home
Where Kos And I Agree . . . And Disagree | 175 comments (175 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

it's a bizarre argument: (5.00 / 8) (#10)
by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
we must not upset the obama supporters, because if we do, they won't participate, in november. clinton's supporters, on the other hand, will do the right thing, so we can afford to upset them.

[ Parent ]
Bizarre, But Not Uncommon (5.00 / 14) (#27)
by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
It's implicit in Obama's statement that he'll get Hillary's voters, but she might not get his.  And it's designed, IMO, to play on Super Delegate fears.  From a recent article on South Dakota:

Some Democrats feel like they're in a jam, Simmons said. If Clinton wins, the black vote might not turn out for her in the general election. If Obama wins, political ads featuring Wright will blanket the airwaves and Internet.

It seems to me that the worry over the black vote is, at least in part, driven by the Obama campaign's attempts to smear the Clintons as personally racist (the fairytale, MLK crap).  Sure, there were some unfortunate comments by Clinton surrogates, but it's Obama's repeated playing of the race card that is the real culprit here, IMO.  And I think Obama's statements about Hillary not getting his voters are designed to play onto those fears and essentially try to convince the SDs they have no choice but to vote for him.  Now, ordinarily, you might think the guy threatening to split the party wouldn't be rewarded, but I'm not so sure about that.

It's remarkable to me that a campaign that has so often leveraged Reps/Indys against democrats, used rightwing framing on healthcare, has worked to portray the last successful democratic president as a racist, and has essentially threatened to take his voters and go home if he doesn't get his way, is considered the party of Unity, while Hillary - who has repeatedly said the party would unite behind the nominee and run a partisan, democratic campaign - is alleged to be secretly plotting a McCain victory.

Only in the democratic party.

[ Parent ]

That Was A Heck Of An Article (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
Thanks for passing it along.

[ Parent ]
Excellent points and precisely the reason (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by hairspray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
I am changing my registrtion to independent and have serious doubts about voting for Obama. An important point to consider is the Latino vote.  IN the past they have not benn consistent voters much to the dismay of the Democrats in TX.  If Hillary gets trashed they too will stay home, mark my words.

[ Parent ]
As a slight digression from the points made... (none / 0) (#156)
by tandem5 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:37 PM EST
I know that I shouldn't be looking for logic where there is none, but the implicit and explicit statements made on the part of the Obama Campaign and its supporters that, "he'll get Hillary's voters, but she might not get his" further indicates that Hillary Clinton's supporters are the base of the party - A fact not disputed by most exit polls for the various primary elections.

But, at the same time, another message permeates the political landscape which I would assume also originates from the Obama camp that, unlike Obama's supporters, Clinton's, in general, do not hold positions consistent with progressive tenets. So I guess my (faux) confusion centers around where the progressive movement sits in relation to the base.

I've heard a variety of arguments that essentially gerrymander the progressive movement out into the regions of the independents (usually those regions that are more inclined to vote for Obama, oddly enough), however I've always been under the impression that the term "progressive" was a euphemism for being liberal (eek!) and so if we can all agree the base on the Republican side represents solid right-wing positions I think its safe to assume that our base is fairly lib... uh progressive.

[ Parent ]

Reward Bad Behavior (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Nevertheless. . . (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
it has been one of Obama's arguments.  And not really that bizarre if you buy the "growing the party" argument -- that Obama attracts people who aren't necessarily doctrinaire Democrats and who might not vote for the Democrat in the fall.

I don't buy that argument -- at least, not barring open warfare around the convention (which might well induce some otherwise reliable Democratic voters to sit it out this year).  But if you do, then it makes perfect sense to say we can afford to rough Clinton up but have to treat Obama with kid gloves.

I don't buy the argument because I don't believe the polling is there to support it, but also because it's tainted by being so obviously self-serving in nature.

[ Parent ]

What I (none / 0) (#72)
by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
And many of my colleagues (I live in Atlanta BTW) are worried about is that the anger from AA's will run so deep if the press allows the idea that the nomination (Hillary's) wasn't completely above board--no smoke filled rooms, etc.--that AA's won't just stay home for this election, they'll stay home rather than vote for ANY white democrat.  I DO NOT think this would be smart behavior...but it does worry me.

[ Parent ]
I understand that (5.00 / 4) (#84)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
But the notion that AAs will erupt in anger if the nomination isn't decided the way they prefer, while women will dutifully let it roll off their backs and show up in November to vote for the party's nominee, seems to play into stereotypes of both groups.

And it's a dangerous game, in any event, to decide that we must appease certain groups who might otherwise walk out, while paying no attention to the opinion of other groups who we've decided can be safely taken for granted.  The short-term logic of this approach is apparent, but in the long run all you do is end up rewarding bad behavior.  We don't want the Democratic nomination to be decided, year in and year out, according to which candidate's supporters can make the most powerful argument that they won't vote Democratic unless they have their way.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:10:05 PM EST
This is kind of a weird year.  We have two great candidates.  Both of whom I'd be proud to vote for.  The point I'm trying to make is that AA's may be so angry that they won't vote for any white democrat, Atlanta will end up with a republican mayor, etc.  I don't discount the possible anger of white women voters...I do think it very unlikely that they will refuse to vote for any democrat unless said dem is a white woman.  
Also, slightly O/T to our conversation, but if HRC is within 100 delegates and leads in the popular vote, I will have no problem with her as the nominee...nor do I think many AA's will.

[ Parent ]
so, what you're suggesting is that (none / 0) (#157)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
the AA community is so blinded by race, it would, as a group, knowingly and willfully vote in violation of its own self-interests? sorry, i just don't buy into that stereotyped analysis. sure, some would, no doubt. some wouldn't vote at all. the majority i suspect would still vote for what works best for them.

let me further break it down: atlanta is not the entire state of GA. the entire state of GA will vote republican in the fall, regardless of who the democratic candidate is. if the AA community of atlanta wants to vent its collective spleen, by letting a republican become mayor, that's really their problem, not mine or sen. clinton's.

in fact, i could frankly care less, the mayor of atlanta has absolutely no effect whatever on me, or anyone else outside the city limits of................atlanta.

[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0) (#162)
by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:58 PM EST
For your breaking "it down," and for your use of a gigantic ellipsis.  I, myself, enjoy ellipses.  Let me break this down for YOU: I was using Atlanta as an example because it is where I was born and raised and currently practice.  How 'bout I break it down further for you:  After I posted my example, in the halls of the Georgia State Capitol, I heard a man I know to be a democrat and an elected official say "If she doesn't care about us ** her," to a relatively large group of young men.  [They went on to discuss sen. Clinton by name, so I'm assuming that's who he was referring to] He was not.......from Atlanta.  
Let me break it down even further: People vote against their interests.  Always have, probably always will.  That's why poor whites are a huge voting bloc for the repubs.  
I understand that GA will most likely go red in GE but that doesn't mean we can't continue to elect people like Rep. Lewis...unless the AA community feels like they've been lied to.  Then we can't.
Republicans have been running a years-long whisper campaign that basically goes "dems are just taking your vote for granted.  They don't really care about you."  If it seems this nomination was stolen, we will have lost a huge voting bloc that we count on across the U.S.  I was using ATL as an example. Thanks for missing the point.      


[ Parent ]
Then we have no one to blame but Obama (5.00 / 3) (#98)
by goldberry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
He didn't have to drive a wedge between Hillary and the AA community.  What could he do for them that Hillary wouldn't have done?  If anyone has to make amends in the fall, it has to be Obama.  He either has to patch things up with the "typical white person" Democratic base or he has to glue the AAs and Hillary back together.  
And I hate to point this out but AA's make up only about 15% of the total population and are heavily represented in Republican states like Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana.  Even if they all turned out for Obama, it is unlikely that they would be capable of winning the south for him.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah! How dare that uppity young buck... (2.00 / 1) (#108)
by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
... run against the experienced Hillary Clinton!  It was her turn to be President, not his!

[ Parent ]
That's a big problem in this primary. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
Resorting to claims of racism when one is unable to answer the argument.

[ Parent ]
Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:32:59 PM EST
racist language doesn't become any more acceptable when you're purporting to put the words in someone else's mouth.

[ Parent ]
The only way Obama could have avoided... (none / 0) (#120)
by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM EST
... driving a wedge between the AA community and Hillary Clinton would have been for him not to run a successful, engaging campaign.

Pretending otherwise -- and pretending that what I wrote wasn't the real meaning behind the post I replied to -- seems to me rather obtuse.

[ Parent ]

Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
It is not for you to decide that other posters must be racist just because you can't divine any other intent for their comment.

I believe Jeralyn had a post less than 24 hours ago in which she warned commentors not to resort to accusations of racism.  And now here you are.

[ Parent ]

It was not an accusation of racism. (none / 0) (#129)
by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
It was an accusation of "status-ism".  It was an accusation of "turn-ism".  As in, "It's Hillary's turn, and I'm gonna smear anyone who gets between her and the Presidency into a wet spot on the pavement."

Unfortunately, in this case, because of Obama's perceived race, there was no way Hillary's campaign could smear Obama without alienating the AA community.  Even the assertion that he has driven that wedge drives the wedge deeper.

Which comes back to the fact that, because of his engaging manner and obvious charisma, the only way Barack Obama could have avoided driving a wedge between Hillary Clinton and the AA community would have been not to run.

[ Parent ]

not so (5.00 / 2) (#135)
by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:09:52 PM EST
The way Obama drove a wedge between Hillary Clinton and the AA community was by tainting President Bill Clinton as a racist.

 It started with the comment by the Obama campaign that President Clinton was saying Ba black man running for president was a fairy tale, and it went from there.

[ Parent ]

You may believe that if you like... (none / 0) (#144)
by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
... but because of the "all's fair in politics" nature of the Clinton campaign -- witness Hillary's harping on Jeremiah Wright just today -- it was inevitable that the color of Barack Obama's skin would result in some slip-up in somebody's language driving a wedge between the AA community and Hillary Clinton.

You may cite that as when it happened, and you may be right -- but I say it was inevitable, and Bill Clinton's sloppy choice of words in South Carolina just happened to be the first instance.

[ Parent ]

I'm not even going to comment on this. (none / 0) (#169)
by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM EST


[ Parent ]
well, no (none / 0) (#158)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
sen. obama could have run his campaign on its merits: his accomplishments, his experience, his brilliant plans for the country's future. he could have. unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have much of the above, so that didn't really leave him much left to run on, hence the ludicrous charges of "racism" against the clinton campaign.

methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

charisma and platitudes will only get you so far, at some point the people demand substance. that's the huge difference between sen. clinton and sen. obama: i'll grant you, she isn't the most charismatic speaker, and she doesn't shake a room up when she enters, but she's got a rock solid record of substantive accomplishments.

myself, i'll take solid & substantive for $100 alex!

[ Parent ]

goldberry (5.00 / 3) (#136)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM EST
didn't say he shouldn't have run against her, he said Obama shouldn't have driven a wedge between Hillary (and Bill) and the AAs.  He absolutely has done that and it's not good for the Party overall.

[ Parent ]
Who is Buck? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by Mike Pridmore on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:47 PM EST
Is he a third party candidate?

[ Parent ]
Another Point (none / 0) (#93)
by The Maven on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
that's largely been left unspoken:  

The common wisdom is that Obama is bringing in all these new voters as well as pulling over a decent chunk of indies and disaffected Republicans.  Let's posit that all this is true.  What I don't see is how this necessarily benefits Democrats in any other race, for Congress, state or local offices.  Some share of the new voters would simply show up at the voting booth, cast their ballot for Obama, and leave pretty much everything else blank.  The crossover Republicans may very well split their tickets and vote GOP for downticket races -- after all, if he will work for unity and be willing to work with everyone, what's the imperative to strengthen the Democratic majority in Congress?

I'm not suggesting that Obama actually would be a net negative in this regard (and hopefully this wouldn't turn out to be the case), but it's a question that I think is worthy of examination.

[ Parent ]

Maybe Not (none / 0) (#103)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST
A recent msnbs/wsj poll said that 76% of the voters "want a candidate who has different policies than Bush".  Considering the GOP is lockstep, the only alternative is to vote Dem down the line.

think progress

[ Parent ]

Erm . . . The Question Asked (none / 0) (#143)
by The Maven on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
in that poll was, "Do you think that the next president should take an approach similar to that of George W. Bush, or should the next president take a different approach than George W. Bush has?" (Hart/McInturff for NBC/WSJ, March 7-10, 2008, Question 7 at p. 13)

I'm not sure how the 76% who said that the next president should take a different approach necessarily translates into a straight-line Democratic vote all the way down the ballot.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  All I'm saying is that no one has really addressed this yet, and there's no data one way or the other.

[ Parent ]

I Must Be Biased (none / 0) (#175)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST
Because it is hard for me to imagine anyone wanting another BushCo ticket. Also, my guess is that the people who would vote for a Dem president would not then hamstring them by voting Republican down the line.

But yes, it is hard to know from the poll if people are going to vote down the line.

[ Parent ]

ladies are expected to "play nice" (5.00 / 4) (#117)
by nemo52 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
However, I know a lot of "old bags" as we have been designated by Obama's young fanatics, who are furious, are contemplating not voting or planning not to, and I know several who are already severing from the democratic party.  It works both ways, and yes, older women have been taken fro granted and insulted thoroughly in this campaign.

[ Parent ]
Good Thing (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST
That for most older people wisdom increases with age. Those sages will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee irrespective of their skin color or initial favored candidate.

[ Parent ]

Where Kos And I Agree . . . And Disagree | 175 comments (175 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft