Two influential black pastors have threatened to encourage their members not to vote t all if Obama doesn't win. They are calling it at "political" race war, and saying that a VP postion is telling Obama to go to the back of the bus. Talk about race baiting! It begs the question: What else have they been saying this whole time?

A pox on Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle for encouraging him to run at this time. Thanks to them for starting this sideshow, and enouraging a very nice, inefectual fund raiser to run for Pres.!

Has the press been easy on Obama because they are more afraid of being called raciest than sexiest?

Posted at March 12, 2008 11:18 PM in response to Wolfson On Ferraro's Latest: "We Have Made Clear That We Reject Her Remarks"

Is it possible that the press has been so gentle on Obama because they were more afraid of being called reciest than afraid of being called sexiest?

Posted at March 12, 2008 10:48 PM in response to The Latest On Ferraro: Wolfson Plays The Geffen Card

As usual the Obama supporters pepper their comments with personal attacks & in baristaberry's example, an unflattering picture. Obama! Where is your call to your supporters to act civiliy? Phonies!

Posted at March 12, 2008 10:43 PM in response to Clinton Campaign Manager Suggests Obama Campaign Is Playing Race Card With Ferraro Comments

The internet has been around for long enough for us stupid middle-aged, even oldsters to be tech savvy.

"they are likely to be middle-aged and therefore less tech-savvy than the average teenager"

is not true, get over yourself-facebook and guitar player are not tech savvy. Can you people manage to write one thing without bashing someone, who has nothing to do with you?

Posted at March 11, 2008 2:45 AM in response to Learning From a Misstep: Thoughts on The Wire

Pardon me for noticing, but wasn't Donna Brazile the campaign manager for the LOSING and very badly run Al Gore campaign?

Posted at March 5, 2008 8:47 PM in response to Brazile: Howard Dean And Other Party Leaders Should Be Prepared To Step In

Is the party that weak? If so, why would it make any dif when the nominee is chosen, it sounds like the pubs have it. You guys are so paranoid, I guess youd don't beleive that core Obama supporters will stick around for the long run. Or are easily picked off. And didn't Obama go negative with the "Harry and Louise" health care flyer already?

Posted at March 5, 2008 8:43 PM in response to Brazile: Howard Dean And Other Party Leaders Should Be Prepared To Step In

If the press had really been challenging Obama, and he had shown the same true grit that Hillary has in the face of such a challenge, perhaps I could agree with you. But they have been so soft on him (and this showed when he got his first round of hard questions in a year, last week), that when the Pubs go after him (and that 3 AM advert will look like a love note) that I just haven't seen an example of his strength put into play. They will Swift Boat him, make no mistake of that.

I happen to think that the best thing that could happen to him is that now he may have to really show what he is made of - instead of coasting to the nomination on the backs of the uglyness of his surrogates/blogers/the press.

Posted at March 5, 2008 6:37 PM in response to It was old politics versus new. Old politics won tonight.

Whenever I hear talk of Obama being such a change, one of two songs keep running through my mind

1) Public Enemy's "Don't Believe The Hype"
2)The Who's "Baba O'Reilly"

Posted at March 5, 2008 6:28 PM in response to It was old politics versus new. Old politics won tonight.

All this rhetoric about the "new Politics" sounds suspiciously like the phrase "new economy" which never really exsisted. When things looked shakey for Hillary, I went to Huff post to look for reasons to warm up to Obama (btw, I started out as an Edwards gal).

I would buy into the Obama "new" line but for the follwowing reasons:

The Obama supporters have been the most hateful & poorly informed bunch of posters and bloggers that I have seen in a long time-they remind me of the hate spewed by the so called "religious right" back in the (recent) day. Where is Obama's message to his supporters to play it clean too? The majority of their attacks on Hillary have been of a highly personal nature- not reflecting issues, this is especially true of the younger supporters, especially the young men.

Criticism of the Clinton Pres.- The fact during that time was that the unrelenting dirty tricks offensive was purely the Pubs, the Clintons had to fight back as best they could, who remembers that Ken Starr was getting nowhere with his Whitewater investigation, and it was the gift of Linda Tripp that caused him to change course to Clinton's infedelity? Obama's campaign has been trying to denigrate that legacy from the start, a good one and well earned. To me, that is going negative in the most destructive way of all. Talk about devisive and not good for the party! It is the one of the Dems greatest accomplishments! His folks seem to act like the "politics of personal destruction" came from the dems, when the exact opposite was true. Unfortunately, so many young Obama supporters have such a poor grip on history, even this recent-that their view of the Clintons reflect the far right's success infusing that message into the fabric of our culture, and it is still oozing out today.

Teddy Kennedy et al-He maybe a good senator for Mass. but he is as "old politics" as it gets. Corpulent and corrupt, the old lush's endorsement was picked up a bit too quickly for a guy who claims to want bring "change" to Washington. And the shot of him sitting next to Teddy in the Senate was sort of pathetic, as the "first Black Kennedy" ugh, how patronizing. If "change" were true, then why are all these old school politicos jumping on his train? Do you think that they really want change, or see something in it for them? What they want is a seat at the table of influence. I'm afraid (although I have no proof)that THEY see him as weak and naive and in need of the "old hands" to set policy & rule while he functions as a figurehead. At least with Hillary I know who is in charge.

Obama didn't have to have a negative advert, he has an army of thousands to do it for him, and a compliant press, who also want a seat at the table of influence, to go negative on her for him. It is also odd that his campaign's recent "Harry & Lousie" style health care flyer does not count as "going negative", please tell me the dif? I find this sort of subtrefuge very disturbing, and I queston Obama's forthrightness and intellectual honesty when he behaves like he doesn't know what she's talking about regarding the press.

Posted at March 5, 2008 6:24 PM in response to It was old politics versus new. Old politics won tonight.

I hope we have the will to change things, but as you point out the whole system is so fragmented, it is hard to even identify all the players. One thing that never gets mentioned, is that even with government funded single payer insurance, private health insurance will not go away. I think we need to stress that for those that can afford it, it will still be available. I wouldn't mind knowing what is going on with private insurers in the UK and Canada and how that fits in with their systems.

Posted at July 13, 2007 8:58 AM in response to Why We Can't Reform Healthcare One State At A Time