Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
The Lives of Riley

The Lives of Riley

By Mark Heisler
$6.00

more items

 
Report

Guilty by Observation

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 27, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

    WASHINGTON—Talk about not being able to catch a break. To pummel a boxing metaphor, it was Barack Obama who got tagged with a roundhouse right, flush on the chin—but it was Hillary Clinton, from early indications, who ended up nursing a sore jaw and wondering what it was that hit her.

    A week of hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s jeremiads more or less continuously on cable news channels seemed certain to hurt Obama politically. Indeed it did—but only slightly, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The candidate who really suffered, according to the same poll, was Clinton.

    Clinton must look back at dodging bullets in Bosnia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland as mere walks in the park compared to this crazy campaign. Then again, accurate recollection hasn’t been her strong point of late.

    The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, released Wednesday, found that the percentage of voters with negative views of Obama increased by four points in the last two weeks, from 28 percent to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage with positive views of Obama declined by two points, from 51 percent to 49 percent. It’s hard to attribute this slippage to anything other than the controversy over Wright’s sermons. All in all, it wasn’t what you’d call a great fortnight for Obama.

    Surprisingly, though, Clinton’s was considerably worse. The percentage of voters holding negative views of her increased by five points, from 43 percent to 48 percent, while the percentage of voters who had positive views of Clinton declined a full eight points, from 45 percent to 37 percent.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    I’ve been through the rest of the numbers in this poll, as well as those in a recent CBS News survey—and won’t cite them here for fear of running out of space before I get to the point. Take my word that Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech on race relations, generally but not universally well received, probably helped minimize any loss of support from the Wright controversy.

    What’s not unambiguously explained in the polls is why Clinton, basically a bystander, took a bigger hit in popularity than the guy who had the pastor problem.

    The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey was taken before Clinton’s claim of having braved sniper fire upon landing in Bosnia in 1996 was proved to be untrue, so that can’t have been the reason why her negative ratings jumped and her positive ratings fell. And when the poll was being taken, Clinton hadn’t even said anything about Obama’s relationship with Wright.

    Subsequently, she did have something to say: that if she had been Wright’s parishioner, she would have left the church. I can’t really fault her for answering a direct question, especially one offering a chance to take a shot at her opponent. That’s considered fair in politics. I do find it odd, though, that she would answer any kind of question from the editorial board of a Pittsburgh-area newspaper, the Tribune-Review, which promoted the vile and untrue allegation that she had something to do with the death of Vince Foster, the White House counsel in her husband’s administration who committed suicide. The Tribune-Review is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, who is considered by Clintonistas to have been puppet master and chief financier of the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton famously perceived.

    Here’s a hypothesis: The fact that Clinton’s poll numbers suffered more than Obama’s might have to do with the way her campaign gives the impression of being willing to do anything it takes—anything—to win the nomination.

    Obama drew a line in his speech about race, repudiating Wright in the strongest terms but refusing to “disown” a man who has been an important spiritual influence. Many commentators saw this stance as a mistake that ultimately will cost Obama support among working-class white voters—and those commentators may be proved right. It’s possible that he drew the line in the wrong place. But he did draw it.

    Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman whose many exemplary qualities are obscured by a campaign that fights as if it couldn’t care less about collateral damage it might inflict—on the Democratic Party or on the front-runner for the nomination.

    That was always Bill Clinton’s political method: Do what you have to do; apologize later, if necessary. You can’t save the world unless you get elected, and to get elected you have to be what the people want.

    But maybe what the people want this time is a real person, rather than an image or a strategy. Hillary Clinton might start by making clear that she wants to be president, but not at any cost.
   
    Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Expat, March 31, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

^ of mine was for you.

Report this

By Expat, March 31, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

^ out of my chair laughing.  Great comment.  I’ve about given up commenting here.  Thanks!

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Originally Obama’s name WAS on the ballot. HE CHOSE TO REMOVE HIS NAME BEFORE ELECTION DAY BECAUSE HE WAS TRAILING BADLY IN THE POLLS !!!!!!!!  He did not want a massive defeat at the hands of Hillary.

That was the height of the old hoodwink bamboozle two-step and hypocrasy of Obama. A classic flip-flop. I was ON the ballot before I was OFF the ballot.

And now he has the audacity to disenfranchise voters in that state so that he can prevent Hillary from getting ahead of him in both popular vote and delegates.

Think Dems in that state will vote for him in November? Think dems in that state wil ever forget what the Dem Party and Obama did to them ever? Not likely.

I just cannot belive any black person would disenfranchise any one, let alone fellow Democrats.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 31, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

I made a baseless accusation that you are a Nazi because you accused me of being a racist without knowing jackshit about me.

How’d it feel?

Just a little drive by race baiting, one more tool in the Obama toolkit of dirty tricks.

If you were any kind of student of history you’d be a lot slower to indict people without any evidence.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 31, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tell me who among the three prospective employees will:

Help the Middle Class move back to stable middle income?

Help the 47,000,000 uninsured get adequate health care without bankrupting them?

Get us out of Iraq, Haiti, and Afghanistan with the fewest possible losses?

Move the Dollar back to a value which will allow a drop in prices we pay for foreign goods? (Including Crude)

Put the brakes on “free trade” which is not “free” at all?

Secure the borders so our “working-class people can negotiate for decent pay without the threat of being replaced by someone who doesn’t even have a green card?

Help States repair their disintegrating infrastructure including bridges tunnels, rails, and road-bed.

Fix the education system and stem the rising tide of drop-outs, maybe with some new ideas, like paying students for performance. 

Give us an “employer of last resort” to replace our dysfunctional welfare system.

These folks may have some good ideas… too bad we don’t hear about them… easier to tell you why you “sure don’t want the other guy/gal)

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Because all of the candidates were on the ballot in FL, for one.  And because almost nobody showed up to vote in the MI Dem primary.  Clinton’s total was 337,000…less than Romney got.  And McCain beat “uncommitted”.  Which is neither here nor there, but i believe that MI was the only primary with higher Rep turnout than Dem turnout.  The major dailies didn’t even bother to endorse a Democratic candidate.  And because we weren’t even allowed to write in a vote; write-ins were thrown away.

At least in FL, lots of people actually showed up to vote.  While in MI, lots of people voted in the Rep primary because they were told that their vote wouldn’t count and there was nothing else on the ballot, so there was no reason to go out of your way to be involved.

An “election” with only one name on the ballot is not much of an election.  And the candidates who removed their names did so at the behest of the DNC.

But, hell, if you want to use MI in my challenge, then go ahead.  But since the whole primary was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court it isn’t going to matter.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 31, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

Is it not stereotyping when someone calls me a Nazi, and on top of that a Nazi who spends all my time cleaning my jackboots?  If according to logic, (something, lacking here); someone calling me a Nazi could really be someone who has a fetish for Nazi’s and in fact can lead to racism, but I would prefer to call it bigotry as I did in the beginning.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 31, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Oh and lets take a moment to address the “as far as I know” answer she gave to Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes.

How many times did he ask the question of her?

Five? Six times? How many answers did she give to Steve Kroft on the same question asked six different ways? She gave six answers. They kept asking so that could bait her into giving a less than definative answer and by God they fabricated one. Nice that all the networks played along and showed the one answer 100,000 times the next day, huh?

Hardly a ‘gotcha’ moment, but you brought it up.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 31, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

There you go again! You’re such a quick study, aren’t you? Distract and refuse to answer the question.

Who from the Clinton camp called Wright a racist?

You can’t answer that because NOBODY DID.

Wright is a 100% pure Obama creation. No help from Hillary needed.

But feel free to change the subject. It’s OK that your candidate who preaches a ‘new kind of politics’ uses everything he can to destroy her. Doesn’t matter, right because she’s SO dirty.

You go ahead and keep believing that Hillary is the devil. At least she’s going to be Senate Majority Leader and a devil when your guy will have plenty of time to hold those subcommitte meetings and learn how to bowl come November.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 31, 2008 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

Yes, Joe there I go again, “As far as I know Obama is not a Moslem”, and you took the Hillary vote out of context, dost not matter though, Hillary and the kitchen sink is working as well as it should.

We know Hillary and her camp would never be divisive, we know it is all Obama not the Clintons using muck   to sell her sweetness to the public, and it seems to be working. 

Clinton’s, the unifying people that they are.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

And why pray tell in your mind is FL free and fair and MI isn’t?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 31, 2008 at 5:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“As for Senator Byrd, he did formally apologize. (see link below) As a Christian I believe in forgiveness of sin.”

Actually I care nothing about your chosen cult. I never said ANYTHING about “apology” (which I seldom trust, and was tendered in 2005 AFTER he was exposed ...) I said he never formerly cut his ties with the Klan. As in he never wrote a letter of resignation, or did anything at all which would suggest he is no longer a Klan member outside his public life.

” There were not a six or seven channels all news 24 hours a day channels plus no internet and no blogs then. There were only 3 TV networks, newspapers, and magazines.”

Actually we didn’t have a Television but surprisingly, even without an internet we were “informed. The Newspapers? There were many more than 3 in our town;
World Telegram & Sun
Journal American
Daily Mirror
AM
PM
Daily News
Wall Street Journal
Amsterdam News
Village Voice
Times
Herald American
and a host of Borough and underground papers.
and there was radio anything you wanted from far left to reactionary right, and like I said before I didn’t hear or see anything, your revisionist view non-withstanding.

I want you to do one thing to support your post. find me one news story just one…from any source.. referring to Strom Thurmond’s black child before 1990…

Oh, although it was not directed to me, I must also comment on “our generation”

... Not nearly so important, revolutionary, or principled as baby-boom memories would have folks believe. 

My children have done just as much as any in the “older” class… One working as an “environmental lawyer” in Denver, one an Organic farmer here in Maine, and one (of which I am particularly proud) an adoptive parent for a five-child sibling group which would have been separated without her.

Cross generational insults are disingenuous and counter productive… stop it both of you!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 31, 2008 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

Why not Leefeller? I mean really. For the last year your guy has turned everything around to be about judgement.

“I think, ah, you know, that voting for the war was, in my estimation, excercising poor judgement.”

Well I have to say it’s either the ultimate in arrogence or lacking some judgement to remain a member of a church with such a controversial paster. To not only be guilty because he sat in a pew for 20 years, but because he has continuously pulled the man closer. Pastor Wright? Not good enough, he needed him to be his spiritual advisor. Throw a few bucks in the collection plate? Nope. Try $20,500 in just the last year.

Just because he was given a pass by the media, doesn’t mean the voters will exonorate this lack of judgement in November.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 4:30 am Link to this comment

Apologies for assuming someone called “bert” was a male…add misogynist to whatever other labels any of you feel like calling me.

But keep in mind, i don’t just hate women…i hate everyone, equally. 

What i would love to see, is a realistic scenario where Clinton wins the Democratic nomination…without any funny business or flipping pledged delegates.  Don’t get me wrong, i don’t care…as i won’t be voting major party for President in any case…i’m just interested in seeing how it could be done.

And don’t talk about the supers overriding the popular vote…the Clintonistas have been misusing the word “disenfranchisement” terribly concerning MI and FL, so you’ve lost your “right” to disenfranchise any one.  And no, you can’t count MI because that’s a non starter.  You can count Florida because that was free and fair.

Have at it:

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

Maani,

I said “blackmail” because the context of the post was that if Clinton doesn’t win, her support will vote for McCain…and the link used as evidence backed that assertion up.  Ergo, the only way for the Democrats to win is to nominate Clinton…if they don’t, the Clinton supporters will take their ball and vote Republican.  I chose “blackmail” carefully.

If you want to talk about ignorance of language, then i suggest that you consider your ending of every post with “Peace”. 

The Clinton supporters round here (and elsewhere) like to talk about how Obama is not a real Democrat and how real Democrats are voting for Clinton.  So tell me, why would a real Democrat ever vote for McCain?

I don’t know the answer to that, see, because i’m not even a fake Democrat…i don’t have the super secret-decoder ring or anything.

All i know is that i had to listen to the Clinton machine spin lies, mistakes, and sleaze for eight long years while they gutted my country for personal gain.  I don’t want to go through it again.  And if the actions/words of her supporters are any indication…i will.

I understand that coming from your super-charged, partisan perspective that everyone must either be with or against you.  I’m hoping to be labeled a “terrorist” soon. But some of us are just observers.  I don’t think that Obama is a Saviour, hell, i don’t even think we can be saved.  (I didn’t even vote for him.) And i find the Democratic Party laughable…in general.

So good luck with all that, best wishes to your “real” Democratic candidate fighting for the vote of joe six-pack against John McCain.

And in general, Clinton outperforming her negatives is only impressive within the Democratic primaries where no more than 30% of registered voters have polled.  Primaries are not, in any way, indicative of general election success.

Report this

By cyrena, March 31, 2008 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

•  “..In the long run all this mud slinging coming from the Clinton side may be helpful to Obama when he runs against McCain.”…

Leefeller, I’ve been thinking this all along. I see it as a ‘toughening up’ or ‘training’ for that part of the race. Been thinking that a while now, and especially since Obama decided to deal with this head on, and did exactly that in his speech. It’s a tough call, and I honestly would not have wanted to be in his shoes. HOWEVER, if I was, I would have done the same thing. THIS TIME.

I say ‘this time’ because for me at least, it’s the kind of decision making, (and yes…politically/pragmatically speaking, RISK taking) that comes with experience, as well as strength of character and integrity. And I admit that I have NOT always recognized the need to ‘nip it in the bud’ so to speak, rather than simply ignoring it, because of what could seemingly be my own ‘arrogance’ in assuming that anyone else would see it for what it was as well, and therefore not be persuaded by it. Kind of like, Oh well, it will work itself out, and “I’m sure I’m right” so everybody else will figure it out too.

SOMETIMES, it IS best to ‘ignore the ignorance’, so as not to give any credence or legitimacy to it.  But other times, that can be equally fatal, because ‘assuming’ generally is. In this case, it had to be addressed, if only because we ALL need to understand and KNOW the reality.

So, it was a good (and courageous) decision on Obama’s part, to air it. Covering up the dirt never does anything but that…cover it up. We’ve had far, far too much of that, for far, far too long. It doesn’t go away, it just accumulates.

Anyway, I said all of that to say that I agree this will in fact help Obama later on down the road. It’s kind of like getting the ‘heavy lifting’ out of the way first.

Smart guy.

Report this

By cyrena, March 31, 2008 at 2:27 am Link to this comment

•  “..How arrogant of you to judge me on my age and not on my actions.”

It’s not your AGE bert, it IS your actions/words by which you are being ‘judged’ and you come up DAMN SHORT!!

So, that’s pretty much where it’s at. It’s definitely NOT about ‘older people’ since we know that OLDER people are supposed to pass on the knowledge of their life experience.

Unfortunately, what is often passed on from many of them, is like a cancer or other virus that can and often does, stunt the growth of generations behind them.

There in lies the problem. It’s like Hillary’s ‘experience’. “Experience” is highly relative.

So, you’ve got yours, and we have no idea how many other minds you’ve distorted or corrupted in your lifetime. Then again, we have no idea what good you may have accomplished either, because there has been nothing in any of your posts that would indicate that you ever have, aside from this last one, where you submit your resume of all that you’ve done to help poor kids of any race learn to read and do their numbers.

Now that is very admirable, but it comes late in your postings here bert, and it doesn’t ‘jive’ with the previous ones, which make you sound more like a bitter old spinster, and a competitive one at that. Consequently, it’s difficult to erase the ‘impression’ that you’ve already created, which is one of a vindictive and bitter old woman.

And then, you say stuff like this, which leads us to believe that you don’t really know what you’re talking about, even if there was a time when you were efficient enough at teaching poor kids to read and do math.

•  “You are engaging in stereotyping of “older folks,” as you call them. And stereotyping any group leads to racism.”


Well bert, the ‘stereotyping’ of “ANY ‘group”, does not necessarily lead to ‘racism’. (like stereotyping ‘old people’ doesn’t result in ‘racism’) Do ya get that? That’s not to suggest that ‘stereotyping’ can EVER be acceptable, no matter what ‘groupl it’s directed at. Still, try not to get your concepts mixed up, OK? Any real or perceived discrimination against someone because of their age, or a disability, or national identity, or religion, or political ideology is NOT RACISM.  Is it discrimination and unfair treatment? Yep. Just not necessarily RACISM.

Get your thoughts in order.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, March 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Your quote: “I am not judging Obama on the color of his skin.”

Well now…. that IS refreshing bert.

Since after all, Obama is half WHITE.  Now why don’t you just think about that issue YOU HAVE in those terms and all these “other issues” you have will just….. melt away….

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

Are you calling me an Archie Bunker, stupid racist bigoted old person?

You are engaging in stereotyping of “older folks,” as you call them. And stereotyping any group leads to racism.

I don’t know how old you are, but from your comments you seem to say you are part of the “younger generation,” whatever that means.

Well, I have news for you !!!!! Your younger generation is not the first to stand up for and seek equality and to ask that Americans live by the words in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

There is a long and rich history in this country of moving forward the agenda of equality for all and on whose shoulders you stand on as you try to advance the cause.

In fact, your generation has done damn little about actually changing things. What I see is mostly talk.

By contrast, you stand on the shoulders of some greats in this long struggle including, but not limited to William Lloyd Garrison, Senator Charles Summer, the thousands who set up and operated the Underground Railroad, the 300 black and white Americans in attendance in 1909 for the first NAACP conference in NYC, those who took and fought at the Supreme Court level in such landmark cases as Guinn Vs U.S. and Brown Vs Board of Education, Rosa Parks, thousands of blacks and white who marched, or made freedom rides (James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman), or participated in sit-ins, thousands who were clubbed, beat, had fire hoses turned on them, had dogs unleashed on them, those whose houses and churches were burned and bombed killing dozens, James Meredith and others who crossed those lines while integrating southern schools. And of course Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, of course, gave the ultimate – his life.

How dare you lecture me that it is YOUR generation that “want to move forward and seize the opportunity…” How dare you stereotype me and the ‘older generation.’ Most of us are neither ‘irrational’, nor ‘racist.’

Most “older folks in the Democratic Party,” do not have any problem what so ever voting for a black man for President.

You know nothing about me and many in my generation and what we did in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and beyond to work for racial equality.

I marched. I worked within the framework of my church and community to advance civil rights in the city where I lived. I taught black and white Appalachian poor children to read and do math and was elected vice-president of the PTA by parents of the school I taught at.  I was appointed by my union to serve on the committee to make sure integration was achieved peacefully in my school district. And I served on a county civil rights committee. I believe I not only talk the talk, but I have walked the walk. MY part and role was small, to be sure. But I was there and I was and remain on the right and moral side of the issue.

How arrogant of you to judge me on my age and not on my actions.

MLK said he dreamed of a day when all men would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of his skin.

I am not judging Obama on the color of his skin.

I am trying to evaluate him by the content of his character, by his political experience, and on his ability to win in the General Election. On all three of those criteria I believe he does not measure up.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Who from the Clinton camp called Wright a racist?

There you go again Leefeller. You are trying to use race as a weapon. All Hillary said was, “He wouldn’t have been my paster.”

It’s a fairy tale you’re trying to sell as a reality show. You’re just lucky to be here Leefeller, imagine a child dropped on his head as often as you were being able to log into a website all by yourself. It’s not about race, you MONSTER! It’s about judgement and for 20 years your guy Obama showed very little in the eyes of the Wright Wing. A little GOD DAMN AERICA goes a long way.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Good to see you back Maani, was afraid cyrena had put a hit out on you ! LOL

But If any one mentions drugs, your racist so no one is going to go with this info.

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

“The Media said nothing.”
“The press said nothing.”
Not a word when he ran for President.
“Haven’t heard much about that in the news… Maybe I’m listening to the wrong channels.”

There were not a six or seven channels all news 24 hours a day channels plus no internet and no blogs then. There were only 3 TV networks, newspapers, and magazines.

However, each of the issues you raise about each of the persons you named did have, in keeping with the media available at that time, news coverage. In just 5 minutes of time I managed to find news accounts on all four /issues you mentioned in your post.

I remember Bobby Kennedy. Worked on his campaign. And I know I read and heard that and other issues, especially his support of the Vietnam War, raised many times during his life and during the campaign.

As for Senator Byrd, he did formally apologize. (see link below) As a Christian I believe in forgiveness of sin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105_pf.html

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 30, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

Now you can tell me you dont attack through association,  This one is funny ‘After all Hillary has done for the Black community, she drops them like a hot potato and ponies up to the bigots.  This is going to be fun.  The mass media loves it and don’t you love it too?” Mmmm Where would we put Obamas name, Oh I,m sorry, he hasnt done anything for the black community.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

Well then it counts if it was said by a Black Mayor, maybe just maybe you could find a whole passel of people, better yet black folks to agree with you, then it would mean a lot more!

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

The Mayor of Philly just said, If Rev. Wright made those comments in my church, I would have left. Is he a black mayor?, By jove I do think he is.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Wright is not running for office, so they can say, accuse or allocate anything they want, the ex pastor who just happens to be black, a racist according to not us, the Hillary crowd, but instead pointing fingers at the McCain crowd? We all know Hillary is to nice for any nasty stuff, like a kitchen sink or two.

No bigots anyplace that I see.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

“Corruption is so apparent in our Bush government, it would seem even our poorly budget cut quality educated young folks would be able to make the distinction. “


It must be so nice to be that smart Leefeller. You can expect a backlash of people sick of being spoken down to by Obamabots. Just a matter of time. Keep an eye on those unfavorables…

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

Yeah nice try Her Furrer,

While Obama himself is free to say nice things about Bill and Hill his surrogates and propogandists were out on the Obama-friendly airways this morning calling for her to get out of the race. Funny no one on Hillary’s side or neutral observers are saying she should quit…

Just because some people can’t see the coordinated efforts of the Obama campaign to attack Hillary through disposable pawns doesn’t mean everyone is fooled.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Can we run the only qualified candidate out of this race?

YES WE CAN!

Can we fool the masses long enough not to notice how liberal our candidate is?

YES WE CAN!

Can we use political filler like Hope and Change and start a movement?

YES WE CAN!

Can we use Obama’s race as a weapon to marginalize anyone who disagrees with us?

YES WE CAN!

Can we redirect the questions of Obama’s judgement into a national discussion of race issues?

YES WE CAN!

Can we nominate an unelectable candidate?

YES WE CAN!

Can we win in November with the youth brigade and the African American vote and 28% of the Hillary former supporters, the ones we didn’t drive away?

NO WE CAN’T!!!

Go back and polish your jackboots Leefeller you missed a spot you Nazi.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Are you telling me that Obama will, in fact, say and do anything to get elected?

- Like join a radical church?

- Like accept the cherry-picking of important legislation to bolster a non-existant record of success in the IL Senate so as to have a record to run for higher office with?

- Like accept $250,000 of dirty money to run with, then when called on it, give only $70,000 back?

- Like having all your surrogates say the dirty stuff you can’t say yourself and then fire them systematically for it?

- Like have all your high-profile backers start a public “Get out of the race Hillary” campaign?

- Like, like, like…

I thought only Hillary did that. Humph!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 30, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Strom Thurmond was a member of the KKK, a racist and the father of a black baby…The Media said nothing.  Ron Reagan was anti-semitic a shill for Joe Mc Carthy, and a Judas to the “friends” he worked with in the Forties… The press said nothing. Bobby Kennedy was a Lawyer for Joe McCarthy who was a friend of Old Joe (the rum runner) Kennedy. He had a hand in the ruination of many a career Not a word when he ran for President.
Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK He may (according to rumor) have even been present at the lynching (the real thing, not a virtual Lynching) He served as Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter, and he never formerly cut his ties with the Klan. Haven’t heard much about that in the news… Maybe I’m listening to the wrong channels.

No there is racism on both sides of the color divide and beyond!

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

Here’s an interesting story from the Washington Times, which shows Obama dissembling yet again:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/NATION/43529865/1001

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

Where the hell did you get I was a R from my post?

I have been a life long D.

Nominate a D that can win. I think Hillary has the best chance of that.

Report this

By valkyrie607, March 30, 2008 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

The race issue which you seem unable to get past is really an indicator of a generational divide. Polls have consistently shown that the younger generation, the one that’s inspired by Obama, is ready to get past it. It’s only the older folks in the Democratic party who have a problem voting for a black man to represent them. I think if the Democratic party really wants to move forward and seize the opportunity to galvanize support and change the terms of the debate and even (*gasp!*) make significant changes to policy, it’s essential that they embrace this generational shift. Rather than cater to the irrational, racist fears of the older generation which is passing away anyway, why not challenge those same voters to just get over it?

The coalition is there. But the only way to bring it out is to take that risk.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

All this time I thought you were a Hillary supporter, now you tell me you are a Republican?

The Wright controversy is again only a controversy in the minds of some, not all.

Guess I thought Wright was a problem for the Hillary folks, now I guess it is not? 

Since being called Obamabot, I find the overwhelming need to say:

Vote for Obama, vote for Change and Hope plus, Yes We Can

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

You write:      “Selected sound bites over long periods of time, taken out of context, work quite well for the Fox News clones, Clintons love and seem to relish and enjoy slinging mud. In the long run all this mud slinging coming from the Clinton side may be helpful to Obama when he runs against McCain.”

Since when did Hillary create the Wright controversy?

This story has been out there for over a year, in fact, ever since Obama first ran for office in IL. It was also out there last winter/spring, but it never got any real traction until Brian Ross over at ABC first aired Wright’s speeches.

So get off this Hillary had anything to do with this. And excpet for answering one question at at press conference, she has never even weighed in on this matter.

Two reports from Truth Dig earlier this year BEFORE Wright became a household name on what to expect from the right if Obama becomes the nominee. NOTICE THE RIGHT. NOT HILLARY.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20080109_the_coming_attack_on_barack/

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080214_whats_waiting_for_obama/

Suggestion for Obamabots. Check facts before you post here. You are starting to look like you don’t know what you are talking about.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

I disagree. Hillary is getting what? Maybe 10% of the African American vote as it is and is winning all but two of the big states and all of the blue swing states without it.

So how exactly are the AA and the under 25s going to win him the race in November, exactly? How many Indie and moderate republicans are you counting on to ignore God DAMN America?

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

Howard is making a point I’ve agreed with since I first saw how the media was responding to the Wright videos.

I hate to think what would have happened to Hillary Clinton if SHE had been caught in a interview saying, “my (grandma) friend is, you know, a typical BLACK person”.

I can imagine that we’d be hearing from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in a New York minute, don’t ya think? I’d give them, maybe five seconds before they called for Hillary to resign from not only the campaign but the senate as well. She would have, in one short sentance, eliminated herself from public life.

So why exactly did Obama get this response for saying, “Typical White Person” - (MSNBC) “oh he sounded so tired, didn’t he?”

Anyone who suggests that it isn’t at least twice as hard for this woman to win the race given the trifecta of opposition to her campaign, Obama, the media and the GOP is fooling themselves.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Nazi Leefeller here,

While polishing my Jack Boots,  I could not help but notice, Obama said Hillary should stay in as long as she wants.

In the long run it may be helpful for Obama anyway.

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2008 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Joe:

“It’s Obama’s new mantra of Party Unity NOW! that is in play among his supporters. All of his endorsers are being pressured to publically call for Hillary to quit to create an artifical impression in the media that she can’t win. It shows in it’s own way how Obama will (have others) say and do anything to win.”

It is even sleazier than that: Obama leaves it to his endorsers and supporters to pressure Hillary to quit (which is both dishonest and undemocratic), while he himself makes the seemingly gentlemanly suggestion that, no, she should “keep running.”

If that is not “politics as usual” (getting others to do one’s dirty work while one stays above the fray), I don’t know what is.  And wasn’t he the candidate who stated unequivocally at the start of his campaign that he would “not engage” in “politics as usual?”

So much for his vaunted honesty, integrity and principle.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Blitzing on Wright and his alleged racism, qualifies Hillary folks to attack Obama through his association with his pastor.  Selected sound bites over long periods of time,  taken out of context, work quite well for the Fox News clones, Clintons love and seem to relish and enjoy slinging mud. In the long run all this mud slinging coming from the Clinton side may be helpful to Obama when he runs against McCain. It should be clear here I do not support every one of Wright’s sound bites, but most of them are on the money. Nothing but blunt truths, not to be accepted by the indignity of fools.

As, Obama stated, Hillary keep in as long as you want folks, stay to the last gasp.  Hate for the Clinton’s is building at an amazing rate.  Bush must likes it to, because it takes the heat off of him at the same time.  McCain is smug in his Iraq victory speeches, so he has nothing to worry about.

Wright has a new house provided for him by his black church, in a white neighborhood, a million dollar house.  This alone has nothing to do with anything about Obama, except I am sure the Clinton’s or their clones love using the white neighborhood to enhance Hillary’s standing with bigots, sort of working them into a nice frothy frenzy.

After all Hillary has done for the Black community, she drops them like a hot potato and ponies up to the bigots.  This is going to be fun.  The mass media loves it and don’t you love it too?

Only if we still had signs that said “no colored allowed”, listening to some of the Hillary supporters they still have the signs at the ready to win if necessary.

Racists, calling others racists, so unique and full filling for simple minded souls. Really now!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Bert - Some people confuse approval rating with a willingness to vote for someone. Clinton has hig negative polling numbers but is getting more than 12% higher voters than her negitives would show. The truth is that while people may not love her out loud like they do Obama, but they still vote for her because they know that no matter what kind of attacks she’s under (foreign terrorists or republican hate tactics)she’ll still be willing to pick up the phone at 3AM no matter what her polling numbers are.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

But don’t you get it? It’s Obama’s new mantra of Party Unity NOW! that is in play among his supporters. All of his endorsers are being pressured to publically call for Hillary to quit to create an artifical impression in the media that she can’t win. It shows in it’s own way how Obama will (have others) say and do anything to win. Creating the illusion that she is destroying the party by staying in, yet at the same time using language and tactics equally as harsh or damaging as anything Clinton has done. Hillary wants to keep going and show that she’s the stronger candidate for the general election. She has momentum and a big lead in PA. Of course Obama was opposed to MI and FL recounts where he would certainly lose in a revote. Distort the facts, hold on to the slim lead and pressure her to get out. That’s the ‘new kind of politics’ that Obama is using. Creating Hope and bringing Change by disenfranchising two critical states and trying to steal the election the same way Bush did in 2000 by having fellow democrats put pressure on Gore to give up the constitutional fight for the Presidency,  “for the good of the country”. Rubbish

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

You write:    “We’ve had enough of lies…”

Do you mean these 6 lies?

1.    Obama bragged in the Iowa debate about the “nuclear legislation I’ve passed.” When he encountered resistance from the nuclear industry… including Illinois-based Excelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money, he edited his bill several times, making it weaker each time. The bill, however, never passed. It died. In October 2007, Obama resubmitted the bill in its watered-down version.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp;&oref;=slogin&oref=slogin

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama-flip-flops-on-reverend-wright/2100981589

2..        Canadian TV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign, Austan Goolsbee, spoke directly with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago to assure them that if Obama publicly spoke about opting out of NAFTA, they should not take it seriously.

Obama flatly denied the report, at least 7 different times. I have posted those quotes on a different thread at Truth Dig previously.

On March 4, the New York Times, among other sources, revealed that the conversation had indeed taken place, and published the memo..

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=CTVNewsAt11

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?st=cse&sq=obama+nafta&scp=9

New York Times published the memo:  http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

3.    Rezko

For months Senator Obama insisted that Tony. Rezko was simply one of “thousands of donors” turned into an admission that this indicted political fixer was someone Senator Obama spoke to on the phone everyday when fundraising.

The Obama campaign’s regularly claimed that. Rezko only raised $150,000 turned into an admission reported that he in fact had raised at least $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed, bringing the donation to $250,000.

Obama for months insisted that Rezko simply loaned him some money to help purchase his house. Now he admits they toured the property together.

4.      “…I will complete my U.S. Senate Term”

RUSSERT “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?”

Obama answered, “It’s not something I anticipate doing.”

RUSSERT: Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama “Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term.” 

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice-president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Link to Meet The Press Transcript January 22, 2006:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/

5..      Rev. Wright
Obama first claimed not to know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory statements. He later admitted he did.

Flip-Flip Video

6.      Oh, and about that civil rights love story he spun regarding his mother and father, false, as well:
Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Which completely blows your theory out of the water about the AA vote.”

No it does not. The poll states:  “...motivation or turnout, which COULD be lower..” turnout.  It is an unknown. At least at this time.
 
And the poll shows that AA are not going too desert the Democratic Party if Obama does not get the nominations.

That will be done by Democratic elitists.


You write:  “You’ve ordered your little world so that it’s comfortable, and you’ve listened to yourself talk for long enough to have convinced yourself that you’re right.  So be it.”

And you haven’t? All humans do that.

You write:    “More than half the country viscerally hates the candidate that you prefer….”

First of all I am a lady and not a ‘sir.’

Second, Hate is a very emotionally charged word. I am sure some people do hate Hillary. There are people who have a negative impression of her to be sure, and who would not vote for her. That is far different then “hate.” ‘Not support’ and ‘not vote’ for are far different than ‘hate.’ I haven’t checked it the last few years but Hillary often shows up on many “Most Admired Women” lists, often placing in the top 3. She is a person who attracts strong feelings on both sides. So a lot of people also love her.

And in the general election you will learn the hard way that more than half the country does not support Obama either.

The anger you are expressing in your post is simply because I proved that you are wrong about your overly general and unsubstantiated statements that Hillary could not get the black or youth vote.

Report this

By cann4ing, March 30, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Rubbish!  Every national poll taken to date shows Obama running better against McCain than Hillary.  The only thing standing between an Obama landslide victory over McCain and a loss is the ability of the corporate media to sell the lie that McCain is either a Maverick or a moderate when in truth he is a fanatic who would not only keep us entrenched in the $3 trillion war in Iraq for the next one hundred years but seek to complete the Bush/Cheney task of invading Iran.  McCain is opposed to a woman’s right to choose, favors continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies designed to further enrich the few at the expense of the many.  It isn’t Obama who has trouble “getting past the race issue,” Joe in Maine.  It is you!

Report this

By Expat, March 30, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

^ masterful response.  I think this is one of your best.

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2008 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

JS:

“So what you’re trying to do is blackmail people into supporting Clinton…nice, very democratic.”

What is it with you, Cyrena and others not considering the words you choose.  “Blackmail?”  This is as ridiculous as Cyrena’s use of “brainwashing” in a similar context on another thread.

How could bert be “blackmailing” anyone by posting an opinion (or, even moreso, a fact)?  Is she threatening you in some way?  Does she have photos of you in a compromising situation?  Do you even know what the definition of “blackmail” is?

When you, Cyrena and others start throwing around words and accusations like “racist,” “brainwashing,” “blackmail,” etc., you only display your ignorance of the language and how to use it.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

But keep the focus on Obama and his judgment, not Hillary and hers.

Report this

By newsreader, March 30, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Hillary lies.  We’ve had enough of lies; we need someone with integrity and who will respect Americans enough to tell the truth and speak to us like adults.

Report this

By newsreader, March 30, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

No, and nobody jumped on him either but as long as you’re interested in who is NOT running, Wright isn’t running either. 


DOUBLE STANDARD!

Report this

By newsreader, March 30, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

You actually listen to Howard Stern????  BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!

And you quote him too!

Thanks for the laugh, that explains the majority of your comments!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

May suspect the young voters can see the hand writing on the wall, because they may get most of their news and ideas from the web on posts like TD and reading the comments.

Hillary presents a face of status quo, divisivenesses and exclusion, while Obama presents hope, change and inclusion.  These simple facts are what is presented, by the supporters and candidates, right or wrong.

Corruption is so apparent in our Bush government, it would seem even our poorly budget cut quality educated young folks would be able to make the distinction.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 30, 2008 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Hey Lib, Bert, Maani, Hinnis, you guys seem to have your heads on straight. Im putting this out there,I was on another post and I made reference to Obama if elected would be another politician that has to suck on the teat of Israel just like every politician before him, cyrena has put it out there that something I said in my post was Internet stalking, and I treading on dangerous ground, Yet I had posted hours before her. could you guys take a peek and be very honest did I come close to doing something wrong. and she called me a boy..here is the post .  You Take the High, Palestinians Take the Low

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 30, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

What the article you linked clearly states is that voters who prefer Obama are more likely to vote Democratic no matter what, while voters who prefer Clinton are more apt to take their ball and go home…who’d a thunk that.

So what you’re trying to do is blackmail people into supporting Clinton…nice, very democratic.

(The data do not address the issue of motivation or turnout, which could be lower among blacks if Obama is not the nominee, nor do the data address the implications of the precise way in which Clinton might win the nomination.

Which completely blows your theory out of the water about the AA vote.  Turnout is key, in both the AA and the youth demographics, which is why i referred to the youth vote as “elusive”.  You don’t know many young people, do you?  Anyone under say 30 can’t remember a time when there wasn’t a bumbling Bush or crony capitalist Clinton in the White House…that’s why they don’t care.  They figure that “fucked up” is the default setting for American politics.

Moreover, younger people think “scandal” with the Clintons means Lewinsky…i’m sure that the Republicans will remind us all of the other BS that got shoveled out of the White House for eight years, and that will be new to younger voters.  We must also factor in the aspect of Clinton damaging her own reputation…how many people are going to be willing to ignore past transgressions in light of current behavior?

I realize that i won’t convince you; i also realize that you’ll assume me to be some sort of Obamabot (which i’m not).  You’ve ordered your little world so that it’s comfortable, and you’ve listened to yourself talk for long enough to have convinced yourself that you’re right.  So be it.

If, sir, you are the typical Democrat then it is no surprise that your party has been losing for what, 20 years?  I suppose that losing has been comfortable, nothing like getting to be the victim and weep for yourself about how the world’s not fair enough or smart enough to see how you’re right.

More than half the country viscerally hates the candidate that you prefer…just stop and think about that for a few minutes, then you’re free to go back to your culture war trench.

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

RE: the media

I posted this earlier on Truth Dig and maybe you have seen it already. But on the off chance you did not, below is a link to excellent editorial/analysis of how the media has treated Hilalry and that pulls absolutely NO punches.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/113427/656

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 30, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

bert, says:

“Only one other Dem has ever done that before this.”??

Actually, it is done all the time.

Kennedy did it to Johnson in 1960, Kennedy and McCarthy did it to Humphrey in ‘68. Everyone did it to Gary Hart in ‘84. Biden did it to Dukakis in ‘88. This is not to mention that the DLC has been negative campaigning against the more leftist wing of the party and only lost control after two of their candidates self destructed in a row.

There was Tsongas and his Concord group (Republicans in Democratic Clothing) Phil Graham changing parties,  and Zell Miller (D Georgia) speaking for George Bush at the Republican convention.

All essentially calling other Democrats liars Some used the word “liar” (McCarthy in ‘68, Tsongas in ‘88, and Zell Miller at the Republican Convention.) others just implied the lie.  either way, as Will Rogers said: “I don’t belong to an organized party, I’m a Democrat”

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

You write:      “But to win, she’ll need the AA vote…which she’ll not get much of anymore.”

WRONG – According to a March 27, 2008 Gallup poll:

“Black Democratic voters, regardless of whom they support, seem prepared to remain quite loyal to the Democratic Party. Fifteen percent of blacks who support Clinton would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and only 10% of blacks who support Obama would vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

In other words, there is little apparent risk of losing a substantial proportion of black voters regardless of who the nominee is.

This last finding is significant. Obama has the overwhelming support of black Democratic voters at this point, and there has been discussion of the backlash that could occur if Obama were to lose the nomination to Clinton. But these data suggest that Clinton could still expect to receive the vote of most black Obama supporters were she to win and face McCain in the fall. “

You write:        “And she won’t get much of the elusive youth vote either.”

WRONG AGAIN -  According to the same March 27, 2008 Gallup poll:

Among Clinton supporters, there are only small differences by gender in voting for McCain if Obama is on the ticket. There are no significant age differences.


Link to the complete poll and analysis:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/105742/Democratic-Groups-Most-Risk-Deserting.aspx

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

I second Joe in Maine.

Obama08 = McGovern72 - MA

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

RE Obama and his paster you write:    “We noticed a clear double standard and we knew it wasn’t fair.”

Howard Stern makes a very solid point: “If a white candidate attended a white supremacist church with Klan speech and associated with a preacher who made racial remarks and blamed black people for all of America’s problems (the way Trinity United is a black liberation church with anti-American hate speech and a preacher who made racial remarks and blamed white people for all of the black community’s problems), then the liberal national media would exsanguinate that white candidate. He would be forced to drop out of the race immediately, in a hurricane of controversy and a great storm of shame.

Why the double-standard with Barack Obama?”

Good question Howard.

Report this

By bert, March 30, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Matt Taibbi writes:    “I’m not sure I’d have the balls to tell black America that it is permitted to criticize whitey in the style of Martin Luther King but not in the style of Malcolm X.”

I haven’t heard any one say that Rev. Wright couldn’t express his views any way he wishes. I know I haven’t and I have said so on this sight. There is after all the First Amendment.

As regards the Presidential election you are implying that the issue is about Rev. Wright’s beliefs and words.

That is not the issue at all.

The issue is, was, and will always be Obama’s judgment.

If Barack Obama claims the central reason for his candidacy is “his judgment”, then how does he reconcile “good judgment” with choosing to attend Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years?

How does Barack Obama reconcile “sound judgment” with choosing to expose his two young daughters to Jeremiah Wright’s rantings and ravings?

How does Barack Obama reconcile “proper judgment” in choosing to donate $30,000 to Trinity United Church of Christ, in effect subsidizing Wright’s hateful, anti-American messages by paying for the electricity to power the speakers broadcasting those sermons, the microphones Wright used to serve up his hate speech, and the facility in which Wright conducted his services?

Obama can belong to any chyrch he wants and can choose to have anyone he wants as his spiritual advisor.

But the American people also have a right to judge any candidate for their President by the company they keep and to ask does this candidate share the same beliefs as that person.

Some Americans will say Obama’s support of Rev. Wright is OK with them and in fact they agree with the speeches. Some will say it is not OK with them and they don’t like those words and beliefs.

Should Obama be the nominee, we will discover on election day which of those two groups is the largest.

And no amount of philosophical discourse or debate about who is right or wrong will change that outcome.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 30, 2008 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

And Clinton can form such a coalition?  A candidate who started the process with nearly half the country loathing her?  She has even less chance to get moderates, independents, and Reagan Democrats (who aren’t Democrats anymore…not after 28 years) than Obama, who’s chances are no longer very good.

She might be able to squeak out a win, but if she does, she will almost certainly govern from a minority position…just like her husband (who’s wins were with 43 and 48% of the popular vote).

But to win, she’ll need the AA vote…which she’ll not get much of anymore.  And she won’t get much of the elusive youth vote either.

And contrary to her claim of being vetted, she isn’t…not fully.  Keep in mind that the Clintons’ idea of vetted rarely stands up to the light of day.  They vetted all those nominations that they later had to withdraw during the 90’s.

But the good news is that her nomination would probably mean the end of the Democratic Party, which could then be rebuilt from the ground up.  This is good news because the Democratic Party, as it currently stands, is pretty much worthless and defunct anyhow…

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

Plenty of people found racism out of questioning a man’s position on his Iraqi war votes, but no one can prove the point to me.

Fairy Tale = Anti black? HUH???

I can understand if the man was gay how people might take offense, maybe.

That was Donna’s little campaign contribution. Feigning offense at the former President when Obama needed her to.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 4:09 am Link to this comment

I think you need to remember that Obama is mathmatically eliminated from winning too.

How exactly will he get to 2025 pledged deligates? Oh really? He can’t get there. Not without Hillary’s pledged delegates and the Super Delegates.

Maybe Obama needs to read the tea leaves and get out now.

Sounds outragious to you too, huh?

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 30, 2008 at 4:08 am Link to this comment

Spot on CY.  Had we invaded the USSR with a conventional army, they had the men/arms/geography to defeat us.  But they never had the ability to attack us.

During the 1960 election, Kennedy famously proclaimed the “missile gap”; however, there was no such thing.  The Soviets had 4 ICBM’s while we had 163.  This was well known from the U2 flights.  Moreover, the four that they had took a long time to ready and were kept out in the open…we could have destroyed them before they were ready for launch.

They did beat us into space, but they had to put everything they had into it.  By everything, i mean that they hardly had enough parts to do the job.  They might have gone further, faster except that they ran out of rockets.

Their actual weakness was shown in how Stalin maneuvered Mao and Kim into fighting the Korean War…and why he refused to give overt support.  That is, he was in no position to do anything else, and he knew it.

So, to bert, if the debate moderators knew history well enough, you couldn’t score many points on the Soviet atomic and space programs.  Perhaps some on the latter, but we didn’t even realize that there was a space race until sputnik started beeping from the heavens.  And after sputnik, it took everything Soviet science and society had to put another rocket up.  Note: Laika died before she even made it into space…and Russian myth is pretty firm that Gagarin was not the first man launched on a rocket…only the first man to live and be publicly presentable.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 30, 2008 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

“Just because the mainstream media was unfairly hounding Barack Obama…”

You must have an entirely different set of biased networks than I do here because you couldn’t be more wrong. You think Obama was unfairly treated during the Wright dust up? You’re wrong and it’s been proven. There are media-watching sites that study media bias and by and large Obama is the media darling of the campaign season.

Here’s an example: Obama calls his grammy, “a typical white person”

MSNBC - Boy he just sounded tired, didn’t he?

Clinton - “I misspoke due to sleep deprivation”

MSNBC - “She’s a liar.”

You can misspeak (or lie) it’s up to you but you’ll never convince any Hillary supporters that the media is unfairly treating your darling.

You must not have been watching CNN or MSNBC, right? Maybe Fox was over the top, but no one else was.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 30, 2008 at 2:37 am Link to this comment

Outraged,

Insightfully enlightening. Thanks I to have worked in places like that, and am working in one now! Dove tails into the stupidity of politics quite well.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, March 29, 2008 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment

OK.  I think I may have found an article that can settle this whole thing once and for all, for all of us.  It’s entertaining too, check it out….

The Alternet Site, By Matt Taibbi:

“This “clanging double standard,” Jacoby wrote, “raises questions” (these milquetoast pundits never just say they think a guy sucks; they always say his behavior “raises questions”) about Obama’s character and judgment, and about his “fitness for the role of race-transcending healer.” Now, me personally, as a white guy, I have to admire Jacoby—I’m not sure I’d have the balls to tell black America that it is permitted to criticize whitey in the style of Martin Luther King but not in the style of Malcolm X. I mean, no one sent my grandfather to be injected with syphillis at Tuskegee, or strung up my great-uncle for smiling at a white girl, so no matter what I actually think here, I’m keeping my mouth shut. But not Jacoby, and not the bulk of the media apparatus. They have no problem telling anyone, at any time, where the boundary lines of acceptable opinion are, and what the penalties are for straying beyond them.”

cont… ” We can’t keep our eyes on the ball and really think about the serious endemic problems of our system of government because we’re too busy freaking out like a bunch of cartoon characters over silly, meaningless bullshit. And then forgetting about that same bullshit ten minutes later, so that we can freak out all over again about something else later on.

That’s just the way we are, and maybe it’s time to wonder why that is. In Russia they have a word, sovok, which described the craven, chickenshit mindset that over the course of decades became hard-wired into the increasingly silly brains of Soviet subjects. It’s a hard word to define, but once you get it—and all Russians get it—it’s like riding a bicycle, you’ve got it.  Sovok is the word that described a society where for decades silence and a thoughtful demeanor might be construed as evidence of a dangerous dissidence lurking underneath; the sovok therefore protected himself from suspicion by babbling meaningless nonsense at all times, so that no one would accuse him of harboring smart ideas.”

(you gotta love that last portion, “so that no one would accuse him of harbouring smart ideas”...LOL   I’ve worked in places like that and I can wholeheartedly qualify, IT IS BIZARRE.)

Full Article:  http://www.alternet.org/election08/80577/

Report this

By cyrena, March 29, 2008 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

I think you’ve answered your own WTF recluse. At least as far as Robinson and his corporate poll/statistics are concerned.

I don’t know that it was necessarily a waste of EVERYONE’S time though. Some people may have gotten something from it.

I don’t think you’re gonna see any attention given to Nader or Gravel or McKinney though, (not that they wouldn’t be usesful to any new administration) but only because you should have been complaining or otherwise bitching about THEIR lack of exposure long ago..like when maybe they could have used it.

To bitch and moan and complain NOW..is pretty much a WASTE…don’t ya think?

You know how the system operates, unless you’re that much of a recluse. If so, you don’t really get that much of an opinion. Just that one vote, and you can cast it for anybody you want.

Report this

By Ron Ranft, March 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BFD I can find 20 or 30 other people with credentials as good as if not better, black, and other races who will say that it isn’t racist! So what? Bradley is hardly the last or most profound word on the subject. What did that silly frenchman say? Ah, yes, even if a million frenchmen believe in a silly thing, it is still a silly thing. Too many whites just don’t want to hear the truth and even more don’t want it spoken, usually because they are racists! BTW, I’m white.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

Oh please. You know how horrified everyone gets when they read about the Tuskeegee (sic?) experiments? How about the 220,000+ US soilders, sailors and airmen that were experimented on without being given any choice during the period between 1945 and 1965. In over 100 above ground nuclear explosions, often featuring live fleets under the clouds in Bikini and thousands of soilders in ditches and laying on their bellies a mere 2000 yards from atomic artillery ground bursts? Most of these soilders were poor and a majority of them were white and almost all of them died in service of this country, before their time was due. A country that turned a blind eye to these simple, brave and unlucky troopers. Our government doesn’t only experiment on the Black people.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

His take is that you are a drive by race-baiter. You’re a coward, a jerk and most likely a Nazi. You get a little firm in the jockeys from making a quick acusation then refusing to prove your case.

I should suggest you get some help but I am comforted by the fact that Darwin’s Theory works. You and your DNA will be selected for extinction through your own stupidity.

Good luck with that.

Oh and you’re a racist too.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

cyrena writes, “Your post has me bragging again, on how smart we all are. I love it when folks know the truth and acknowledge it, no matter how ugly it may be.”


That’s not the attitude of a winner. It stinks like the liberal elitist you are. That very attitude is going to do more to defeat Obama than any 527 group ad showing Obama without his hand over his heart or any 30-second clip of Rev. Wright pleading for God to Damn America. (What makes us think he hasn’t?)

That attitude does far more harm than you realize. Want to know why Obama does poorly with voters that make less than $50,000 a year? Just get a few ‘real people’ in a room and give them your best cyrena rant. Tell THEM how smart you Obamabots are and how they just don’t get it. It’s the belief in something too big for you to really understand. Give them a 37-minute lecture in your best constitutional law professor language about how we need to come together so as to distract you from the fact that I never answer any tough questions, how I’ve never been tested against a strong republican opponent. See how many of them stand up inspired with hope and ready to vote for change.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

I think she be most happy as senate majority leader. That way she can do to McCain what the Congressional bastards did to Clinton in ‘92.

It will position her well to run again in 2012.

She will never, never, never be asked to join an Obama ticket. Too much bad blood under that bridge. I’d enjoy seeing Judas Richardson’s face, though when Obama has to say, “You know I made you a promise Bill, but…”

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

It’s sad, but you’ve just laid out perfectly the Wright-wing’s game plan in the general election. They will peel him like a banana. He’s more liberal than Hillary. Game over.

Cyrena is helping him lose with every little snide remake like, “bert has trouble understanding things”

That attitude. Right there. Is going to be what dooms Obama. Most people don’t appreciate being talked down too. Liberal eliteism is ugly to most people and they turn away from it out of instinct like a bad smell. It killed Al “Inventor of the Internet” Gore. It killed John “You’re too stupid to understand why I flipflop” Kerry and it’s going to kill Barak “It’s a black thing, you can’t understand” Obama.

Keep belittling us cyrena. We might be there to vote for Obama in November when he really needs us most. Or maybe we won’t.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

You now know the reason Obama cannot win in November.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 29, 2008 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

It’s a shame that we were so quick to be swept up in a wave of Hope and Change when we could have had a very good, and historic, first woman President. Instead we democrats will all be disheartened in the general election because Mr. Obama cannot and will not beat John McCain in November. Call it whatever you like, hopelessness on my part or something more sinister if that feeds your particular Frankenstein, but I cannot see Obama winning in the fall. There is far too much entrenched in the needs of the neocons/Mccain supporters in the military industrial complex, in big business, those that control the economy, in the hate/fear-mongers, the racist, the non-thinkers and the foolhearty to overcome the young, the brave and the hopeful. I’m sorry to say that I am resigned in the fact that things don’t look good for my candidate and in that I firmly believe that we’ve lost any chance we had to stem the tide of global warming, of dependance on foreign oil, of universal healthcare, of a woman’s right to choose, to this, that and the other things that make me love the democratic party.

I am a democrat and I hope I am wrong, but no one can show me with any conviction that Obama can form a winning coalition of voters for the general election. Don’t count on moderates, independants, women or Reagan Democrats. McCain is even starting to look good to some democrats.

Sorry if I sound like a wet blanket but I just don’t see Obama getting past the race issue. It was fine when no one was paying attention to it, but now it just seems like the right is getting energized for the fight. I could be totally wrong, but if you pay attention the signs are all there. Take the View the other day. Most of the women were fawning over Obama but not Hasselbeck. Unfortunately there are more of Hasselbecks than Walters in the voting booths.

Report this

By reclusiveprogressive, March 29, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

Which is why I only gave it a cursory skim to see if I’d find any candidate names besides Obama and Clinton.  I didn’t, of course.
 
I don’t understand why Truthdig posts these trite pieces by Robinson on its site. He’s a mainstream-media hack who panders to his corporate masters at the WhiteWash-ington Post and to the co-opted zombie masses with his utterly stultifying examinations of Obama’s and Clinton’s big-money campaigns.  Perhaps instead of obsessing over the differences in a corporate poll about these two corporocrats’ so-called approval ratings, he could be drawing much-needed attention to the truly substantive campaigns of third-party candidates like Gravel, McKinney, and Nader. 

WTF, Robinson?

Report this

By lib in texas, March 29, 2008 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

Okay Bert, this is getting hilarious.  Cyrena replied to my post to you saying hers HAD disappeared.  She agreed basically to what I said but she said nothing about drugs so I take that back “she didn’t mention drugs. that was posted at 12:30 today.  At 12:45 cyrena re-posted the lost post with some additions.  Have a look !!!!  My sides are sore from laughing. She’s taking us both to task again !!!!!

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 29, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Anthony B. Bradley joined the Covenant Seminary faculty in fall 2005 as Assistant Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology. Prof. Bradley also serves as a Research Fellow for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Mich., a fellowship he has held since 2002. He is completing a Ph.D. in Historical and Theological Studies at Westminster Theological Seminary and holds an M.Div. (1998) from Covenant Seminary and a B.S. from Clemson University. His doctoral work focuses on the intersection of black liberation theology with the social thought of Thomas Sowell. His additional research interests include the Scottish Reformation, the emergent church, welfare, education, and modern international forms of social injustice, slavery, and oppression. Prof. Bradley brings a wide range of ministry experience to his teaching, including leadership in youth ministry and Christian high school education and administration. is he qualified as a black Professor, in is words the black liberation theology is all about blaming the white man for racism, instead of pulling yourself up and moving on. It’s all about black victim hood, He has said THE REV.WRIGHTS SPEECH IS RACIST.  He can see it, so after 20 years of listening to it why didnt Obama see it? unless he agreed with it, which in turn,  makes him the (r) word RACIST, but that is ok, he sure can deliver a speech….....

Report this

By cyrena, March 29, 2008 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

I agree Leefeller,

The only Obama campaign should have ignored the stupidy of the 3:00 call ad. Too many of us average folks saw though that, and so he could have let that slide, and left it to the TV late night comics to digest.

The Wright thing was different. Way different. He had to (as the old expression goes), “nip that in the bud.” And..as it turns out, was able to turn it into a postive.

I’ve just noticed an interesting comment from Tony WIncher, (you remember him). He mentioned that people like this, (bert, lee, maani, lib in tx, etc, etc..you know the group) aren’t very noticeable in the NON-Truthdig world.

Now HE didn’t mention any specific names, but rather just this whole collection of shit-stirring hate mongers on THIS blog, as opposed to this other website blogs, and the political environment that the average citizen resides in.

It was a timely mention, since I’d been meaning to spend more time on those other favorite sites myself, specifically to get an idea of the depth of the hate-mongering movement. So, maybe I’ll get time, but that was a hopeful mention from him.

Meantime, reasonable people can see that Hillary has dug her own grave. Anyone really interested in seeing the evolution of it, need only take some time to delve into the archives of THIS site, and read some of the comments. In reality, many of us started out relatively neutral in this whole exercise, WAITING TO SEE what each of these candidates had to offer. (or not).

I specifically remember, because while I was certainly among them, we were a pretty good sized group of rational and relatively objective folks. (relative always being the operative concept).

Still, with much ink spilled, and oh so many ‘tactics’ from all sides, we have been able to SEE, and HEAR, and READ, what we were waiting for. Reasonable people make reasonable and hopefully realistic decisions based on those things.

Hillary has screwed-up, in a very big way.

Report this

By bert, March 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Yes. Russia was an empty shell. It was rotting from within. There was an excellent book I read in the 80’s about this from a former ambassador or state department official. Unfortunately, I do not remember the title nor his name and he died about a dozen years ago. He predicted the Soviet Union would self destruct and fall and he had the facts and statistics to prove it. Just like Bush with Saddam and Iran, politicians, especially from the right allways have to have a boogy man to make us afraid so they can get and keep power. And unfortunately ir so often works.

However, in terms of getting into space first and numbers of atomic weapons and a few other things, I could debate you (in a real debate like college debate club) and score points on the topic was the Soviet Union a super power in the 50’s and 60’s.

It would be a great debate and lots of fun too.

Report this

By newsreader, March 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No, Hagee isn’t running for president and I also don’t recall Hagee’s, or Manning’s or Parsley’s worst, most outrageous statements ever uttered over a 30 year span played in a loop continuously on the news for an entire week and virtually 24/7 for an entire week on the cable news stations across the country.  We see the double standard.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

All you guys jumped on Hagee,He isnt running,is he?

Report this

By newsreader, March 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Just because the mainstream media was unfairly hounding Barack Obama, didn’t mean the viewing public wasn’t free to make their own decisions and notice that Wright is not running for president, Obama is.  Were the other candidates being run through the mud from the most outrageous comments of their respective pastors played continuously in a loop on television?  NO!  We noticed a clear double standard and we knew it wasn’t fair.  Most important of all, Obama is more than capable of speaking for himself so why bring up the pastor at all?  It was a clear smear campaign.  And finally, just because the mainstream media didn’t pick up on the Clinton lies doesn’t mean that the blogosphere didn’t notice them.  Clinton lied more than once about Bosnia, she first lied way back in December to an IA audience.  Below are some clips from a blogger.  And one more thing, on the MacClaughlin Group two weeks ago, Pat Buchanan said that the Wright controversy would be payback for the Ferraro scandal and that the Clintons would be behind it.  Eugene, we know where the dirty politics are coming from, give us credit for being able to think without the media telling us what to think.

Hillary and Ireland-gate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCmKkLdCuA

Hillary and Tuzla-gate
http://youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

Hillary and Nafta-gate
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFuA0z4kKD4

Her SCHIP claims are also dubious.

Is she really going to try the war in Iraq?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7pj_hZn_rH4

Chris Dodd was the one who worked tirelessly to get FMLA passed.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Bert, seems you have your roles reversed here, this is no shock coming from Bill and Hillary, this is what they do best muckraking extraordinaries and experts.

Down side of Obama was his addressing the Hillary 3 am fear monger B. S.

Hillary has spun her own negative web, and you guys are part of it.  Maybe Hillary will become the black widow,  she may send Mr. Bill down the road. Saturday night Live all over again.

Report this

By bert, March 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

RE: the media

For an excellent analysis of how the media has treated Hilalry and that pulls absolutely NO punches check out the link below.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/113427/656

A preview:

“We’ve come full circle. From destroying Gore in 2000, then demanding that he withdraw during the Florida recount, so confident have the Beltway media courtiers grown in their social and political status that what once was furiously denied is now boasted about. Politicians may come and go, but Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd preside over a permanent House of Lords. Remember, its the same media who attack Hillary now, attacked Gore in the same way then. The same media who now say Hillry must get out of this race for “the good of the Party”, said in 2000 that Gore must quit and give he White House to Bush “for the good of the Nation”.

And some foolish Democrats are listening to these fools. Why?

HAVE OBAMA PEOPLE BECOME THE SAME AS THE 2000 CLINTON/GORE HATING MEDIA. TOO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY’VE BEEN CLONED.

Same attacks, same fake charges, same fake outrage, same motives…

[........]

“Whats shocking is one dem’s campaign callng another dem a liar in the media.

Only one other Dem has ever done that before this.

That selfish fool bradley did this in 2000 and he set up the entire Gore is a liar media campaign.

Reemember, the same exact media players who did this to Gore are now doing this to Hillary.

WAY TO GO OBAMAITES!

You are becoming exactly what weve been fighting against since 2000.”

Report this

By felicity, March 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, Ernest.  You have managed to say in a few words what supporters of Obama have taken zillions of words to express on this site and elsewhere.  The time has come for the voices of the people to be heard and heeded by way of the ballot box.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The French promised to return control of Vietnam to its citizens, but Reneged when the appearent leader was said to be a communist. Despite his writing a constitution modeled after that of the USA, Vietnam was seen by the “Dulles Brothers” as a loose cannon. The French negotiated a settlement in the UN, but Ho refused to sign it saying “There is one Vietnam.”

The “domino theory” Was the brain child of John Foster Dulles Secretary of State and Brother of Allan who was Eisenhower’s head of Central Intelligence.

In point of fact, I am aware that I am contradicting our urban legend history, BUT we were the only superpower until at least 1959, and probably beyond.  A new history may be written now that we know the Soviet Union was a hollow husk without the resources or advanced technology to fight a successful war. After WW II and for about 20 years, no country in the world came near matching the USA in wealth, weapons, or ability.  For at least 40 years we were the victims of a very successful soviet bluff…. some card players those Russians.

It may be that at the highest levels of government we knew the Soviets were weak, BUT there was a military industrial complex to support… You are no doubt aware GWB did not invent government through fear.

Report this

By bert, March 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

This is Biden’s quote:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

There are several different takes on the statement by the media - the media, its always the media - and some prominent AA. The Obama campaign issued a staement saying that other AA who ran for President were articulate too.

Report this

By bert, March 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

Yes, I do remember that tirade. Although I have to admit it is hard to distinguish one of Cyrena’s tirades from the other.

But I am not sure the post was on this thread and in response to this article by Robinson. It may have beem on a Bosnia thread or maybe even on the Obama story titled “On His Own Terms.”

You write:  “...I believe that is the worst one I have seen her do!!!! “

How can you tell?

Report this

By bert, March 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

You know your Vietnam War. Essentially you are correct. But weren’t the French in Vietnam long before 54? It was one of France’s colonies before WW II I believe. And the French wanted to keep it
even though the age of colonialism was ending, i.e. Britain began leaving India.

Right after the WW II I know that there were some negotiations between Ho Chi Min and the French and somehow two countries were created, north and south. But Ho Chi Minh believed he was the legitimate ruler of both. (This is a very basic simplified summary)

And there was fighting or skirmishes or armed conflict before 1954, between the French and the north tears before the USA got formally involved, and as I said after WW II around 45 and 46.

What I am not certain of is if that ‘80% cost of war’ is accurate. I know we spent a great deal in that period, but wasn’t most of it for cost of supplies. And maybe that is splitting hairs. And for a long time everything we did was under the guise of providing “advisors” to the French. And I think it was Truman who came up with the ‘domino theory.’

However, I totally disagree with you when you say, the USA “...[was] the sole “Superpower” at the time.” The Soviet Union was a super power at that time too, especially if your time frame is from 1954.

But I also stand by my original statement that it was really LBJ’s war more than FDR, Truman, Eisenhauer, or JFK.

Report this

By Lee, March 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

Hillary detractors say that she has a sense of entitlement in regards to becoming the President of the United States. However, if you listen to Obama, Wright and their other spokespeople, they project the attitude that due to past mistreatment of Afro-Americans, America owes Obama the Presidency, not matter what. Furthermore, Hillary detractors claim that if she swings the super delegates to her side, she would be ‘stealing’ the election. However, Obama associates actively blocked a reelection in Michigan ... and, everyone knows that if the American people knew about Obama’s close relationship with anti-American, racist, Pastor Wright a year ago, Obama surely would not be ahead in the popular vote, or the delegates ... in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race. If you look at the polls and the statistics, nearly every black person in American is voting for Obama because he is black. So, as it turns out, race is a dominant factor in this election ... even though Obama claims to be the candidate who is above race, and who will unify the nation.

Report this

By cyrena, March 29, 2008 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Eric,

I know this probably sounds crazy, but I remember Obama making an indirect suggestion of the same thing, way back in an earlier debate. (It MAY have been the last one they had when Edwards was still in the race).

He didn’t specifically suggest her as Vice President, but rather as someone in his administration.

Now I’m surprised that the Obama haters didn’t pick up on this, as they made such a big deal over Obama saying that Hillary was ‘likable enough.’ I didn’t take it as an ‘insult’ but many choose to consider it just that way. Everybody is so super hyped, and the spin and the innuendo are out of control.

That said, I honestly DO believe that Hillary would be an asset to the admin, or at least I USED to think that.  I swear I don’t know anymore. It’s really hard to ‘overlook’ ALL of the nastiness, and it can’t all be blamed on her mindless supporters, who are more ‘in hate’ of Obama than they are ‘in support’ of Hillary Clinton. I mean, even setting aside the Bosnia and other lies, Hillary – herself- and IN HER OWN WORDS, sat there on national TV, and endorsed the repug over her own party’s candidate. THAT gives me goosebumps.

So, I dunno. I’m my visions of Hillary as a Vice President in an Obama Presidency, I see the possibility of another Cheney government working behind the scenes to orchestrate the REAL government, with Obama as the ostensible one that the public sees. And yes, while he’s certainly smart enough, (as are his advisors) to ‘be on the lookout’ for that, I know from experience that one can simply NOT give all of his or her attention to the job at hand, if they are having to constantly look over their shoulders to avoid being stabbed in the back.

It’s one thing when such ‘paranoia’ is irrational, but this would be a perfectly legitimate concern to any president that might include Hillary in the mix, unless it was Bill himself, one more time.

So, I don’t know. A lot has changed in the past couple of years, and Hillary is scary. There’s no telling what she might do.

Report this

By cyrena, March 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

No Lib, it had nothing to say about drugs. And, I don’t know what happened to it either. It’s just as well.

The only point I was making was that bert had trouble understanding things, just as she had trouble with my response to your post.

So, for verification purposes, and for bert’s understanding..do YOU remember when you ‘promised’ to leave truthdig, that you were ‘out of here’ just after the primaries in Texas?

I specifically remember that, and I specifically remember that we responded with ‘good riddance’ and aegrus and a few others suggested that they would NOT miss you.

If I remember correctly in that very SAME post, you also DECLARED that Barack was NOT black, and that he was biracial and you topped it off with..“That is a FACT”. (your emphasis, not mine).

Standard response to that was, well…DUH!! What MORON didn’t already know that Barack Obama was from a mixed racial parantage.

Only ignorants like you lib.

Anyway, you HAVE broken your promise. We thought we’d seen the last of you, but you’re back to torture us some more.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 29, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

PH is always the first to make the comeback,yea well look at your spelling, Well yea look at my spelling,oops. alzheimer’s.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 29, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Wake up.!!!!!!! Your party says it, everyone else reports it, Wake Up!!!!!. When McCain Alhienzerd Iran/Iraq the press was all over it ,more so on this site, When Hillary was coming under fire in her cork screw to the landing zone, you guys were all over it. But it is a sin to put out a fact about Obama. Wake UP!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By lib in texas, March 29, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

Bert, Did you see the post Cyrena did in answer to a post you had done?  It was way over the top.  Like she had just finally LOST her mind.  She threw in lesbianism, drunkeness, drug use, long ranting post and the more she wrote the more insane she got.

WELL IT HAS DISAPEARED!!!!  How did that happen ??
I replied and you can see my reply below but her post is gone.  Which is probably well and good because I believe that is the worst one I have seen her do!!!!

JUST WONDERING ??????

Report this

By cann4ing, March 29, 2008 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

Hi Leefeller.  My take is the same as the one Jim Hightower provided in a three-way conversation with George McGovern and Amy Goodman.

“To me, the significant thing about the Obama phenomena is not him, it’s the phenomena; the fact that we have millions of new voters, excited voters, people who have not been voting in the past, but who feel that this time they matter and that they have a potential not just to send Obama to the White House, but for them to go into the White House; not just the party operatives, not just the usual special interests, but for the people themselves to be able to go in.  I don’t think anybody thinks that Obama—and I don’t even think he thinks that there’s any sainthood here.  But with him, I think we’ve got a potential to have a real progressive government, because the people themselves would be a force in it.”

As far as the Democratic nomination, it is simple math.  Hillary will win big in PA, lose big in North Carolina but she will not be able to overcome Obama’s lead in either delegates or the overall popular vote.  To do that, she would have to win 60% in every remaining state (other than No. Carolina)—something she has not accomplished anywhere but Arkansas.  The issue is no longer who will be the Democratic nominee but how long it will take before the Clintons and their supporters to accept not only that Hillary cannot win but just what a John McCain presidency would mean.  Contrary to corporate media spin, McCain is no Maverick or moderate.  He advocates a foreign policy that is more belligerent than those advanced by the neocons.  On economics, he is Herbert Hoover reincarnated.  With the nation and the world teetering toward economic and ecological disaster, we cannot afford to waste our time on diversions like Rev. Wright and the 3 a.m. phone call ads.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 29, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After Kennedy was elected, Eisenhower contacted him and said:

” I’m afraid the U. S. was going to have to either send ground troops to Vietnam or withdraw, and if you are forced to send troops, I will come back from Pennsylvania, and stand next to you when you make the announcement.” (From 10,000 day war) additionally, the US had been carrying 80% of the cost of the Vietnam War the French were fighting since 1954. We were flying in supplies with “Global Transports” and were the sole “Superpower” at the time.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook