home
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 ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft