Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
some thoughts on the Obama campaign and his suppoters
Hillary was not my first choice in this primary season, nor my second, nor my third. Yet I find my self becoming hard in my support despite my late and reluctant support for her mostly in reaction to the Obama supporters and some in reaction to the Obama campaign.
This first point might seem small but to me its indicative of an over
all trend. The constant attack on Clinton for being the only one on the
MI ballot. This lie is used to claim she is unethical, devious,
unwilling to keep her word and/or play by agreed upon rules. Spreading
this lie is not confined to the hate Hillary machine that has taken
over so many of the blogs I read. Its the meme spread by the MSM. I saw
Daschle, a major Obama supporter, attacking Hillary with this lie.
Saddest of all, the only tv pundit I've seen tell the truth is George
Will, a republican. I never thought I'd see the day when I was looking
at republicans as truth tellers about the democrats.
From the top of the Obama campaign, throughout the MSM to the least
obama supporter the lie has become accepted truth. I choose this
specific example because its the most easily proven. Edwards, Obama,
Richardson, Biden removed their names. Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, And
Gravel did not. One theory is they removed their names to pander to the
Iowa voters at a time when each were looking for a good showing
against Hillary, the presumptive front runner, to gain momentum in
Iowa. While I don't have 100% faith in it, there is credible story line
I saw quite often at the time that Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich cooked
up the scheme and revealed it at the last minute in the hope that even
if Clinton wanted to follow suit she wouldn't have adequate time.
Thereby hurting her in Iowa. That Kucinich announced he was removing
his name but didn't have time to file the paperwork and was on the
ballot adds credence to that story.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
While Dodd's campaign is "committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first," Dodd will not withdraw from the ballot, said Dodd's communications director Hari Sevugan.
"It does not benefit any of us, if we are the nominee, to pull our name
off the ballot and slight Michigan voters," Sevugan said.
Hillary's statements at the time were basically the same as Dodd's. At
least cynical pandering by Obama and others or perhaps an underhanded
scheme to tar an opponent has been turned into an attack on hillary.
While some are simply spreading the talking points from the media out
of ignorance, I'm convinced that some are deliberately spreading the
lie or at least letting happily it pass without correction. That no
rational Obama supporters feel any need to correct clearly false
information makes makes you complicit it the spreading of it.
The second point I'd like to bring up is the so called gay bash tour.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/10/barack-obama-ca.html
For most candidates this would be a deal breaker for me. I understand
the difficulty of the issue and I accept a candidate keeping silent.
But to deliberately use homophobia to get votes is a republican tactic.
When confronted on the issue obama released a statement saying he
disgreed with their (the gospel singers) words and beliefs. he hired a
minister who supported gay rights who came out before the concert, said
a prayer which contained no reference to gay rights, and was not seen
again. Totally insufficient and my vote would have been gone at that
point. But the LGBT community seemed to give him a pass and since its
not a personal issue with me I followed their lead on this. But that
doesn't mean his use of a republican tactic disappeared.
Third, after using homophobia to pander for the black vote he played the race card.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064146.php
Hillary's statement about MLK and LBJ was in no way disrespectful of
King. It was a historical fact that was spun to get the black vote to
switch to obama. That's politics, the old style, of which obama and his
campaign team is a master of.
Fourth, Farrakhan. While I agree that Clinton pushed it too hard in the
debate I totally disagree with the overwhelming posts here that think
he was unfairly attacked. In the blind defense/offense that is the hate
Hillary machine attempted to crush Hillary for going to far there was
little acknowledgment of the racism of Farrakhan.
For me and others for whom Farrakhan is not history this was a fair
question. For any other candidate belonging to a similar white church
would be another deal breaker. If any white candidate belonged to a
church that gave an award to David Duke no words, no rubuke or renounce
would spare that candidate. They would have to leave the church and
after being a member for 20 leaving when the issue came up during an
election might not be enough.
Obama was not attacked unfairly with that question, he got a pass, as
have other black leaders. He got a pass because liberals know that
discrimination still exists. That we are still a racist nation. We see
the statistics on poverty, incarceration rates, we even understand what
someone means when they say they were stopped for DWB. We know that for
all our efforts liberals have fallen short of the goal. The vile racist
Farrakhan provides services to the black community that mostly should
not have to be provided if we were a freer nation and at the very least
should be provided by the government.
For those who say the comparison to Duke is not apt or that Farrkhan
and the NOI is not significant enough I offer this. In 1995 Farrakhan
and the NOI called for a million man march on DC. Nearly that many men
showed up. I doubt that Duke could get a million men to march on
Washington. In 2004 the March for Women's rights has barely more than a
million and this was with major stars participating and both men and
women participating.
So Obama gets a pass that I and many others would not give to any
politician belonging to a church that honored David Duke. All we ask is
that he clearly reject the racist in the hopes that the racism will not
spread.
Now I will admit that Ferraro's statement was racist though more stupid
and ignorant. It needed to be dealt with. But let's put it in context.
It was the last tatters of ignorance of an old women born in a
strikingly different culture then today who has done much to further
the cause of minorities throughout her life. The character
assassination of this good women on this board by the hate Hillary
machine was difficult to watch especially when just a few weeks ago
those same people attempted character assassination against Hillary
with almost no mention of the overt, vile, totally over the top and
dangerous racism of Farrakhan. By your silence you gave the nod to
Farrakhan. What a perversion of liberal principles for the sake of
nothing but a win.
Last this Fl revote. Again I'll point out the lieing. Surely there are
many here who know that when the DNC sanctioned Fl and MI there was
always several ways to get them seated. Most articles and blogs I read
at the time fully expected them to be seated since few thought the
contest would last this long. I believe the plan all along was to seat
the delegates. The punishment was clear in the pledge from the
candidates. Do not campaign or spend money in the states.
No rules have been broken. Each state has always had the option of
submitting a plan for a revote or petitioning the credentials committee
to be seated.
But that is immaterial in my view. I didn't get asked what date the
primary should be. I didn't agree to the sanction. I didn't sign any
pledge. I didn't agree to be disenfranchised. Obama is using
republican tactics to take away my vote. There is credible evidence
that he is slowing and impeding a revote. That every vote be counted is
a core democratic principle I didn't give up. Neither Clinton, Obama,
or the DNC can give it up for me, they can only take it away. If Obama
wants my vote in the GE he must stand for that principle, work to see
it manifested. If winning is more important than that only my concerns
about the Supreme Court will cause me to vote for him.
Obama has gotten too many passes from me already. He is an old style
politician, a master at it. I can accept that if it wasn't accompanied
by this holier than thou attitude and nonsense about new politics. And
if it wasn't accompanied by the hate Hillary machine I see on the net.
I don't think many will read this far but I could go on for another few
pages. And I doubt many will hear me. If people trashed Krugman for
pointing out the viciousness of some Obama supporters who would listen
to me? At one point I could have easily accepted Obama as the nominee.
But now I almost don't care how Hillary wins and at times all I see
between me and a vote for McCain is the supreme court. If I, who came
to Hillary reluctantly when my other choices didn't pan out, am now so
hardened I wonder how those who started with her feel. I'm wondering if
its still possible to pull back from this brink and whether McCain will
be the next president.
Comments (38)
The constant attack on Clinton for being the only one on the
MI ballot.
Her being the only one on the MI ballot would be a complete non-issue if it weren't for her attempts to change the rules in mid-game and seat the delegates she "won" by being the only name on the ballot.
If she were to play by the rules, then it wouldn't matter if her name were on the ballot or off the ballot, nor would it matter whether the other candidate names were on the ballot or off the ballot.
A re-vote, with both Obama and Hillary on the ballot, is one way to play by the rules. And please note again that if they do have a re-vote, as the rules clearly allow in this situation, then it doesn't matter in the slightest whose name was or was not on the original ballot.
HTH
March 14, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the DNC would have played by the rules, then the Florida delegate count would be cut by 50%. Instead the DNC cut it 100%. Why would they do that?
March 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a ridiculous situation and the national- and state- level parties are having to deal with intense pressure and looking stupid. The reason? Because nobody foresaw the primary contests lasting this long, making the FL and MI votes an increasingly pressing problem.
The anger I feel is because Democratic VOTERS in each of these states were being punished for unsatisfactory resolution of squabbling in party leadership. It's a ridiculous situation--the voters of those states were "disenfranchised" when leadership couldn't (or wouldn't) get their shit together and work out a solution.
Now it's come back to bite them in the ass. And now, in addition to MI and FL voters feeling like they're being screwed, ALL Democratic Party voters are in a position to feel they're being screwed as well.
March 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is not the voters of Michigan who should be penalized for rulebreaking. Perhaps it is the candidates who broke the rules. Stripping candidates who violated the pledge by 50%, and seating the full delegation with the remainder "uncommitted" may be the solution. And perhaps those uncommitteds should be chosen by the campaigns of the candidates who withdrew, in consultation.
March 14, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
About Florida,
I am a florida voter and did go out to vote that day, but only because the voting place was about 100 yards from my home. I knew the vote would not count. Florida was told that if the primary took place prior to feb 5th, the vote would not count. The people in the state who stayed home knew the vote would not count.
This decision by the DNC came down all the way back in sept. If florida were really concerned with the vote being upheld in the convention, they had 5 month already to come up with a plan. Instead they have just gotten serious about a solution after march 5th. the florida state dems caused this problem, the national DNC should not have to pay for their bad choice.
Last point, why bother? Honestly, why even take the time and money to vote again in Florida?
Obama cannot be caught in the pledged delegates and hillary has already said she does not care what the pledged delegate count is. Obama has already won, he gets the nomination because he won many more delegates. Whay waste the time and money?
March 14, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have three major concerns with your comments:
1) Obama chose to pull his name from the Florida and Michigan ballots. Not too savvy for a so-called experienced politician. The blogger is absolutely right about the various means for getting seated. The sanction was more of a statement than a written-in-stone rule. The DNC is not that dumb, though sometimes I even wonder.
2) How can I say this...I don't care if I'm told my vote won't count (been there!), I'm voting anyway because it is a priviledge. The people of both Michigan and Florida came out in droves, and if I didn't want to vote for Clinton, I would have made a very strong statement by voting "none of the above" or whatever they call it on the particular state's ballot. You're right, Floridians did know in September that their votes wouldn't count. Why, if you were so upset about it, didn't you do something to fix it? You could have, if only you had persued the idea. But you didn't, so stop whining about being a victim here.
3) What most people don't understand about the DNC (and RNC for that matter), and the primaries and caucuses, is that the DNC is a private organization whose members (basically the Super-delegates) were the ones who nominated a candidate to run against whoever else was running, whether Republican or Independent, or ??? We plebes who participate in the primaries and caucuses do so at the pleasure of the DNC, for one purpose only--to give the DNC our OPINION (look this up in Wikipedia) of who would be the most likely candidate to win. The reason they came up with the pledged delegate number was to have some measure of the popularity of the masses. Usually, one candidate manages to get the support, as McCain has for the RNC nomination. The reason Huckabee stayed in so long was because if he had been able to come even close to McCain, the RNC might choose him due to concerns over McCain's "liberal" (that's a laugh) side. So, You cannot be "disenfranchised" for something that you have no right to. A priviledge if you take it, yes, but the primaries and caucuses are not a right, otherwise people would be able to sue because they couldn't attend a caucus due to work, children, other responsibilities. And that's why the caucuses are not a good determination of reality. Obviously, most voters prefer to keep their votes private, so caucuses give an unfair advantage to those who are uninhibited or openly zealous about their candidate. Too bad for those who are uncomfortable sharing this information because their candidate may not get the votes they would actually get in the general election.
And here is what you are missing...the DNC doesn't just look at the number of pledged delegates to make their final determination.They give more weight to the primaries than the caucuses for the reason I explained above. And in the rare event that the pledged delegate count is this close (one of my political sources told me within a 1-400 count difference), they look at which states have been won (thus Clinton's correct assertion that she has carried the most important states for winning the general election), how close the popular vote is, a candidates stamina, the gender and racial bias of the country (unfortunately it is still a sad reality, as seen in the Black community with 90% voting for Obama, as well as the White etc. community with 60% or more in the primarily white states voting for Clinton), and yes, they look at a candidate's track record, not only experience, not only in winning elections, but in their ability to hold their own against the Republicans. And there are many more details that I am not privy to that all go into the final decision as to who the nomineen will be. In this case, the Super-delegates would not be going against the will of the people if they nominated Clinton...on against 48% of the people. The other 44-48% will be happy. Not too much of a risk on the part of the Supers who vote for Clinton.
Buck it up folks...Clinton is still very much in the game, and is probably winning. Obama knows this, but he can't admit it openly without losing at least some of the momentum he has; and he still wants to win this, so he should fight for it. Just be prepared if he doesn't win it, and don't be surprised if he does accept Clinton's offer of VP.
March 14, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama chose to pull his name from the Florida and Michigan ballots.
He was on the FLA ballot and got 33% of the vote.
March 14, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you are in the mood to listen, but here are the counterpoints for your consideration:
Before we start, can you admit any instance--just a SINGLE instance--where you think that Clinton was "unfair" or "got a pass" or a supporter of hers was "vicious"? Hint: if you cannot, you are completely blinded by ideology and not thinking rationally. I try to be intellectually honest and I can admit the shortcomings of my candidate. CAN YOU?
0. I think there should be a re-vote or then the delegations should be halved and split in half. Accepting "races" without any campaigning and in one case with one party, in my opinion probably breaking the rules, and definitely the spirit of the rules is not acceptable.
1. You are overgeneralising. Clinton is the only one of the remaining viable candidates who had her name on the ballot. Pretending that "Clinton was the only one" is the Obama campaign's main issue is just a strawman.
2. You say that "one theory" is that everyone who removed their names were pandering. In my opinion, everyone who removed their names did so in conformance to the pledge they made. Period.
3. Why in your opinion are Michigan and Florida allowed to break rules and suffer no consequences? Remember that these are rules that they agreed to. No-one imposed this on them. They knew the rules and decided to do something else anyway. If you claim that not counting the votes -- which I am NOT suggesting, by the way -- is "disenfranchising" the MI and FL voters, please consider this: allowing rule-breakers to do whatever they please without any consequences disenfranchises everyone else. So, frankly, if it comes down to disenfranchising 2 states or disenfranchising 48 states, I would rather disenfranchise 2.
3. It is not even about whether Clinton is technically right or not that she was not required to remove her name. The problem is that the votes were not supposed to count. The fact is that Obama did not campaign in any way in Michigan and voters were not allowed to vote for him. This is a clear disadvantage to Obama through no fault of his own and should not be held against him. He followed the clear meaning of the pledge. Clinton used a loophole and whether she was allowed to or not does not change the facts. You can argue all you like that she was "smart" to do it. I and many others will argue that she CHEATED. But even if we assume that she was not explicitly disallowed from doing what she did, we are still at the same point.
5. The pledge that Clinton, Obama and the others signed says, and I quote: "I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate..". That statement is not ambiguous. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Sure, football rules do not explicitly say anything about using a chainsaw but it is probably not allowed, right?
6. Farrakhan. You, honestly, go on and on and on about this. And J. H. Christ, he has denounced Farrakhan over and over. What more can you possibly want? But facts first:
6a. Obama never solicited Farrakhan's endorsement, advice nor other assistance. So far as I know, the men have never even spoken (though I may be wrong on that.) There is no relationship of any kind.
6b. When questioned, Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments in strong terms and said that he would never accept any type of assistance or advice from Mr. Farrakhan. Pressed, he also "rejected" Mr. Farrakhan's comments in case that made any difference (n.b., "denounce" is actually grammatically the more accurate term.)
OK? Hypothetical: let us say that Charles Manson endorsed Hillary Clinton. What, in your opinion, should Clinton do? Which of those things has Obama NOT done? You cannot hold someone responsible for another person's independent actions or words.
I would understand your if Obama in any way indicated that he was working with Farrakhan or getting advice from him. BUT HE IS NOT. NEVER HAS. NEVER WILL. What more do you want?
I do not understand how Obama is getting a "pass"? Tell me clearly and unequivocally, WHAT DO YOU WANT OBAMA TO DO? Seriously, what in hell is there that he can do more than he already did? Someone that he has absolutely no relationship with and no control over says something, Obama says he disagrees and that he will never have anything to do with this person. WHAT MORE CAN YOU HUMANLY WANT? What next, if Farrakhan should happen to get in a fight, can the prosecutor press charges against Obama because Farrakhan endorsed him?
7. I am getting angry. How in the fuck is Obama disenfranchising you? Your state party is disenfranchising you. Maybe even the Republican party there. But not Obama. He has said that he thinks a re-vote is perfectly appropriate.
And again, did you ever consider that if Florida is allowed to go unchecked, YOU ARE DISENFRANCHISING 48--FOURTY_EIGHT--other states!? Tohat disenfranchises Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Virginia, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Utah, California, Wisconsin... do I need to go on? If it is a matter of "disenfranchising", it should happen to the least number of people.
March 14, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only can I admit flaws in all the candidates I supported in this primary I have posted such flaws on this blog on Hillary.
"Pretending that "Clinton was the only one" is the Obama campaign's main issue." I pretend nor posted nothing of the kind. You need to reread my post.
I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than I did in my post on Farrakhan. If any liberal politician belonged to a church that gave an award to David Duke and did not rescind their membership their political career would be over. A republican might get by, perhaps even a conservative democrat in a southern state, though I doubt that. Obama got a pass.
But that is only background for the larger issue. The many here who chose to ignore the history of overt racism to attack Hillary and then to engage in character assassination for a ignorant comment by Ferraro. Its all about the win for a significant number of posters here. Nothing seems to bad to ignore if ignoring it helps Obama. Anyone deserves to be crushed if it helps Obama. Lies and slander are acceptable. That is what I see on the blogs from many of the obama supporters. Its the new politics I guess.
The problem with states moving up primaries is bigger than MI and Fl moving their dates. It will not be solved by the sanctions this year. MI and Fl moving the dates is a symptom of that problem. It was handled badly before they moved their dates. It was handled badly when they moved their dates. But that is a larger issue.
No one would have been disenfranchised if the DNC had ignored the date change. I'm not suggesting that would be a good decision, just that no one would have been disenfranchised. No one would be disenfranchised if there is a revote. No one would be disenfranchised if the results are taken as is. I'm not suggesting that as a fair solution. Only stating that no one would be disenfranchised. So I have no idea what you mean. Discussions of what is fair or not have validity. But that is a totally different discussion than disenfranchisement. I see no way that 48 other states would have been disenfranchised.
I'm surprised that you think taking away a person's right to vote for no action of their's is acceptable. I disagree. A citizen's right to vote is a core democratic issue for me. I would not support a politician that not only does nothing to secure that right but seeks to impede it to win an election.
March 14, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said: I'm surprised that you think taking away a person's right to vote for no action of their's is acceptable.
C'mon now, this isn't an honest argument. There were only two Senators in the state of Florida that voted against this thing; it passed without a single dissenting vote in the House. These are your representatives, had the people of Florida and Michigan made a significant attempt to let their representatives know the repurcussions of their actions would be severe this would not have happened. Y'all voted for these people, they represent you. They thought they would get away without a scratch on this...they were wrong, so instead of punishing them or holding them responsible for this, it's Obama and his supporters who are to blame for disenfranchisement? I can turn this argument on its head, and say those who want the votes to stand as is are disenfranchising voters by not allowing them to get a first hand look at the candidates...but that isn't honest, I think you would agree.
You can argue the system is broken or should be changed...but not now, right in the middle of a contested primary. Especially when there was no way to allow the candidates to present their cases to the people.
There are honest reasons to be skeptical of Obama or Clinton, you haven't really brought them up in your posts. If you honestly believe Clinton has been losing this election because of shady tactics or a conspiracy against her, it's my opinion you're not making an honest argument.
March 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cafe,
You can't fault anyone for picking non viable candidates. And it surprises me that you went in a linear scale instead of looking at the whole Democratic ticket laterally. I don't know why Obama would be your last choice with no other grounds except that you don't like his supporters. It isn't gonna be anybody there in the voting booth with you. Maybe you should spend time on extensively researching their voting records. The campaign is not the candidate.
March 14, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
quarsar, I think I did more than adequate research on all candidates as I made my decision. For example though I did not support Gravel, it was apparent he could not compete and perhaps too old, I think he stands miles above all the others in this race. The reasons are too numerous to list but one is worth mentioning. Though only a teen ager I still remember him reading the pentagon papers into the senate record when no one else would and there was a very real possibility that he would be arrested. Realizing one might be drafted in a few years made some interested in politics at an early age though I'll admit it was superficial and unsophisticated. Fortunately I never was drafted. I don't want to imply a sacrifice I never made. Some legislators actually took risks during the Viet Nam war to try to end it as well as to insure the public's right to know. Perhaps that might help you understand why Obama's speech means so little to me. If he had done one significant risky high profile thing as a senator my view would be different. Like make a speech in Crawford in support of Sheehan or something. Neither did, neither can claim to have earned the title of anti war candidate in my eyes. I see them both as triangulating politicians.
Well that gives you a very tiny taste of the thinking that went into my decisions. I thought my post was long enough and to address issues of the campaign. Not why or how I ended up choosing Clinton when it came down to the end. I'm satisfied that I considered enough to go into a voting booth alone.
March 14, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"For example though I did not support Gravel, it was apparent he could not compete and perhaps too old, I think he stands miles above all the others in this race."
OK, I think that tells me everything I need to know. Gravel?? Seriously? If you were going to highlight a candidate with no chance to win, couldn't you at least have considered Kucinich?
Or maybe that's the split here: Obama supporters' favorite loser candidate is Kucinich, while Hillary supporters' favorite loser candidate is Gravel. That has a ring of truth to it.
March 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shucks, I didn't bother to read your entire post as it was obviously fallacious from a very early point.
Clinton herself YESTERDAY morning blathered on and on about how she smacked Obama up in Michigan and talked as if she was the only name on the ballot, and insisted as well that he had 'made an aggressive effort to get everyone to vote uncommitted', which was truly a bald faced lie. The Michigan Democratic Party ran a small campaign to try and advise voters that's what they were to do if they didn't want to nod Hillary, Kucinich or Dodd.
Why would Obama people spend a whole lot of time getting people to vote uncommitted so they could fight with any other surviving candidates over who got how many? Why - since Hillary herself reiterated (see 'The Exchange' for October 11, 2007 on the NH Public Radio Website, for one example she flat out tells a caller) her 'commitment' to the pledge on several occasions.
Finally - did you know that NO LESS than Nine committed Clinton superdelegates were seated on the very committee that made up the rules she broke? NINE - did you read that - NINE!!!!
Why in God's name would these people sit on their haunches and watch while the rules they set are broken. Patently dishonest maybe - bet they are all retching a bit inside regardless - hung by their own petards! Oh - and guess who appointed them all to the commission? Terry McCauliff - you see these rules were made up long before Dean became Chairman.
Looky - you can even see the whole history of the process if you want right here > http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating heck they even have a Pdf with a roster showing the hierarchy.
And those poor voters in Florida - they really tried hard - yup - so hard the Vote in the House was 118 - 0, and 37 - 2 in their Senate to move their date. And, if you read the Florida papers, pols from both parties were just so giddy with what they had just done. Here's what one of their Democrats said on March 21, of 07, the day the house passed it - um - unanimously.
"It gives us a chance to really watch the landscape," Ring said. "When we're done Florida will be relevant." - Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate
http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/032107/D8O0PVN02.shtml
My point - Hillary has lied up and down over the whole issue of these two states.
Funny thing is - there are actually more registered Democrats in Florida than their are Republicans, yet they have Republican control in the legislative and executive branch. Perhaps they are not really active about fielding and supporting quality candidates at the state level?
