Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Arrogance? Obama is ok with Hillary continuing campaign?
Great, after debating yesterday the arrogance of some Obama supporters calling for Hillary to drop out of the race, now we are all relieved by the graciousness of the Senator from Illinois, he will be okay with her continuing her quest for the nomination.
Perhaps the Senator would also like to comment on the freezing of Michigan and Florida from the processs? Could it perhance have anything to do with the possibility that a real primary in those two states would effectively erase the arrogant Senator?
Do the math. That always chapped me, I hated math so much when I was young, they started that, it was the beginning of the end for me and Obama. Then it was drop out and the Clintons and Ferraro are racist monsters. That pretty much did it for me, but the stream of racial venom that apparently was a fact of daily life for Obama's church and now the Senator is going to grant Hillary a chance to continue.
Seems like the height of arrogance to me. I harken to the words of the mayor of Philly, an Afro-American, who basically called Obama out on this...no, Senator, hate is not something you can just skate around because of your awesome skating abilities.
Perhaps some straight talk about the Reverend Wright and what he does or does not remember hearing, reading or otherwise digesting.
I suppose you could say he went to that church, but he did not inhale. But, now, that would be snide, and one must not be snide about Obama, it makes you a racist, monster, lobbyist or some other form of ogre.
Comments (21)
Forgetting for a moment your ridiculous assumptions, which is to be expected, your choice of words is simply unacceptable. Perhaps you meant supercilious or presumptuous. Or possibly hubris, you certainly could not have meant arrogance given the context. I cannot presume what you meant, only you do. Or do you?
March 30, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Red is green and snow is fire with you Clinton folks. Senator Obama tries to be gracious and support your candidate, a candidate with 20-1 odds against her, going the distance. ---yet you still find room to whine.
Stay in it until FL and MI are resolved. Fine. Just get it through your thick skulls that MI's Castro/Cuba-esque one candidate ballots are never going to be counted. A majority of Americans do not agree with you that Clinton has a divine right to rule. We're not going to let you break rules, change rules, and steal the election. Sorry Charlie.
March 30, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's not "freezing" anything. These states have their own governments. We've been doing this for a couple hundred years. Catch the hell up already.
Stop hating math and learn some. There's a reason that they tried to teach it to you.
Reverend Wright isn't a racist and clearly most people understand this. Sorry, Obama didn't go down over this jingoist crap.
Ogres are the people who keep posting moonbat stuff like this.
Sigh.
I can't wait until this is over.
March 30, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A revote in FL and MI is not going to somehow hand the nomination to Hillary. She is down by 150 delegates, and the proportional distribution means only blow-out victories would allow her to make up that ground.
Clinton's real strategy is this: Destroy Obama, undermine him so much that all of the delegates at the convention decide they are going to switch over to her as the nominee.
That is appalling on its face. her only way to win is to destroy a fellow Democrat with the following of a majority of her own party.
Who is arrogant?
March 30, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree on your take of HRC's strategy... she knows she has lost the nomination... her strategy now is to destroy the Democratic Party in revenge for Democrats having rejected her... the only question is whether party elders will shut her down before she destroys the party... I hope and pray they will,the sooner the better
March 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
MI and FLA was/is resolved because the ground rules were set before the game started. The fences don't get moved back after David Ortiz hits a walk-off home run just because George Steinbrenner wants it that way. Get over it.
And, to use your analogy, Obama is no more a reverse-racist than Bill Clinton was a raging pothead.
March 30, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously this poster is very concerned about the Wright issue. That is fair--it is not simply going away, as some of us might wish.
It's true Obama will be forced into damage control on this throughout the general. But Clinton is far more crippled than Obama. She has no chance.
She is finished. DONE.
March 30, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. Cherry Grainger, prior author of such statements as "nominate this guy out of white guilt if you must", again wants to play victim and pretend the venom s/he espouses should be sacrosanct. I doubt you are an ogre, or ogress, Cherry. But I do think your comments routinely put off a vile odor, so maybe I'm wrong.
March 30, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
i only ask for all the votes in all the states to be counted, then the winner is the winner, is that so arrogant?
and, yes obama does have a tendency to come across as arrogant, i am sure its not intentional, he seems like a decent guy
get beyond negative rhetoric, let everyone vote, count them and you have a winner, using convenient rules violations to negate those states is neither democratic or in keeping with the message senator obama likes to issue...bringing us together
there is a good deal of cognitive dissonance going on right now, but let the voters have their say, all of them, before we dismiss anyone
arrogant for wanting more democracy, not less?
who are you folks kidding?
March 30, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"i only ask for all the votes in all the states to be counted, then the winner is the winner, is that so arrogant?"
Yes. That is exceedingly arrogant for two reasons.
First, primary systems rarely work that way. Can you name the last primary contest in which "all the votes in all the states" were counted? The vote is generally called when it's obvious that only one candidate can win so the party can pull together.
Second, the Clinton campaign is calling for all the votes to be counted but then wants to ignore that result. The "math" already dictates that Obama gets the nomination under those terms. So they want all of the people to vote and then for superdelegates to make a decision contrary to the will of the people.
March 30, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"let the voters have their say, all of them, before we dismiss anyone"
Michigan and Florida did not play by the rules. Then they had a second chance to get new votes, but still couldn't get their acts together. If the voters of Michigan and Florida are unhappy about that, they can vote their governments out. If voters elsewhere are unhappy, too bad; that's the way the cookie crumbles.
March 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"i only ask for all the votes in all the states to be counted, then the winner is the winner, is that so arrogant?"
They already DID vote and those DO count. But everyone who went in to vote in those two states KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they were not voting for delegates.
What you Hillary people REALLY want is to change the rules after the fact, as if Hillary's piss poor campaign and underwhelkming results creates some kind of "special circumstances" justifying a change in the rules. THAT, my friends, IS arrogant!
March 30, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What part of the fact that Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama has or had control over what Florida and Michigan did or didn't do with each states primary?
This is getting on my last raggedy nerve. Please drop it, drop off or go cry. Please!
March 30, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be saying that it's arrogant for Obama to ask Clinton to leave the race and arrogant for him to say he doesn't care if she stays in.
It comes down to this: you think it's arrogant for anyone other than Clinton to get a clear and insurmountable majority in both pledged delegates.
You may hate math. But the fundamental principles of arithmetic are not going to be repealed because they offend you for their arrogance.
March 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people keep bringing up Michigan? Didn't a judge declare the primary unconstitutional and strike down the results and the process (which is what Obama - the Constitutional Law prof cautioned)? And didn't the state decide that they weren't going to have a revote? What is left to debate? Isn't this finished? Has someone been watching to many Disney movies again and is still waiting for the Beast to come back to life as a human?
Not gonna happen!
March 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The arrogant Senator would not be erased by Florida and Michigan having votes. There is a good chance that after campaigning the arrogant Senator would still be likely to win in Florida although she would lose Michigan. Clinton wouldn't be erased and it is rather disrespectful to call her the arrogant Senator.
AS far as Obama saying the arrogant Senator (although he is more respectful and doesn't call her that) could stay in the race I assume you wouldn't prefer him to say that she couldn't. I tend not to be offended by people saying what is true.
And that leads to Ferraro. What she said was true. If he was a white man he would not be where he is. He would have fewer black votes, probably equal to the white and Latino vote he would get if he were right. What, maybe 58%?
I wouldn't say he went to that church, but he did not inhale. He inhaled. The slightest search for truth would show that 99% of what the Rev Dr. Wright preached was just what Obama wrote on Huffington Post March 14th. That it's a diverse congregation (yes, there are many white members!) that was and is a pillar of Chicago that does more than just preach social justice but act on it daily. Their many ministries include housing the homeless and helping those with HIV/AIDS and so much more.
Other ministers who know him and those who have gone to the church or listened to the many of the sermons would verify what he said, that Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, the obligation to love God and one another, on compassion and justice.
As fun as it might be for some to use moments of words culled from years of sermons twisted to be used as a weapon against a candidate and as indifferent as they may be to how the Rev and church became collateral damage and live with threats and hate mail I find it appalling that the media so blithely presented the distorted view. The pastor from the Clinton's church when he was president, a female minister who supports Hillary and scores of other speak up for Wright. They, like me, are fans of truth and so don't relish attempts to destroy anyone through distortion.
March 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still at a loss of words as to why the Michigan and Florida issue is Obama's responsibility at all? He did not "freeze" the process - he simply is saying he will do what the DNC does. Because he refuses to do what Clinton says means he's anti Michigan and Florida? No.
What Clinton is doing is going back on her word - and let me say this strongly if I no one else has said it before. She said prior to the campaign that she agreed with the DNC ruling on Michigan and Florida. She supported the DNC. So why all of a sudden does she turn around and change her support? It is the biggest flip-flop this side of McCain that has not been reported because no one wants to go there. Not sure why.
As for Obama's arrogance? That cracks me up. People say he's arrogant for doing something one way and doing something another way. He can do no right - both Republicans and Clinton supportin Democrats corner him in this way all the time. And yet he still does well in spite of this.
Arrogance? Arrogance is saying that someone can be your Vice President when you are losing. That's arrogance.
March 30, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't get it, do you? OK . . . reread this sentence:
"Perhaps the Senator would also like to comment on the freezing of Michigan and Florida from the processs?"
See, if it is not Obama's fault that Michigan and Florida don't get delegates, then who else will the Hillbots have to blame for her losing a race that she thought would be a coronation? Well, then you have to actually start to look at the poor management, the dysfunctional staffing, and the out and out flawed candidate that they chose to follow to the grave. As far as the Kubler-Ross progression of grief, I think Hill fans are still on the anger/denial piece. Or maybe this "stay in until the last primary" is bargaining. But Hill saying she will stay in until Michigan and Florida are seated . . . that is still denial.
March 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I got from this?
cherry grainger doesn't like black people.
March 30, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, especially uppity ones : )
March 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
if all you got from this was hate for black people, hm, i guess that kind of fits in with the bobbing and weaving of folks giving every reason conceivable why two important states should be excluded from a close campaign that obama leads now
you may not have heard but there are black people in michigan as well as florida, am i hating on them to say let them vote?
common sense and fairness seem lost here, its like an o'cultism or something...you state certain inalienable facts then have unmitigated garbabe returned, it might work in a democratic nomination process, but in the general election you all remind me of general custer all primed to go out and kick some ass with lots of martial music and progaganda off he lead his men to a massacre...i want to avoid that...so in fairness i say let everyone vote then it will solve itself
such radicalism, i can hardly get over myself
March 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment