ [they said], ‘that wasn’t what I intended to say at all.’ … ‘Then what the hell do you mean?’
CSPAN asking my email Q.
I agree. I guess I’m just so tired of the crap and feeling so helpless to stop this horrible machine.
Know what I mean?
Sanchez sez he knew about propaganda retired generals & approved of it to get the success story out.
Obama’s got a big problem.
Issues like Wright, Ayres, and Rezko aren’t going to go away, because he lacks any record to speak of, and his pitch is “trust me”. Obama has made his character — his supposed ability to achieve “unity” and change — the major issue of his campaign so far, and his past is an issue, and not just a media distraction.
Moreover, Obama and his staff did everything in their power to use non-issue distractions against Clinton — Bosnian snipers anyone? — and conservatives can point to Obama’s own tactics during the primary season any time one of them tries to shut down a discussion of Wright, etc.
Me personally, I’m sitting out november. I haven’t spent the last three and a half decades voting straight-ticket Democratic in large part because I find the GOP’s Southern Strategy so abhorrent, and then turn around and vote for a candidate that has employed his own version of the Southern strategy to increase margins and turnout in the African American community. Obama has stood by while his campaign has painted Hillary and Bill Clinton, two of the finest Democrats of this generation as racist in order to ensure that he gets huge margins out of the black community.
I won’t put up with it from Republicans, and I’m not putting up with it from a Democrat
yea,but guess theyll still soldier on …into Iran prolly
Late to work. Again. And it’s all youse guy’s fault. *g*
hey!
I’m trying to understand why Nunn’s name ever came up. He hasn’t been around in quite awhile and the younger generation wouldn’t know how he is at all.
You may not remember but I got kicked off the Clark book salon for asking embarrassing Qs. I depsire the man. He’s a war monger dressed up by Central Casting to appear otherwise.
Wesley Clark lapel pins?
The only easy day was yesterday.
Never. Give. Up.
By the way, I’m usually a lurker here and I’d like to thank Selise and SouthernDragon for engaging me. In fact, I would like to thank all of you for your thoughtful comments.
Cheers!
don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
As rational as you are, I’m always surprised to hear your knee jerk opposition to anyone with a military background. They really aren’t turned out by cookie cutter. While still in the military, they are precluded by law from expressing opinions counter to policy instituted by the civilian leadership (see Truman vs. McArthur), but some of the more rational non-militaristic guidance on Iraq has come from retired military. Even with regards to justice, the military JAG’s seemed to remember the Constitution when no one else did. I have a hard time believing you would have opposed George C. Marshall as Secretary of Defense or State.
Why should Obama pay Clinton’s debts?
SHE earned them.
Too much like a ‘bribe’.
Should Obama then pay McCain’s debts as well?
The original ’suggestion’ was from a talking-head, IIRC, why give it any legitimacy at all?
it’s just amazing what they’ll admit to, isn’t it? of course, they all knew and approved about everything — propaganda, torture, domestic spyng, the whole package
I won’t. I won’t. I promise.
You know those numbers have got to be making some GOP heads explode. I guess the racist ads did not fare so well for the NC GOP, huh?
There is an ID requirement for absentee voting. I had to show my passport when I voted last week in Porter County before I could receive a ballot.
i remember…im not big for saluting or curtsying …just sayin
Come back often. As Brother Dave Gardner once said:
Be kind to your enemies.
You’re supposed to give it to your friends.
its always divide and conquer,its a disease
just my version of kicking the can down the road (although with a real deadline).
i’m almost certain i’ll end up voting D in the end, no matter who is the candidate or how much it pains me. so, i’m going to remind myself of the arguments for why i should do that (judicial nominations being a big one) just before election day in november.
but until then i’m going to try to avoid angsting about it.
yeah, it’s chickenshit. but there’s only so much compromise i can take… so i figure, why not at least limit the amount of time i have to think about it.
I have vague memories of that. Did you bring up his belligerence toward Russia over Kosovo?
And there has been so much success to talk about hasn’t there? Year after year after year. If McCain gets elected we can be talking about success in Iraq for another 4 years too.
verification of nukes work – done in concert with Lugar (Obama mentor)
and Nunn’s endorsement last week spoke to backroom Superdel’s
Hmmm. I thought that was the point of training.
My opposition to the military stems from what I see them doing, on balance.
Sure there’s a few who’ve spoken out, including the brave ones you cite from JAG. But their goods are severely outweighed by the others’ bads.
Only if it could end it this week.
Isn’t Sam Nunn a little long in the tooth?
My interpretation of what we’ve witnessed is 180 degrees from yours. Sorry you won’t be able to see your way clear to find a way back from the last 7 years.
Obama already has the young vote. Nunn would pull in older pro-military southern voters.
At least pretend to care about unifying the party.
Christy has a nice brand spanking new post up. Speaking of spanking, the post is in regard to New FEC Maneuvers: Von Spakovsky Still a Nominee, But to Get Separate Vote.
Well, Paul, at least you are not voting ‘for McCain because Obama can”t win.’
You certainly don’t suffer from any delusions, do you?
Perhaps you might lecture us all at some length …
Frankly, Paul, I don’t give a damn what you do.
I’d ask you to do it quietly, but I know that’s not your nature, as all the data relevant to that ‘topic’ will clearly indicate …
No argument. But, imagine how courageous and principled the good ones must be to be willing to speak out against the others. I’d love to have the good ones on my side. Let’s not throw the baby out with the dishwater.
I know I can’t convert you, but would suggest you wouldn’t oppose any economist as Sec. of Treasury based on the Chicago output which has held sway. They’ve done at least as much harm as military leaders and aren’t sworn to follow anyone’s orders. Okay, I’ll drop it. But I served four years as an officer in the USAF and met some of the most capable,caring, and well informed people I’ve ever known.
My opposition to the military stems from what I see them doing, on balance.
Your opposition is misplaced.
DoD does nothing that the Executive Branch doesn’t authorize.
Thus, this election.
I’m not following here. I get you do not want anyone military in the WH for Pres or VP. I understand you do not like the two candidates the Dems have offered. Yet, you state, you do not care. If you do not like what is out there, then you do care and specifics beyond “no military” need to be added.
If you do not care then how can you criticize and not come up with names of who you see as possible leadership for Washington? “I don’t care, just no military is rather broad as far as defining what you want in a leader. If you are going to make a point about who you do not like then you need to define your argument with examples of who you would vote for. “I don’t care as long as it is no military” does not move the dialog forward.
I in all honesty do not understand what kind of leadership you envision outside of “no military”. Can you give more specifics? Is there someone out there who comes close to what you envision as a leader?
By the way, I am not for a military leader either. I just do not know how one moves past generalizations like “no military”.
and one more thing -
after yesterday’s news that there’s another $24m in Clinton money not disclosed – let the Czar and Czarina pay Raspenntin off !
errr. bathwater.
Hear! Hear!
Not to mention that the Clintons have never walked away from the AA community when it was politically advantageous to do so; Obama has numerous times, including the Wright situation.
Clinton reeled in the much needed blue collar vote, and it’s about to be lost again. Can’t win w/o it, I don’t think.
i remember that one very, very well. i was a little luckier – probably because i spent some time with the early morning crew trying to figure out how to ask my questions without pissing off the PTB. clark didn’t respond to one of my questions though (or directly to any others that weren’t softballs) – thought that spoke volumes.
p.s. i completely agree about the central casting description.
Perhaps you should have a nice chat with Hillary, then.
I agree, that it should end NOW, but ‘delusional’ comes to mind …
I cannot sanction the notion of rewarding HRC, by picking up HER bar tab …
Even if it was only kool-aid that was being drunk …
The rest of us PAY for our mistakes.
It is past time for politicians to do so as well.
Don’t you think?
I still like Richardson. Southern Latino governor with political experience.
Watching “ScarCrow” Scarborough (he likes to put up straw men and knock them down against Obama) and I heard that Hill loaned herself another $6.4 mil. Apparently she’s the only person who is still willing to pay for her run. Watching her speech last night I got the impression she’s living in her own little world.
1. You’re right. I was careless. Distance first, repudiation later. Obama’s running for president of a country where nationalism matters. Many Americans don’t want to discuss the possibility the government created AIDs and an experiment got out of hand. Suggesting that means you’re nuts. It’s like disputing the existence of God. Will not make you a popular politician no matter what your religious inclination.
2. In a sense there is always a choice-to act or not. Obama in drifting to white had to perhaps alienate blacks although I think they see the box he’s in. Obama is ambitious, but he is comparatively honest. Wright endangered his campaign. Obama reacted, properly I think.
3.I don’t distinguish between political and moral courage. It may be some situations call for a choice between death or dishonor. That makes me courageous up to a point which I guess is not courageous at all. Obama didn’t go for the meaningless suspension of the federal gas tax when the other two did. That counts for something.
4. I think Obama is a closet populist, but he can’t reveal too much of that because the populace he means to benefit doesn’t see itself as downtrodden. You may not remember George McGovern in the 70’s who suggested an almost confiscatory estate tax on estates over five million. Seemed like a good idea since the tax impacted less than half of one percent of the population. McGovern lost every state but Massachusetts. A politician cannot ignore public fantasies. Everyone expects to be a millionaire someday.
5. I’m assuming you’re white, so you see Obama’s repudiation of Wright as to be expected. Obama needs his black base who does not find Wright nearly as offensive. It’s a fine line.
Obama is well above the usual politician. He doesn’t walk on water (ie he first said he hadn’t heard Wright’s bluster) but he’s smart and he’s a quick learner. He’s better than what usually comes down the pike by quite a bit. Get on board.
hope you will lurk less and comment more! nice talking with you.
Nice post, scarecrow.
I do think we witnessed last night the beginning of the end of the primary process. I saw Obama’s speech last night. My thoughts are this: words do matter, inspiring words matter more. I get that from him.
But it’s Clinton who’s dividing the party. Okay.
ecahn and crosstimbers – ok how about Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift as a compromise?
And this is what Paul Begala called Obama voters last night:
“Eggheads and African-Americans”
Thank you, Clinton campaign. Good riddance.
I’d vote for him for just about anything he wanted to be.
You, David and the FDL Pups all did a nice job of vetting yesterdays Indiana and North Carolina election results.
The housing issue has not been addressed here in depth. That is an oversight that needs some energy. High housing costs are the fallout from the subprime bubble which Ian Welch wrote very well on.
A good start may be the National Low Income Housing Coalition
’s report “Out of Reach” 2007-2008 http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2008 . The foreclosed people have come back to the rental market including msny potential buyers on the sidelines. Rental prices have gone through the roof. These folks are democrats in the main. Please please Christy, Jane Scarecrow do a needed series on this highly impacted segment…mother and babies sleepinmg in cars…more one payment away from homelessness with cuts to Housing and Urban development the waiting list are long and CLOSED.
twolf1: I care more about policy than “The Party.” A third of the electorate is “Independent.”
If Hillary diehards insist on making Obama the villain in the primary race, there’s nothing I can do to dissuade them.
Having the comments devolve into another pie fight is not helpful to anyone. No one is excluded here just because they supported one or the other candidate; but personal attacks on anyone are not acceptable from anyone.
We asked people to refrain from primary pie fights here; we’ve done it repeatedly. Take it somewhere else.
Howard Wolffson seems to believe that Black Americans and blue collar workers are mutally exclusive.
-G
Being rude to them won’t help anyone.
I get you now. Thanks Selise.
no thanks, not if it means i have to call cowardice courage and check my values at the door.
there are lots of reasons to support obama – many have been described here. but faith that he is someone other than who he pretends to be is not one that works for me.
Tell that to Lani Gunier and the Rickie Ray Rector.
-G
Here’s a transcript of that, so that everyone can glean the context.
“Eggheads and African-Americans”.
I won’t forget that for a long time. Being white, I guess I’m an “egghead”, and that’s supposed to be an insult. Was “African-American” meant as an insult, too? Maybe Juno or another of the dead-enders can elucidate.
The Clinton campaign are contemptible, contributing nothing to our party, much less the national discourse, unless you consider epithets and threats to “obliterate” other countries a contribution. It’s greatly satisfying to her hoisted on her own petard, that desperately cynical gas tax ploy.
for someone who came here and called commenters for disagreeing with you, you have a lot of nerve.
and if i thought the clintons were the best the Ds had to offer, i would have given up on the party long ago.
I don’t understand. Who does Obama pretend to be? Do you think deep down he’s an angry black guy like Wright? Are you saying he’s dishonest? In what sense?
i didn’t know my typing was that bad.
your analysis, not mine.
Am I allowed to personally attack McCain or is that out of bounds too?
Amen. And Good Riddance.
He’s on TV yelling at a cloud right now.
-G
I think your take on Obama’s response to Wright is unfair. Obama had two responses, the speech in Philadelphia and then the repudiation. The speech in Philadelphia, for all its political calculation, was sensitive and candid on the subject of race, at least by the measure of American politics. On the other hand, can you blame Obama for feeling personally betrayed by a man who subsequently spoke so dismissively of him, and jumped into the political arena at his expense with such noisy provocation?
Is pastor Wright, now novice politician and accidental celebrity, really the one you want addressing the politics of race and class in this country? Will he win the debate such discourse engenders? A smidgen of political sensitivity is in order.
What is your analysis?
Calling him “Mc”Cain may be out of bounds but just calling him Cain should be OK.
not sure yet.
We won our Independence from Great Britain, the World power then, by guerilla warfare. Only those with big profit potential will keep going to war against millions (maybe billions) of indiginous people. PNAC’s preemptive policy should be pronounced dead by the Dems. This neocon group has brought our countrry to the brink. They have to be made to wear that. Looks like Obama is doing that. Our domestic situation is untenable. Busgco wants to privatize everything with corporate profits built in that nodel needs to be publically dismantled. He was indirect in the global warming remarks which could be a step to major job creations. He needs to hook that up and move it in front.
LOL
We wont be fooled Mc’Gain …
Noted, for future reference. Thanks for calling me on that. :)
Appreciate your insight. Thanks.
I fully agree with your post. In order to avoid a pie fight, and ignore a couple of late comers whose only possible purpose is to derail the point made in your post, I’m moving on today. Have a good one.
LOL.
and a very belated thank you for yesterday’s analysis.
*g*
barbara Omelet, reporting for duty.
‘Twas my pleasure, selise, I’m glad you liked it.
As you know, levity may sometimes underscore absurdity far more effectively than invective …
;~D
wow. you really can’t tell when you’re being pandered to, can you?
Equating what it means to live with the impact of 4 centuries of African American oppression with White resentment of Affirmative Action programs was utterly despicable — but it did make white people feel good about their own latent racism.
Just as the “Clinton campaign is racist” strategy in South Carolina was designed to make the issue of race radioactive, so too was Obama’s exploitation of race in the Philadelphia speech designed to make discussion of Wright radioactive. Anyone who truly thought that we need an honest dialogue about race would have started that dialogue when the Clinton’s were being portrayed as racists by Obama’s own campaign and supporters — heads should have rolled in the Obama campaign, and the fact that they didn’t sent the signal “race-pimping is okay with Obama in the name of victory.”
Obama is going to bring unity by dividing the party along racial lines? Explain that one to me again.
Obama is a different kind of politician? No, he’s the exact same kind of politician that progressives have been opposed to for the last three and a half decades. Just because Obama is black doesn’t mean that real progressive accept his race-baiting.
Please remember Obama was deeply involved in assisting non profits who’s missions were addressing poverty. Not so much what is said: but he buckled down and gave up other options to help. I like your comments generally but is this back and forth moving the paradigm?
Paul is the problem Obama?
Or the color of his skin?
After two months about hearing about what “whites” or their alter-egos, “blue collar” voters wanted in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, then hear a Clintonite make his disdain for non-white opponents of Clinton explicit, I have to admit I turn a deaf ear to your accusation of Obama being a “race baiter”.
This, on the other hand, is legitimate, and pretty perceptive:
I see the same thing less critically — my first take on Obama’s speech is that he knows exactly how much whites are willing to listen to on the subject. In other words, I was very impressed with his political skills. You evidently can’t digest politics mixed with your principles. Maybe some avenue outside politics can accomodate your unalloyed idealism.
but i’m not trying to see into his soul to judge if he is a “good” person or a “bad” person. i’m just trying to judge his public actions. i can think helping nonprofits is good and repudiating wright was wrong – the two are not mutually exclusive.
i’m not trying to move the paradigm. i’m just trying to understand as best i can…. and find the help / arguments / different views here helpful. is the goal to be cheerleaders or to try, as best as we are able, to be a reality based community with progressive values? i’m not so interested in being a cheerleader.
Obama is the problem. African American politicians don’t need to race-pimp to win among Democrats if they have the right ideas and experience.
Allow me to rephrase that slightly, Paul, that there be no confusion.
Certainly you do not have a problem with Obama’s skin color, but you are deeply worried that too many ‘others’ do …
Would that discribe your concern?
Or would some person of ‘color’, other than Obama, not have that problem?
I agree. My parents long ago told us that we are ultimately judged by our actions and not our words. I look at what he has done over the course of his adult life and see someone who was very active in the community and that (at least fo rme) is telling.
The Clintons are the equivalent of a Political Leisure Suit.
No longer hip or relevant.
first off, I’ve never expressed disdain for Obama’s black supporters, and I wouldn’t do so any more than I’d express disdain for Clinton’s female supporters.
Secondly, I’m hardly an idealist — no ‘idealist’ would have decided that Clinton was a better choice than Obama after starting out as “Anyone but Clinton”. Were I an idealist, I would have jumped on the Magiccal Unity Pony.
You seem to be missing the distinction between idealism and inviolable principles. Objecting to painting the Clintons as racists isn’t ‘idealism’, its simply a matter of having some core principles.
how exactly do you square that with calling a bunch of us sexist?
My advice to you would be to try to sympathize with Obama on a personal level in regards to his “repudiation”. His entire political career has been about speaking the language of conciliation and you’re asking him to somehow defend the language of a preacher, who faces no consequences than celebrity/notoriety for what he says.
In that vein, of thinking about how he tries to be a conciliator, I would also ask that you examine an aspect of his “character” that goes unremarked precisely because it’s inconspicuous: he’s cool and judicious in the way he talks. For example, on Meet the Press this week he was asked to comment on Clinton’s bloodthirsty statements on Iran. I would have like a more blunt and impassioned answer than he gave — and liked to have seen him say the obvious, that Israel has nuclear weapons, but he actually restricted himself to spoke blandly like a diplomat and arguably took the right diplomatic tack in understanding the Sunday gabfests weren’t the right forum for stating the unstated about Israel when he will have to negotiate a modus vivendi between Israel and Iran and president.
Obama doesn’t really inspire me. I’ll let others be inspired. But he seems to me to have the best temperament, “judgment” and political skill to be president.
Clinton isn’t going to win the nomination. Obama is. That’s just the math so where does this leave you?
You’re selective in your “inviolable principles”, then.
As for your comment about “race-pimping”, it’s just inflammatory.
I’ll let others respond to you.
Pay attention, and don’t be so defensive. I was talking about Begala.
In deference to Scarecrow, it should not be a pie fight. But all Democrats will need to deal with the demise of the Clintons’ grifting. Dowd hit on it today in the NYT: How do you get rid of the Clintons because they so effectively use a mediocre media to make stories, sell advertising etc. The media makes money off the Clintons and the Clintons’ attack on the media, when convenient, is just food for the programmers.
By way of example, look at the race issue as it developed in this campaign. First the Clintons raised it in SC by accusing Barack of just being a Jesse Jackson. Then, fast forward to Pennsylvania time period. The Clintons trot out Geraldine Ferraro to accuse Barack of just being an affirmative action guy, then they trot out Ed Rendell to state that there are plenty of white folks who won’t vote for a black guy. Then the Clintons accuse Barack of race baiting in the campaign.
The Clintons, who are they, 100 million dollar grifters with a personal business plan, consoldiating corporate media, the Communications Act of 1996, NAFTA, populists, Iran nukers, OPEC smashers, Bill was disbarred for lying, HRC’s Bosnia survival lie, they appointed the likes of Tenet and Berger, gas tax eliminators, fossil fuel dependers (our dependence on foreign fossil fuel rose almost 20% when they were in the White House with not attempt at solving that problem).
Who is Barack, according to the Clintons, a man without portfolio, no experience. I’ll take that accusation and live with it.
The question raised by Dowd in the New York Times today is how far the Clintons will go to destroy Barack and the Democratic party and how does the Democratic party deal with the Clintons in their downward spiral going forward. It is going to be tough. It will not be business as usual. It will not be reuniting the Democratic party as usual. The Clintons will try to make it a pie fight, sorry for that Scarecrow.
those are two separate and distinct questions. After looking at Obama’s background, my doubts about his electability were exacerbated because the questions that would arise about his character would have even more impact because Obama is an “other” to most Americans. It wasn’t his being “black” that concerned me so much as his “otherness” — people would want to understand who Obama was before they voted for him, and that “otherness” interferes with the “identification” process that makes people decide who to support — people would be looking for “answers”, and the GOP would be happy to provide them.
My decision to not vote for Obama in November has nothing to do with his electability. I’ve supported Democratic candidates that I’ve known were going to lose in the past — and I’ve voted for Democratic candidates who I didn’t like (like Casey here in PA) simply because they were democrats.
My objections to Obama are based on his adoption of a “southern strategy” type campaign to win the nomination. I can’t support Republicans because that strategy continues to this day, and I’ll sit out November rather than acquiesce to a Democrat who employs the same tactics against fellow Democrats.
Paul Lukasiak:
So the ‘right’ person of ‘color’with the ‘right ideas and experience’ would be okay?
Just as long as they didn’t mention race?
Gee, don’t you suspect that ’someone else’ might raise that issue, anyway?
Do you or don’t you believe a person of color could become President?
I realize that you and only you actually understand CORE PRINCIPALS and the rest of us are simply, how did you phrase it, ‘delusional’?
Paul you are absolutely in a class by yourself and I marvel that you even bother with the likes (or dislikes) of the rest of us.
Remember; We are sexist and delusional, don’t pay adequate attention to those who OBVIOUSLY know BETTER than we, are desrespectful and don’t know when to shut up and listen to wisdom from on high. We are DENSE, thick as a brick, probably stupid and definitely dumb. Sorry, I know I’ve left something out …
Why even BOTHER?
brendanx: I see you ate your Wheaties this morning. *g*
While there is a Rashomon element to this discussion, various observers with strikingly different opinions about what happened, I think the Clinton’s (Bill) brought up race first. Obama counterpunched. He had to or get swiftboated like Kerry.
I find it difficult to believe you see Obama as less than Clinton. You dismiss the sniper fire in Bosnia as insignificant. I see it as a sign of mental disorder. There is just no way to put a good face on it. She also struggles with gender issues more than Obama struggles with race issues. To show she has “balls” she holds open the possibility of nuking Iran. Her gas tax forgiveness idea was foolish as is her decision to spend money she does not have on her campaign. I know that’s often done, but it never is a good idea. Finally her claim to be “experienced” has nothing to do with her judgment which is demonstrably bad. She not only voted for Kyle-Lieberman, she gave George Bush a blank check for his war and has yet to concede she was mistaken. Obama may not walk on water, but he carries far less baggage than she does.
you make good points, and i’m not trying argue for rejecting obama as a candidate.
you’ve touched on something here which helps me understand my own discomfort with obama re wright… and that is that i don’t agree (at least as far as i understand it) with obama’s kind of conciliation – because it requires that the people who have been harmed must be silenced, that we must forget the past and move on without coming to terms with what has really happened and what that has meant for so many americans.
as discussed above, i don’t want this to be a process that includes revenge – but i do want the truth to be told, everyone’s truth. but especially those who have not had their voices heard. obama’s vision of reconciliation, as far as i can tell, bypasses this… and so, to me, is not a true reconciliation – for example, of the kind that people like mlk or ghandi advocated and fought for.
This response was so laden with typos and errors I hope you’ll let me correct it:
My advice to you would be to try to sympathize with Obama on a personal level in regards to his “repudiation”. His entire political career has been about speaking the language of conciliation and you’re asking him to somehow defend the language of a preacher, who faces no consequences other than celebrity/notoriety for what he says.
In that vein, of thinking about how he tries to be a conciliator, I would also ask that you examine an aspect of his “character” that goes unremarked precisely because it’s inconspicuous: he’s cool and judicious in the way he talks. For example, on Meet the Press this week he was asked to comment on Clinton’s bloodthirsty statements on Iran. I would have liked a more blunt and impassioned answer than he gave — and would have liked to have seen him say the obvious, that Israel has nuclear weapons. Instead, he he actually restricted himself to criticizing the tenor of her comments and saying, roughly, that we need more diplomacy. He spoke blandly like a diplomat, and he arguably took the right diplomatic tack in understanding that the Sunday gabfests aren’t the right forum for stating the unstated about Israel when he will have to negotiate a modus vivendi between Israel and Iran as president.
Obama doesn’t really inspire me. I’ll let others be inspired. But he seems to me to have the best temperament, “judgment” and political skill to be president.
hey, if you can’t understand the distinction between “a good reason to not support Clinton”, and “a good reason why men will support Obama, but not Clinton, when women have no problem supporting both”, I have to assume that you are reacting on a subconscious level to block what should be obvious and non-controversial — that while there may be good reasons why PEOPLE don’t support Clinton, that doesn’t explain why MEN refuse to support her when women do.
ekunin – if you want to turn me into a true obama supporter, just make me read more of paul’s defense of the clintons.
The choice is not McCain, Clinton, Obama, Ghandi.
dang, poo still flying around?
obama/lama 08!!!111
As vice president, Wes Clark might help us get to universal medicare and other needed social programs too. After all, he ran one of the biggest socialist governments in the world: the U.S.military.
If they are going to militarize our society, let’s have all the benefits as well:
All our soldiers have government provided healthcare, subsidized education and and housing. In the good old days before privatization, it also ran the largest job training program in the world, perhaps still does.
Clark is used to administering large socialized programs. Like Obama, he is highly educated in the social scienes as well as having extensive management experience. It would be interesting to see an Obama-Clark team at work in the presidency.
seriously.
how many times do i have to say that i’m not rejecting obama as a candidate on this issue. what i am rejecting is the characterization of obama’s repudiation of wright as an act of courage when i think it was the opposite.
… and as an aside, your comment helped me understand part of why that is – because i don’t buy obama’s message of reconciliation.
Ah, yes, war profiteer Wes Acxiom Clark.
I’d rather not have a military person as VP. There are other posts for them.
This is well said, and I agree with it. Now my question is, in all seriousness: Is it Obama’s job to do the things you want done here? Is it his job to tell the truth about the past, or to provide restitution. His metier is politics. He is a professional politician, and his effort to “conciliate”, from what I glean, is a strategic political effort to create as broad a consensus as possible for governing, and fixing the country. Don’t we have historians, preachers, pundits, lawyers and teachers to do these other things?
paul -
did you just call me sexist? sure sounded that way to me, but i want to make sure. so say it straight: yes or no?
OK then that’s your assignment-but you don’ have to memorize
i’m an idiot who apparently will never learn.
lol. ok then, thanks prof.
Does anyone notice how a certain person never addresses any of us by name?
I suspect that has to to with the UNIVERSAL application of his supremely splendid notions …
As well as assuring that one is never able to be accused of saying anything ‘personal’.
One may rest assured that this is the proof of detached, scientifically rigorous, intent, nothing personal, of course.
One may be quite pleased with oneself.
One is one who is won-derfully one … in a class and a space of one.
Rubbish!
You’re rejecting a straw man. “Courageous” is the last thing I’d call the repudiation, as it was obviously expedient, and politically necessary. That doesn’t make the repudiation insincere, by the way.
I don’t buy the “message” of conciliation, either. I couldn’t tell you what that “message” even is.
My initial support for him was solely on the basis of his past and present opposition to the war — as manifested in statements, votes and choices of personnel. What I’ve begun to admire, however, is what I call “temperament” — besides his much vaunted oratorical skills (to which I’m mostly indifferent) he has focus, discipline, judgment and political acumen. The “conciliation” in my understanding, is a narrow political tactic, but to me it seems now far-sighted, given that he has to repair a breach in the party. Incoherent, inflammatory comments of lukasiak aside, Obama has held his tongue and not said the kind of irreperably insulting and divisive things Clinton’s campaign have said.
a person with the right ideas and experience would be the “right” person regardless of their color. And of course I’d expect any candidate, regardless of their race, to address racial issues — and to do so honestly.
And I don’t think that the GOP would “mention” a the race of a black candidate with the right ideas and experience to win. They’d dog-whistle it. And our response would be to call them on it.
Obama’s problem is that the GOP doesn’t have to ‘dog-whistle’ anything at all about Obama’s race — they can just point to his past and “who is this guy really?”. Ayres has nothing to do with race, and Ayres is going to be a problem. And Wright had far less to do with race qua race than with Wright’s radical perspective on race — or more properly, the manner in which he presented that radical perspective. Obama decided to make that presentation a ‘race’ issue, and say it was acceptable to him… until Wright made the mistake of taking his presentation out of his Church, and in front of a hostile white media at the National Press Club.
WRight said nothing “outrageous” that he hadn’t said in the past at the National Press Club (except that Obama was a politician — not exactly an “outrageous” or “shocking” thing to say.) Obama threw Wright under the bus not because he expressed “outrageous” and “shocking” opinions, but because he did so in front of white people.
I personally share Wright’s overall perspective when it comes to this nation’s history and the question of race. But I knew the minute I looked into Wright that he would be a serious problem for Obama, because I know how people react to my perspective.
You’re attempt to cast me as some sort of racist is really tiresome, btw.
It was his temperament, judgment and political skill that caught my attention this past week. Prior, I was Edwards, then Clinton. Clinton disenfranchised me in her political skill tactics over the last three weeks. That is what I came to…It’s about in exercising my vote and asking who has the better temperament, judgment and political skill.
Selise, Obama is not silencing anyone with the use of conciliation. Conciliation does not mean “move on without coming to terms with what really happened.” Conciliation, done correctly, in time, allows for people to stop screaming past one another and allows for truth. Truth is not retribution based or victimization based. It is a process of accepting all aspects of the problem by all involved.
Silencing happens when one uses fear to censor. I have not heard Obama play the fear card in order to silence. What I do understand is that his comments have more to do with his life context as describe here:
http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3705
“irreparably”
It goes without saying, of course, that we’re not examining Republicans, who are by definition unfit to govern, for qualities of “temperament”, etc. Just in case anyone thought I was getting all “post-partisan”.
see my comment @25, that’s no strawman – that’s where the conversation started and that’s the issue my comments have primarily been in response to.
Why are you responding to something so obviously wrong when you could be responding to me? *g*
I forgot an important thing: he’s genuinely intellectual. Aside from leading him to the correct conclusions on big things like our foreign policy, that “egghead” quality, along with his fine writing ability and “articulateness”, is very refreshing.
McGovern has just switched to Obama and has asked Hillary to drop out. Link
Paul, if you think you are perceived as a racist by me you are quite wrong.
I did not say that, as any honest reading of what I did say will reveal.
What I will say is that your ‘build up’ here was overblown and definitely NOT supported by your behavior.
I find you not racist nor sexist, just overbearing.
And, since, Paul, you’ve not the courtesy to even recognize us as individuals, I find you impolite.
.
707.
fair enough. i thought you were jumping into the pre-exsisting conversation to explain why i was wrong.
guess you just got to get in line if you want to argue with me. i’ll save you a spot up front next time. *g*
What is “707″?
AFAIK, the first person to raise race as an issue was Obama’s campaign chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., who said that he was offended “as an African American” that Hillary Clinton didn’t cry when she toured New Orleans.
I don’t know who reaised the issue of the Bradley effect to explain Obama’s loss in NH when the polls said he’d win (not the Clinton camp–but it could have been someone who was just honestly trying to explain what they thhought had happened) but the Obama campaign certainly pushed the Bradley effect as an explanation for why Obama did not do as well as the polls predicted (rather than acknowledge that the polling internals showed that his “top-line” lead was based on soft support).
Bill Clinton didn’t mention race — but he was accused of racism by Obama supporters when he described Obama’s supposed consistent opposition to the Iraq war as a “fairy tale.” That one was pushed, and pushed hard, by none other than Donna Brazile, as a ‘race’ issue, when it was obvious there was nothing racial about it.
Then Hillary herself was accused of racism by pointing out that you need more than just inspirational leadership to effect change — you need political savvy as well.
Then the Obama campaign put out its “how to play the race card” memo….
As far as Bill Clinton’s ‘Jesse Jackson’ comment — there was nothing racist about it. If we can’t discuss the impact of the black vote (or the women’s vote) without being accused of racism or misogyny, then there is a real problem. If we can’t be honest, if we have to pretend that Obama didn’t get only 24% of the white vote, and his big win was due to overwhelming support from the black community that no white male with Obama’s record and schtick would have gotten against people like John Edwards and Hillry Clinton, there is no road to understanding and resolution of racial issues.
707 = Laughing Out Loud (LOL) so hard that i fell over backwards in my chair.
Selise, do you understand the distinction between a good reason why people don’t support Hillary Clinton, and how it is possible that men respond differently than women to the same set of “good reasons” if sexism isn’t involved?
If the answer is ‘yes’ then i wasn’t referring to you.
If the answer is “no” then I was.
When you ask a “collective” question, you’re going to get a “collective” response. If you are part of the collective described in the response, then the answer applies to you.
I
I prefer “forthright”
“Let us come together, Democrats”. I like a call to action, which is what this statement is. We’ve been through a wrenching process, fueled by the media’s obsession of inconsequentials, by the necessary battle of our candidates in their quest to win, by the brutal length of this primary.
Clinton’s supporters have contributed to severe hard feelings and Obama’s have given as good as they got from her. But now as we enter the final stages into what is almost inevitably an Obama nomination, it behooves us as Democrats to start the healing process. If it is true that we need Clinton’s base to win, then we should start now by reaching out.
How to do that? Well, I suggest that we make a concerted effort in our comments (and what better place that FDL) to avoid the kind of bitter, vile and hurtful characterizations of Hillary. Instead, let’s emphasize her great contributions to the national debate: her well thought out proposals on health care and the economy, her indomitable spirit, her willingness to fight for her goals, her deep grasp of the problems which we face as a country.
Now, I know I will get argument on some of this, but don’t overlook my main point: the object is to come together as Democrats. We can’t do that by continuing to revile a defeated opponent. Let’s hope she will be gracious in loss and true to her word to support the nominee. If I believe anything about her, I believe her promise to do this.
Just this: the meme has been for Hillary to drop out for some time now. If indeed Obama takes the prize, our task is to be gracious in victory. We can support him by dropping the odious comments about her. I know he will expect that of us.
This has been the closest primary in my memory. A remarkable circumstance that our party has produced two fine candidates battling to represent the American people. This deserves our finest response.
Paul, regarding your comment about sitting out Nov.
I disagree with many things you assert, and find you personally abrasive (and no, you haven’t managed to convince me yet that I’m a “waste” because I’m from a state the democratic party won’t carry in the fall. That was nasty and uncalled for,) but I must confess to a strong admiration for your passion. You are engaged. You care. I have no doubts about that.
So while you can’t bring yourself to vote for Obama, and that is both your choice and your right, I would hope that you wouldn’t *completely* sit out November. I hope there is a downticket democrat you can find to support, to channel that passion and commitment of yours. Because your best antidote to either an Obama you can’t support or a McCain you believe will win is going to be a stronger democratic presence in the Congress.
Paul:
Following the very wise advice of a friend.
For now, ‘forthrightly’ as you are, I shall leave you as I found you.
I look forward with eager anticipation to diss’ cussin’ many things with you in future …
A true pleasure.
;~D
i call bullshit.
i was referring to a previous visit where you called some of us sexist for disagreeing with you (i am not quoting you here in an effort to not escalate this further, but will do so if you wish). that disagreement had NOTHING to do with “good reasons” – as i recall it had to do with irrational reasons that were not necessarily based in sexism.
now, it’s possible that i think you are just making up stuff because i’ve forgotten every time you’ve called us sexist and you and i taking about different events. if that is the case, please give me a link to the particular conversation you are referring to and if it squares with your current comments, i will happily withdraw my charge of bullshit and replace with the clarification that we are addressing two different events.
Honestly, why let yourself be provoked?
selise, if you will recall, the whole “irrational” thing was a discussion I had specifically with you here one night, in which I’d misread your intention with regard to something you’d written, and subsequently acknowledged the error and apologized. IIRC, there was no plural “you” involved in that aspect of the discussion, it was just you and me. And when I realized that I’d misread your intent, I admitted it.
and there was nothing racist about ferraro’s comments and rendell’s comments?
of course I will. I think.
I mean, if there is a race (or ballot question) that is even slightly close, I’ll vote. But there is a certain appeal to having my record of voting in every primary and election for years show a gap this year — so if it looks like my vote on everything/everyone else won’t matter, I might just literally “sit November out.”
i’m an idiot?
i’m pissed as hell about the apparently different set of rules for obama supporters and clinton supporters?
We’re deep in EPU land here. Can I ask you a question? I’m not trying to attack or provoke, I really want to ask this question, I just don’t want you to come down on my like a ton of bricks about being delusional or sexist or any of that if I ask it.
I don’t think so. Certainly not Rendell’s comments. I think that Ferraro’s original comments were poorly phrased — she was speaking off the cuff to a LOCAL free advertising weekly, and were it not for the Obots obsession with highlighting every possible instance of what could be interpreted as “racist” by anyone remotely affiliated with the Clinton campaign, no one would have cared what Ferraro said.
But its the crucifixion of people like Rendell and Ferraro by Obama’s surrogates — actions that Obama made no attempt to stop — that make it clear that Obama was not interested in an honest discussino about race, despite the “greatest speech on racial issues in the history of mankind”. Because an hooest discussion about race has to start from the assumption that everyone is speaking in good faith — and Obama and his supporters assigned bad faith to everything that could be misconstued as “racially insensitive”
sure, why not?
Ok.
In reading your comments over a period of weeks, my understanding of what you are saying when you say that Obama can’t win is that white voters won’t vote for him in large enough numbers to defeat McCain, and that isn’t an issue for Clinton. This is why you point to the 24% of white voters in SC as being an issue for him upthread.
So, first, is that correct, do I understand?
And then, if it is, can you explain to me why you think that white voters who voted for Clinton in various primaries, who were engaged enough to participate in the Democratic primary process, would then vote Republican?
This is the part I don’t understand. I understand there are some who won’t, but I don’t understand why it will be in large enough numbers to give McCain a win? Are there really that many independents participating in the Democratic Party’s primary process who will refuse to vote for the Democrat?
“But there is a certain appeal to having my record of voting in every primary and election for years show a gap this year — so if it looks like my vote on everything/everyone else won’t matter, I might just literally “sit November out.”“
Are you talking about the aesthetic appearance of your voting record? Is it on display somewhere?
the charge of sexism was not directed only at me – it was a most definitely plural “people.”
you did apologize to me, but for being a jerk – not for misreading my intent. i appreciate that you did so and consider it water under the bridge. however, i thought you owed everyone on that thread an apology – not just me – which is why i bring it up now.
to make matters worse, then you went back to correntewire and wrote a post that reflected on your time here where you said, among other things:
and this:
which brings me back to my question @256 upthread when you write:
how exactly do you square that with calling a bunch of us sexist?
and p.s. i do not withdraw my charge of bullshit. the issue of “good reasons” was a fiction and a distraction.
Rush Limbaugh ran Operation Chaos in which he urged Repubs to change parties and vote for Hillary. Ostensibly he wanted to prolong the Dems agony, but I believe he wanted Hillary to win because he believes she is the weaker candidate. I think this cross over gave Hillary her win in Indiana. I also believe what Rush did is a crime. If it isn’t, it should be as it goes to the heart of our democracy.
The NY Times ran an article last Saturday (5/3) which stated that according to their polls Obama and Clinton more or less split this Repub vote. I do not believe that for a minute. Someone who crosses over to screw things up cannot be depended upon to come clean even to so august a publication as the NY Times.
That said, a substantial number of voters in the Democratic primary won’t vote for Obama. But they wouldn’t vote for Hillary either. I might add, that by November things may be so bad that even a racist might feel compelled to vote for the black guy.
Really? Because they are playing Limbaugh’s game?
This is the part I’m finding hard to believe. That there are THAT MANY people participating in the PRIMARY that really, really want to vote for McCain?
I think there are two different but related issues here.
For the last eight yeras, Hillary Clinton has been running for President (not the Democratic nomination, but running for the White House) under the premise that Bill Clinton had figured out a way for a Democrat to win, and that the best way to guarantee success in November is to make sure that you are positioned to get the same voters that Bill Clinton got.
She “fits” what the Bill Clinton coalition wants in a president. And while neither McCain nor Obama really ‘fit’, McCain is better positioned to appeal to those voters that have no problem voting for Republicans, even if they prefer a democrat on general principle. I mean, why do you think so many heavily “democratic” states have or recently had Republican governors? Its because there are lots of registered Democrats who prefer the PARTY to the GOP, but vote for the person. Obama doesn’t connect with the working class on that level — his understanding of the working class is that of someone who took a college sociology course on the subject. (that’s where “bitter/cling” and “lose your dignity” come from — its an academic perspective on working class people).
If it was just a question of not connecting, Obama would still have a shot a those voters — were it not for the fact that he is a virtual unknown quantity whose past leaves him extremely vulnerable to right wing smears.
And that’s why I think IN GENERAL that Obama couldn’t win in November.
But there is a new, more pernicious dynamic at work now that can best be described as Obama telling working class people that they are stupid for wanting a gas tax holiday. The gas tax holiday isn’t about saving people $30 over the summer — its about acknowledging and addressing the concerns and anxieties of people who don’t feel economically secure. Its about driving your pick-up truck to work, and being reminded a dozen or more times as you pass gas stations on the way that you can’t afford to fill your tank this week because the electric bill is due, and your checking account balance is low. And its about signalling to people that “washington” understands and cares about their anxieties, and that the political leadership will do what they can.
You top that off with the ever-present “the Democratic Party has to nominate Obama in order to not alienate black voters”, and the apparent complete lack of concern of African American voters on the serious questions that have been raised about who Barack Obama really is and what he really stands for, and you have a whole LOT of voters who are getting the message “the Democratic Party doesn’t care about you, doesn’t worry about what you worry about, and doesn’t care that you have concerns about Barack Obama’s character”.
Its the kind of response from the Democrats that guarantees that these voters will vote against their own “economic self interest”, because the GOP is more than happy to pander to them.
David Neiwert just posted something in point. He concedes it will be impossible to assess Limbaugh’s impact. They tried clever questions as to whether a person shared Hillary’s values. Turns out a lot of people who didn’t voted for her anyway. Check out the post. It gets involved with racism, but the attempt to decide who voted for who and why is interesting.
selise, if this is about “irrational” that has been dealt with. If its about “good reasons” that has been dealt with.
And btw, I’m not running for president, and I’m not trying to win the democratic nomination based on false charges of racism aimed at my opponent. I called out a few Obots on their projecting their own sexism on the research that I’d done — assuming that I was calling all Obama supporters sexist, when all I was doing was pointing out that there was evidence of sexism found within a portion of the male supporters of Obama — and it was specifically not about anyone who would support both Clinton and Obama if either was the nominee.
And lets get serious for a moment. You want to tell me that someone is genuinely interested in seeing if my conclusion stand up to scrutiny, when they praise to high heaven an entire book whose premise is based on 34 poll responses conducted in two cities? I mean, don’t tell me that isn’t the apex of intellectual dishonesty.
You’ve contrived a chinese puzzle of purely political convolutions and then decide you won’t vote in November because your purported priniciples have been offended. I’ve been told there is a very thin line between…, oh never mind.
Paul,
Thanks for answering the question.
Fair enough. I’m not sure it works in 2008, for a couple of reasons – the country is in a much different place (war and economy) than in 92, and although Ron Paul has the potential to be a Perot-type spoiler, I don’t see that happening unless he launches the independent run. I’m also not sure how that scenario accounts for the potential “new” voters that have been brought into this process, but I’ll accept what you’re saying. It worked before. It has a proven record.
I haven’t heard that from him – I heard him say (rightly, I believe) that the idea won’t do what they tell you it will do, it won’t benefit consumers, and it will do it at the expense of our infrastructure. I didn’t take that to mean people were “stupid” because they want lower gas prices. Doesn’t matter, though, I don’t want to argue about that.
I think in many ways we see what we want to see in the candidates, and you and I see the both of them differently. Because I hear Obama saying he IS concerned about people’s anxieties, but you don’t. You have concerns about his character, I don’t (yet.)
Which is probably your point – that people hear differently, and react to that, plus the spin if they are low information. I’m just having a hard time believing that there are that many Democrats (not independents, not unaffiliated, but Democrats) that won’t vote for the democrat, as you seem to be asserting.
I personally have an issue with this approach, because I think what you are really saying is you have to out-Republican the Republicans, and I haven’t seen that work for us. What is the saying? Give them the choice between a Republican and Republican lite and they’ll pick the real thing? But I recognize it is a complex situation.
Anyway, thanks again for answering the question. And I don’t want to sound condescending, but I really do hope you can find a downticket candidate who can engage your passion.
Its not just what I hear as “me”, its understanding how other people hear stuff.
I mean, I know exactly what Obama was talking about with “bitter/cling” and “losing your dignity”, because I’ve taken sociology in college too. (and btw, Obama needs to go back to class, because the things that these working class people “cling” to are coping mechanisms which help them maintain their dignity — and that includes not just “guns and god”, but the prejudice that Obama included with “guns and god”.)
And what I heard was completely different — because I know that Clinton never claimed that the gas tax holdiay would result in a reduction at the pump of 18.4 cents per gallon the moment it was implemented, know that in Illinois, the gas tax holiday did benefit consumers — reducing pump prices by 3% to 4%, and that the infrastructure argument is complete bullshit, because Clinton’s plan was contingent upon making up lost revenue to the trust fund, most likely through a windfall profits tax. And because I want Clinton to be correct, I know all this stuff because anything that confirms what you want to think is learned much more easily than stuff that contradict what you want to think. And all that working class voters need to know is one of these three things that contradicts what you heard from Obama to completely reject his argument.
So what the people whom Clinton’s proposal was aimed at heard something completely different — this was something they thought was a good idea, and Obama chose to attack Clinton on this issue, and to accuse her of “pandering” on it. Working class people know that politicians all pander to various constituencies — its what makes them politician, and when Obama suddenly decided to attack Clinton for “pandering” to working class voters by saying that Clinton’s proposal made no sense (i.e. that working class people were stupid for wanting it), the question becomes “why is Obama singling US out?
well, if you can find me a 24 year old blond lifeguard whose running for office in Philadelphia, I’m sure I can get “engaged” ;-)