March 14, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't read the bill, did you?
March 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
the silence from obama on the wright issue is deafening..........what judgement ????? tony rezko.....what judgement ??????? william ayers.....what judgement ???????i said from the beginning this guy is a is a con artist.....jst maybe people will wake up in time .....he will never win the GE.....i can see the swiftboaters and 527's from the GOP now .......dem party is in trouble if he is the candidate,,,,,,,sorry but thats reality.......im a dem but i think the party is too far left and it may sink us in the long run
March 14, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK zumper, now you are officially a troll. I just saw this exact same post on another thread. Knock it off.
March 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
oceankat, I feel your pain. I am an Obama supporter who is beginning to feel queasy from all the Obama supporters. I live with someone who says under no circumstances would they vote for that ______ (insert expletive of the day), and who sees evil in her every move, so perhaps I am reacting against that.
I also disliked that Obama allowed a homophobe preacher to do a campaign tour (or get out the vote, tour, or whatever). I found that revolting, and switched my support to Dodd. Much good it did him.
I began to gain some sympathy for Clinton the week after Iowa, and I still have sympathy for her. I think the Obama supporters online are over-the-top in their seeing everything that happens as a result of Hillary's evilness. I think that the depiction of Clinton and her supporters as racists does the Democratic party no good. And though Obama has kept his dignity throughout and stayed above the fray, it has helped that his rabid supporters online, with the help of MSNBC, have done his work for him.
But please try to remember why Hillary Clinton wasn't your choice to begin with. For me, it's because she's a triangulating DLC person. When I called her office when the issue of torture was coming up to see how she was going to vote on the bill, her aides responded that she was still not sure--about torture! Her vote on the war, and the fact that it took her until well after public opinion had turned to refute it, is probably the most obvious example of her refusal to take a principled stand until it is deemed politically safe.
I don't think she can win now without serious delegate shenanigans, which is no way to win. And if on the off-chance she does manage to get the nomination, the country will go insane. There are so many people now who hate her, and are allowed to say just about anything they want about her, that there will be four years of no peace at all.
On the other hand, supporters aside, Obama is a great candidate. He is smart and fast on his feet. He knows how to take a stupid right-wing argument and boom-a-rang it back to them. (The, "that is a debate I look forward to having" approach.) He doesn't have a lot of historical baggage like Clinton. He's young and telegenic and has a lot of people stirred up to vote for him. My conservative family is even behind him. At the risk of sounding hokey, I really do think he's our best shot at uniting and expanding the Democratic party.
So, while I understand your not liking his supporters, Obama himself is still a million times better than McCain. (As Hillary Clinton would be.) Think of the Supreme Court, the war, Katrina... Ignore the Obamabots and vote Democratic in the fall.
March 14, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are honest reasons to be skeptical of Obama or Clinton, you haven't really brought them up in your posts. If you honestly believe Clinton has been losing this election because of shady tactics or a conspiracy against her
---------------------------------------------------
There are reasons to be skeptical of both candidates. I didn't bring them up because that wasn't the purpose of this post. Perhaps at some point I may write a post about that. I don't believe that Clinton is losing this election because of shady tactics or a conspiracy against her. I never said anything of the kind.
Its ridiculous to suggest that the voters could have had such an effect on their representatives. Has every law passed in your state met with your approval? Has every vote of your congressional representatives met with your approval? I wish the government was as responsive as you claim but it simply isn't true. The fact is very few of the actions of either my state or federal government meet my approval. Unfortunately I am powerless to do anything about it. Even though I vote in every election and write letters between elections. If they had not stopped the counting of the votes in 2000 I might have had some effect on the implementation of many actions I disagreed with these last 8 years. Now you are telling me its ok for them to do it again? I disagree.
I don't blame Obama for the disenfranchisement. I blame the state government and DNC with the collaboration of all the candidates. I blame Obama for slowing and impeding a solution now which can be easily found and implemented. Not counting my vote is one of his strategies for winning this election. I find that unacceptable.
March 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is he slowing the implementation? It seems the MI vote is going to go through and the Florida vote might not because of many reasons none of which Obama has anything to do with.
March 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote. And who you vote for is a personal decision and one in which it seems you've at least taken a great amount of time to think about...I commend you for that.
But is it really that ridiculous to think people should hold their representatives accountable for their actions? I haven't seen or heard any evidence that people from Fl or MI were against this but couldn't affect the process or were ignored. If you don't try how do you know what the results would be? Of course, only one person writing letters isn't going to make much of a difference, but if the disenfranchisement ran so deep, it would seem enough citizens would be involved to effect the outcome. So on this, we'll have to agree to disagree.
And I don't see how Obama is not trying to count your vote. Being allowed to campaign for your vote would only help his chances IMO. Considering his campaign organization is much stronger than Clinton's, I see no reason why he would want the results to stand as they are, only Clinton would benefit from that.
In the end, it is my opinion that neither the MI or FL primaries were legitimate. Moving from that point, I see only two ways ahead...a new vote (which is preferable) or let the punishment stand. I don't see how the DNC could've been more open about the consequences of the state's actions. Fl/MI played chicken and lost.
March 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not ridiculous to think that citizens should hold their representatives accountable. It just unrealistic to think they will. I know some in my circle expressed their displeasure to their representatives. Its likely some across the state did as well. Most probably never looked up from the football game on the tv. Isn't that pretty much the norm with all the bad decision politicians make?
March 14, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a fool.
March 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A stunning and thought-provoking contribution, Hoost! I particularly admire your extensive vocabulary and insightful analysis. You are a genius and a prince. I am honored to share this comment thread with you.
But I have a question: Is calling people names all you can ever do? 'Cause if that's the case, you, my friend, are a troll.
March 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OceanKat, I hope that you can keep your eye on the big ball despite your disagreements with Obama or his supporters. I have experienced very little abusive behavior from either supporters here in Texas. In fact during the caucus a BBC reporter was talking to people before we went in to caucus and he commented how composed and friendly everyone was, despite what he had seen in the past. When we caucused it was still very civil. I would imagine that you like me have seen alot of blogging from supporters that seems excessive but you sshould always remember the medium for which you are commenting. People are very different in person than when they are the person behind the curtain so to speak. I am sorry as an Obama supporter that many have lashed and posted quite rude and ignorant commentary. I do not beleive this a is a relfection of either candidates particular abilites as candidate. Both are head an shoulders above McCain as he is pandering to the Conservatives becaus ehe has to even have a chance in this election. I suspect of he continues many independent voter's will swing in our direction. Remember all the excitment and what you describe as bad behavior from Obamas supporters and Hillary's as well is showing that the Democrats have the people engaged and ready to show the Republicans the door come november. I hope we have your support!
March 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of what I wanted to say in reply to your post has already been said, so I won't rehash it.
Just wanted to add though that I was not an Obama or Hillary supporter at the begining of the campaign. I thought the decision by the DNC to punish these two states was stupid and would come back to haunt us, but I also realized that they were going by the rules that they had laid out.
Everyone was in agreement then.
When the Michigan primary occurred I thought the way the ticket was presented was really wrong. Remember you couldn't even do a "write in" or your ballot would be disqualified. A lot of voters were not even aware of this, so they tried to advertise this fact at the last minute that you had to check uncommited if you wanted your ballot to count. Everyone kept on saying though that it wouldn't matter because the primary there wasn't going to count anyway. I thought it weird that Hillary acted like she won when the other candidates weren't even on the Michigan ticket and the press seemed to agree and gave the win to her.
Florida, although a bit better since all the candidates names were on the ticket, was widely advertised as a win for her too and she had confetti, etc at her speech like it was a grand prize. This was early on in the process and these primaries weren't even suppose to count.
I remember then people saying that Hillary kept her name on the Michigan ticket so she could claim it later and that she had the big hoopla in Florida after her win there to understandable give a big boost to her campaign.
But everyone knew that these states had violated the rules and weren't suppose to count. Actually even giving her those delegates now wouldn't give her a win. It's all sour grapes to me. Remember I say earlier I wasn't a supporter of either of these candidates back then and from this outsiders view I think your blog is flawed in it's reasoning.
March 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD,
What rules. I thought the DNC made the rules and told them before there would be consequences to failing to comply?
March 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mention Obama having an anti gay singer sing at one of his rallys as a reason for not supporting him. Did you notice that he is the only candidate who has spoken up for the gay community and against the predudice they are the victims of in a church in front of a conservative christian audience? I am not gay but I am an atheist and I noticed when he was the one who chided the believers for the way they treat us in front of that same crowd. He says what needs to be said without the usal pandering. You can bet you last dollar that Hillary will never say something like that in a similar situation. She is very sucessful at never telling anyone something they do not want to hear.
March 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
oceankat,
I appreciate hearing your personal perspective.
Though I don't agree with most of the content you present to support your position that Obama has gotten a pass, I note your points.
I have to say, though, that I believe your post's title and some of your observations about Obama's supporters is unfair and one-sided. The bloggers at this particular site aren't representative of everyone in the blogosphere, or in the general population. It certainly looks like a large majority of bloggers here at TPM's reader blogs support Obama. And there's a lot of nasty, mean-spirited, ridiculous crap being posted about Sen. Clinton here, to be sure.
But I don't think the animosity expressed by supporters of either candidate has much basis in substantive matters most of us generally agree on: (1)Neither candidate is vastly superior in quality to the other, try thought they might to persuade us to believe it--they're both very good Democratic candidates who have great appeal with voters; (2) Neither candidate has had an "easy" path to her/his current status, and neither of them has been "lucky" because of gender or race; (3) All Democratic voters would generally agree that either of the candidates' domestic policy agendas, conduct of foreign policy, and appointments to courts and executive branch positions would be vastly superior to John McCain's.
Beyond that, I think most of the animosity is stirred up by the political theater being played out by BOTH Democratic candidates, and reinforced by supporters for the reasons I give below (taken from an apology post I made to another TPM blogger):
March 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would 'second that emotion'. When I sent my post below, your post was at the bottom and was heartening to read. Thanks.
The campaign is much bigger and more important that either of our candidates.
March 14, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many people now who hate her, and are allowed to say just about anything they want about her, that there will be four years of no peace at all.
That so much of that hate is coming Obama supporters has really troubled me. I've supported Clinton in the primary but have no hatred for Obama but I've seen too much of it growing in Clinton supporters to feel good about Nov.
I've been extremely disappointed in both campaigns but I'm hoping that their meeting, initiated by Obama, will help to cool this animosity down.
"They approached one another and spoke about how supporters for both campaigns have said things they reject," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "They agreed that the contrasts between their respective records, qualifications and issues should be what drives this campaign, and nothing else."
An Obama adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity about the private conversation, gave a similar account, while stressing that it was Obama who approached Clinton on the subject. They committed to making sure that their supporters don't get overheated in the future, the adviser said.
I hope that both campaigns will strongly address this issue to their respective supporters and we can finish out the nomination process and be united going into the GE campaign.
March 14, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes... Your first point is a huge point for me. The fact that Obama supporters, at least on the 'net, are such vigilant Hillary Haters REALLY REALLY disturbs me.
To the original poster... 90% of your reasons matche up with my reasons for deciding not to vote for Obama back in February. Since then, I have come to acknowledge that Clinton is certainly imperfect, but the far better choice.
March 26, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I just can't see how Hillary will re-unite the party.
I won't even go into the specific aspects of her campaign that disturb me, as they've been discussed too heatedly on other threads.
Instead, allow me to just pose a question:
Can anyone present a compelling argument of how Hillary will be able to unite a fractured party if she is somehow able to convince the Superdelegates to vote overwhelmingly for her over Obama?
March 14, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has to win the popular vote. Then she chooses Obama as vp. You either follow him or you don't. Most Obama supporters will I think. If she loses the popular vote she should lose. But things often don't work out the way they should. If she gets the nomination any other way its a disaster. Unless there's a back room deal and Obama is her vp. Now he has to sell the deal to his supporters and it will be very very hard.
Politics is a game like a combination of chess and poker. Some of them truly want to do good. Some just want the thrill of power or the rewards power brings. But whether a politician wants to do good or wants rewards they must accrue power to achieve their goals. Therefore all politicians are pragmatic.
The party bosses want Obama I think but they're afraid. They want to win and he's such a bundle of unknowns. A black man who smoked pot and took cocaine. Never been in a competitive election against a republican. A very slim resume. How is this going to play with the high school grads that work in the factories.
Politicians usually have a law degree. They are smart people who go out and get high school grads to vote for them. 30% of the electorate have no education beyond high school and most have never read anything but maybe occasional trash fiction since school.
But all this doesn't take into account God damn America. I'm shell shocked right now. I've worked in factories and on construction sites where not a person there had a day of college. I can just imagine how this will play with them and I can't imagine how Obama can pull a rabbit out of this hat.
March 14, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ocean...
but if Obama collapses enough for Hillary to get the nomination, I doubt she would make him VP.
But at least it's a plausable, if not very likely, scenario.
March 14, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I just can't see how Hillary will re-unite the party.
I won't even go into the specific aspects of her campaign that disturb me, as they've been discussed too heatedly on other threads.
Double that for me Sean except it applies to the guy that I heard say he lacked the experience to run for prez. Why is it that I would want to vote for an unprepared lightweight motivational speaker again?
I just can't seem to remember.
March 15, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Senator Clinton can unite the party at all. For one thing, she does not believe in the 50 state strategy. Not only does she not believe in it, she disses the people there by telling everyone who listens that they don't matter. That is very short sighted for someone who wants to be a leader in the party. But I find her whole campaign short sighted and was surprised. I supported her at the beginning but she and she lost my vote.
The whole McCain thing, now that was strange. But some would argue that was not a short sighted moment for her as it may position her well for 2012 if he wins in November. I don't know.
Mostly I think her campaign is mismanaged and she just was not ready for this fight. And it showed.
Michigan, well she signed the pledge and now she goes back on it. No way will that unite the party in my book. It just adds fuel to the fire that is cooking her goose.
March 14, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/some_thoughts_on_the_Obama_campaign_and_his_supporters
Hope it's okay with you, I "Dugg" your post. Thanks for your careful and insightful analysis.
It is heartening to read a post like yours. I am fed up with so much of the nastiness that most left wing blogs are generating.
March 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment