A Columist Supporting Obama Expresses Doubts

Buyer's Remorse is setting in for Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan, who has often criticized Hillary and says she supports Obama. Read the whole thing, but here are some snippets:

I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like Moonies, or Hare Krishnas...These true believers “Obama-ize” everything. They speak Obama-ese. Knit for Obama. Run for Obama. Gamble - Hold ’Em Barack! - for Obama. They make Obama cakes, underwear, jewelry. They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack your world!”

Even better:

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet. I’m nervous because it’s gone to a lot of other people’s heads as well.....“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney. “I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

I’m nervous because nobody’s quite sure what Obama stands for, even his supporters. (“I can’t wait to see,” said actress/activist Susan Sarandon, declaring full support nonetheless).

She even has remorse about Michelle Obama, about whom she recently wrote "a puff-piece." She ends with:

I’m nervous because John McCain says Obama’s is “an eloquent but empty call for change” and in the wee, wee hours, a nagging voice whispers, suppose McCain’s right, too? Then what?

Is she serious? Who knows, but I suspect we'll be hearing it from others over the next two weeks.

< WaPo Polls: TX Tied, Clinton Ahead In OH | Texas Democrats Debate: Pre-Debate Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But is it too late to change his momentum? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    Assuming the change is happening in the next couple of weeks, is it enough to change the direction of this primary? Will the backlash be enough to hold back the Obamaniacs?

    *NOTE: Not saying all Obama supporters are Obamaniacs, just the ones who 'would collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear'. It's almost like a fetish, isn't it?

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#72)
    by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    *NOTE: Not saying all Obama supporters are Obamaniacs, just the ones who 'would collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear'.

    Those Clooney and Berry quotes are (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:46:36 PM EST
    weird. I can't understand getting so under the thrall of anyone. I mean, I really wanted Clinton to win but I wouldn't have "followed her anywhere" or do "whatever she said to do".

    actors (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    are seldom as sharp as we want them to be.  

    I think this is just the sort of scrutiny needed.  I agree with those who hope it is not too late.


    Some actors, like some non actors (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by mexboy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    Please, don't generalize, I can point to  actors who are educated about the issues and care about people.
    Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Angelina Joli, Whoopi Goldberg, you get the idea.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#80)
    by Redstar on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:35:31 PM EST
    Love Pitt because of his work in New Orleans!

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#40)
    by tek on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    has two polls up that show Hillary has risen and Obama has fallen. One poll shows Hillary is now favored nationally by 2 points. Of course, it won't mean anything if she doesn't win the upcoming primaries. It worries me that "Independents" can vote in TX.  That "Bamboozled" video is really telling, makes you think how pathetic Obama's speeches really are.

    makes ya feel (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST

    I like polls that show Clinton ahead, but then I have to remind myself that polls are basically crap.


    They are good actors because ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:18:33 PM EST
    ... they can absorb, internalize, and reflect back the emotions of the person they are studying. And -- compared to Clinton -- Obama is a much easier role for an actor to play, because he is an actor himself. All politicians are, to some degree, but he comes across as much more "one-dimensional" than Hillary -- with him, it's all about his performance on stage. I suspect that this aspect of his personality resonates strongly with some actors, perhaps explaining the Clooney and Berry comments.

    Just my thoughts and observations. I have no training in such matters (and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night :-).


    Is she serious? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    Who knows, but I suspect we'll be hearing it from others over the next two weeks.

    we can only hope

    Is she serious? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    I am not a huge Hillary fan but I am definitely starting to think it would be fun to watch the Obamacons immolate.

    Satisfying...yes. Fun? No. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:14:52 PM EST
    Bleh (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    I'm so absentminded that when I look for my comment and don't see it, I have no idea if I said something offensive and got deleted, or if I just forgot to click post and surfed away.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    Maybe your comment moved to the top (none / 0) (#90)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    ... because it got rated. That has fooled me once or twice.

    In the News: on Yahoo! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dutchfox on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
     On the Yahoo! homepage:
    Is Obama's media affair ending?

    This is a lie (none / 0) (#32)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM EST
    the media gave Obama a pass...

    "We got good press (at first) because we raised more money than people had expected," Obama said late last month. "And then there was a big stretch of about six months when we couldn't do anything right.

    "We were not complaining when other candidates were touted as inevitable and their campaigns were flawless and we were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. So I just think we have to keep it in perspective."


    This is the same meme as: GOP (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    can't lay a glove on me.  HRC has really beat me up.

    Yah (none / 0) (#42)
    by tek on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    They compare Obama to Ronald Reagan. That's who the Dems are sponsoring.

    People (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    Can we all agree that the creepy enthusiasm of some Obama supporters is neither a reason for OR against his candidacy?

    <shake-shake> Magic 8 Ball (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST
    try again later

    Signs point to yes? (none / 0) (#55)
    by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    signs point (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:31:53 PM EST

    No (none / 0) (#53)
    by phat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:50:47 PM EST

    In itself (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:52:45 PM EST
    it is certainly not a GOOD reason.  

    I contend (none / 0) (#57)
    by phat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    It is one of many.



    Exactly right (none / 0) (#59)
    by Korha on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    Every candidate accumulates some wackos. So what?

    The really interesting thing to me is that a number of people are more invested in attacking various random Obama supporters (George Clooney? Who cares what the hell he has to think about anything?) than in substantively addressing why they think Obama would be a good or bad President.  

    Frankly, I think most of it is whining and feel-good rationalizations from people who don't like Obama in the first place. The majority of voters support somebody who is not my candidate, therefore they must all be deluded cult followers. Real classy.


    Oh, lets not be hasty here. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    Yesterday I clicked a link marked "Salon" and what to my wandering eyes should appear but a photo of George Clooney.  Ad for Michael Clayton, but still.

    Every candidate accumulates some wackos (none / 0) (#83)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    ... you say.

    So maybe we can look forward to Tom Cruise adding his name to the list of actors endorsing Obama? That will surely help him to clinch the nomination :-)


    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    I don't agree, one can conclude that creepy support becomes a way to avoid dealing with criticism.

    Isn't there an old saying: you (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    can judge a man by the company he keeps?

    Its just that his company is 10-20,000 at a time.


    No! Creepily enthusiastic supporters (none / 0) (#91)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    ... are a reason for fellow Democrats to question the basis for his candidacy. And if he is nominated, they will become a basis for Republicans to undermine his credibility.

    no more Berry or Clooney movies for me (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    They've officially joined susan Sarandon and Tim Pobbins on my C list.  Halle always was a bit of a spooky person but Clooney?  Inexcusable

    Bull Durham is still a really (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    funny movie though.

    Humor-irony (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    I don't think she has changed her mind.....

    Say it LOUD...BARACK and I'm PROUD! (none / 0) (#2)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    He's got my vote...and i haven't voted dem since Willy Jeff in 92

    Now, perhaps you can attribute (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:41:52 PM EST
    that great song to its source?

    Perhaps he has peaked too soon?? (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:36:45 PM EST

    I have been thinking (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    that he has peaked too soon for over a year now....

    The key is that he is sincere and very smart--he keeps adapting....And people are hungry for an idealistic leader as much as it may be derided here and in Republican circles....He will be more substantive.

    The other huge advantage is if he can secure the nominiation by March 4--he can start to work the issues via-a-vis McCain:  war, economy, jobs, etc.  The lack of substance argument will disappear....


    Where do you get that understanding? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by phat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    What evidence do you have to believe that the "substance" thing will just disappear?

    How do you know this?

    What inspires your faith?



    Because, on the issues, (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    most people prefer Democrats to Republicans....There will be stark differences between McCain and Obama on the economy, health car, the war in Iraq, trade, and apparently immigration.....Obama and Hillary largely agree on those things, so the Hillary supporters bang the drum of who has the longest resume....

    Obama can talk issues more effectively with McCain because their differences are so stark....The differences between Hillary and Barack are about details way down in the weeds that few understand......

    Obama can say:

    If you want to stay in Iraq for 100 more years, vote for McCain.

    If you think we should do nothing on health care, vote for McCain.

    If you want to do nothing on the economy, and like a leader who doesn't now very much about the economy, vote for McCain....

    The Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be, automatically inherits a treasure trove of ready-made issues.....  


    That's not evidence. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by phat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    That's still a guess.



    It's Hope (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by badger on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    Add a few bucks to it and you can use it to buy a latte at Starbucks.

    Obama will not do anything that matters (none / 0) (#105)
    by splashy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    When it comes to health care. Without everyone participating, it will end up being the same 'ol same 'ol.

    Look at his advisers to see what we will get. One is the guy that helped kill universal health care back in the 90's. He certainly does not want universal health care.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:36:11 PM EST
    I would truly like for someone to explain to me what "We are the people we have been waiting for" means. Or "the Audacity of Hope" I mean what is there about it that's audacious? Sounds like a lot of fluff to me.

    The Hopi chief who said it first (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:19:38 PM EST
    but is not attributed probably is the one to tell you what "we are the ones we have been hoping for" means.  

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    Clinton peaked too soon.

    I don't think she ever peaked. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:41:58 PM EST
    In a marathon, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    ... the time to peak is in the last 5 miles, not in the middle of the race. This race is not over, and being first at the finish is the only thing that matters, not looking good along the way. If Obama hits the wall in Ohio and Texas, then we'll see who's peaking at the right time.

    I certainly hope you are correct. (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:03 PM EST
    I stood next to a man at about the half-way point of the Dublin marathon recently.  He cheered everyone.  I especially liked his encouragement to people who were walking:  good pace, keep up the good work.  Turned out he was en route to NYC Marathon the next week and was trying to build up karma.

    He is now (none / 0) (#5)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    the front runner. Time to take a closer look.

    200 offices on the ground in TX (none / 0) (#6)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:43:33 PM EST
    Obama had 200 self organized groups in Texas before he sent in paid staff 2 weeks ago. Hard work by organizers..ohh, they must be whacko

    Most folks don't remember 1968. I do, and the Obama movement hasn't come close to the days of the Viet Nam War protests, tear gas shot by National Guard troops, arm bands, Kent State.

    Obama's ground swell of supporters is a blip compared to those days.

    I remember 1968 (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    Two great men were shot down and Nixon was elected.

    Bob, I gather you are being (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    tongue in cheek, but that makes my blood run cold.

    Same here. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    And the convention was a nightmare.

    And between MLK and RFK, Andy Warhol was shot.


    The cult charge (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    seems more damaging a meme than the "empty rhetoric" charge, because he can show substance to counter the empty rhetoric charge, but he can't control his peeps.

    For his sake, though, I'll stop wearing my Obama girl short-shorts around the office.

    Good. Especially if your short-shorts (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:17:40 PM EST
    have words on the butt.  I do not get that.  Maybe it's because I would have to put on my bifocals to read butts, but still -- I do not get that. . . .

    Buyer's remorse (none / 0) (#10)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    It could well be too late for Hillary.  But it's not  too late for John McCain.  It may catch on fire sometime in October.

    Buyers' remorse could (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    continue right up to the convention this summer.  That is a lot of Rezko headlines away....

    Should I care what Eagan thinks? (none / 0) (#12)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    "suppose McCain's right"

    Well, that would be a first.

    Suppose McCain's right (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    He is. Far right.

    Time to listen to the little person in the brain (none / 0) (#15)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    Thats the part of your brain that is based on nothing but instinct. You know, you're shopping and that new stuff would be so wonderful to have and will make you feel good for the rest of the day. Thats when that person in the back of your brain goes "think about it for a second", " I'm gonna have to apy for it later and I can do alot more things with the money I'll save, like pay my electric bill". AMERICA needs help yesterday. THERE IS NOT A MOMENT TO LOSE IN REPAIRING THE DAMAGE DONE TO OUR COUNTRY. Hillary Clinton is READY TO BEGIN. Is Barack Obama? Or will it take awhile for him to get "organized". What does a community organizer do exactly? I've never learned it? What does a community organizer do with Rezko? And why? I was hoping to learn more about it by now. I know that Judge Amy St. Eve delayed the start of the Rezko trial. I know that Judge Amy St. Eve is an Obama supporter. I know that Amy St. Eve was an Independant Associate Council for Kenneth Starr during the Whitewater Hearings. I know she moved the start of the Rezko trial from 2/25 to 3/3 for the beginning of jury selection. I know that 2 BIG primaries are 3/4. Thats all I know, but it stinks. I didn't learn any of this from an MSM source. I looked it up and got all that piece by piece.

    Source for this please: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    I know that Judge Amy St. Eve is an Obama supporter.

    Good point, except actually it's located in the (none / 0) (#106)
    by splashy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    Front of the brain, in the forebrain. People with  brain damage in that area from injury lose their impulse control, which is what you are talking about.

    It just seems like it's in the back, because we are all so emotional that it's not a loud voice.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#28)
    by thereyougo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    I haven't caught whatever Obamans have.

    I have tried to feel the rush  but can't.

    After GWB, I mean, really all I want is someone who will bring back the country post Clinton I.

    I felt better then. I can't get behind a moonbeam sorry, the country is in a huge mess and no one really knows the extent.

    I call it a steaming pile of manure awaits the next president.

    Heaven Forbid (none / 0) (#29)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    that's there's excitement over a Democratic candidate.

    It's not the irrational exuberance it's being painted to be, since it's coming out of some deep-seated resentment the voting public has about the way their gov't has abandoned them.

    Excitement? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    I'm plenty excited about Hillary as the first woman president. I've been waiting for it all my life.

    Just because we aren't picking paper cups out of her path, inventing new words, making cakes, underwear and jewelry, swooning over (borrowed) words at a rally, doesn't mean we aren't excited.

    I'm excited at the thought of a Democrat in the WH, period - but not so excited if it's an empty suit.

    My excitement is just a more mature, quiet kind. Not trendy.


    speak for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:49:07 PM EST
    about the underwear...

    Edwards was my fave (none / 0) (#95)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    but I'm not going to carp about the clear excitement that Obama is generating, nor do I think that Clinton's candidacy is unexciting. Sheesh, we have 2 candidates who have authentically historic chances here. Compared to the McCain/Huckabee race, why not revel in the excitement? Complaining about charisma and charged up supporters makes zero sense to me.

    Look at the Dem primary turnout: the question is how to keep that level of excitement alive in the GE. Down with charisma isn't exactly a rallying cry for the ages now is it?


    Making underwear? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:15:32 PM EST
    Now that's just a foolish expenditure of our valuable time, when Vicki's Secret does it so well.

    Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    This country has been through 7 years of something like warfare.  I'm not talking about the war in Iraq here but the war this Bush administration has waged against this country's people.  We have been lied to so many times that we have lost faith in everyone in the Washington government.  I think we Democrats are suffering from something like post traumatic stress.  We have have constantly bullied, called names, marginalized, cowed, and belittled.  Then suddenly someone comes along who lifts our spirits and tells us "Yes, we can" take back our government.  Personally, I am not swooning at the feet of Obama, but I do understand why people are drawn to him and his message of hope.  I am sick to death of politicians who constantly fail to stand up for the American people and fight for them.  If you watched the biographies of Clinton and Obama last night on MSNBC, you got a good picture of each of these candidates.  I learned more about Obama.  He has been living and working this message since he was in his early twenties.  It is not phony.  He got things done for ordinary people while he served in the Illinois legislature and he will do the same when he is President.  This is not a campaign slogan that he is using to get elected.  He has been fighting for ordinary people for over twenty years.  I believe that he will be a great President.  And like he says in his speeches, he will fail sometimes and he will make mistakes, but I know he will not give up as those in Washington have done.  He will keep fighting for us , the forgotten people, in this country.  

    it's a war waged by republicans (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    the same republicans Obama claims to be able to unite the democrats with in 09.  I am dubious.  We need someone who understands how Washington works and who can maneuver in and out of old rivalries and egos.  The reason why we don't have unity now is because senators and congressmen all have their various power bases and they do not want to let them go.  They will fight tooth and nail against anything that does not benefit them in some way.

    People need to remember that Clinton's first health care plan, which she designed while serving as first lady, was beaten by fellow democrats as well as republicans.  (there's some unity for you-history tells us that politicians do not like change.)  

    To expect your fellow party members to fall in line just because they belong to your party is a hard lesson she has already learned.  Everything Obama says about "uniting" strikes me as incredibly naive.  The one time he faced contretemps with a fellow senator, John McCain popped him on the nose like a bad puppy.

    I don't need someone who makes me feel good about myself.  I already feel good about myself.  I need someone who will turn this country around after seven years of a brutal republican gang raping of our constitution.


    Thank you for this comment. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:56:29 PM EST
    It's marvelous.  I don't know why so many democrats seem to need to be validated by a politician.  Seems like a basic lack of self confidence, but who knows.  I sure don't understand the phenomenon.

    Charisma Meets Gridlock (none / 0) (#68)
    by Athena on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    The belief that Obama's charm will melt the divisions in DC and lure the GOP can only be held by those who have not followed politics - but that's most of the American people!  All of his new voters are joining a mass culture phenomenon - not deciding that he can break partisan gridlock.  

    So he's got crowds and followers - in the era of American Idol, people are used to voting for their favorites - and it doesn't need to be deep.

    I couldn't help but think - who would Obama call when Belgrade is rioting?  He'll call someone from the Clinton administration.  LOL.


    most of his advisors (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    come from the Clinton pool anyway.  That is what I said when Obama started to gain national attention with his "change" rhetoric: change from what?  Those are all old Clinton folks up there advising him.

    Inspiration (none / 0) (#94)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM EST
    Then you wouldn't have understook Martin Luther King, FDR, Truman, Bobby Kennedy, or Churchill.

    may I just say (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:26:22 PM EST

    Edwards should endorse.  he was my candidate.  I talked him up and voted for him but if he sits on the sidelines in this hugely important election in the interest of protecting some plum job he is a coward and I am glad he did not get the nomination.
    I do not support Obama but I would have more respect for him if he did.

    Capt (none / 0) (#43)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM EST
    I certainly think you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not looking at Edwards in the same way.  While I can't begin to know why he is not giving his endorsement to anyone right now, surely either Clinton or Obama could offer him the same promises of a plum job?

    Of course, he is a politician, and there could be myriad other reasons of self-interest that have compelled him to remain silent.  I just don't think he's a coward.


    I agree with all but your last sentence. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    you could be right (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    but us southerners have to stick together.  I want to think Edwards is better than that...though I have been wrong before.

    Feingold is interesting on (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST

    was there a link (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    on Feingold comment?

    Link on Feingold re: Edwards (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST
    Feingold is not a big Edwards fan.  This is what Feingold has said:

    The one that is the most problematic is [John] Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

    When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

    Eagan = MoDo (none / 0) (#34)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    All fluff and silliness.

    George McGovern? (none / 0) (#35)
    by carvednstonedem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    People shouldn't be concerned Obama is 2008's George McGovern. They should be deathly afraid he is 2008's Jimmy Carter

    Hillary with her emphasis on details (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    sounds very much like Jimmy Carter the micro-manager.

    I have never seen HRC in a cardigan. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    Actually, she does need (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    to do something similar....No one, not even the Republicans, have ever thought she was weak--so, why on earth has she spent the last year trying to convince everyone how tough she is??  The Iron Lady.

    She needs to connect with the voters on an emotional level--and except for fits and starts here and there, she has not done that....So she is now relegated to hoping that Obama fumbles on the goal line...


    Did you read piece on (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    Huff Post containing the appraisal of the head of Liz Claiborne?  I don't know exactly what he thinks she should were on the Presidential campaign trail but apparently he thinks a softer, more feminine image would help her.  I doubt it.  She can't look wimpy next to those guys in their dark business suits.

    Carter won, and was then undermined ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    ... by an economic recession, an oil crisis, a diplomatic incident in Iran, and behind-the scenes skulduggery orchestrated by his Republican opponents in the Bush family. How could Obama possibly have such a run of bad luck now, 32 years later?

    Oh! wait ...


    I also do not understand (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    why people want to treat their presidential candidate like Morrissey.  I don't want my President to be the head of any movement.  That said, this kind of stuff freaks me out:

    "I'm nervous about the "O'Bambi" factor. Will the terrorists move in next door when Obama's in the White House?"

    What????  You know this is going to come up over, and over, and over, and over.  This is what I think is Obama's big vulnerability and I definitely don't think Clinton would get the same amount of flak.  But neither deserves this.

    it's like mothers who want to be (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    their daughter's best friend.

    No, you need to be her mother.  She has friends.  And have you seen what they're wearing?  And that it does not look good on you?

    (sorry...this is an issue for me)


    I have joked to my daughter (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    about friends who say their daughter is their best friend.  Then my daughter, who, you understand, lives in Europe, says, but Mom, you're my best friend!

    I would be closer to my mother more, too (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    if we lived on different continents.

    You did it again, Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:12:01 PM EST
    I'm doing extra housework, cleaning my computer screen.  Did we all have the same mother -- and the same daughter?  

    Oh maybe... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fredster on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:02:56 PM EST
    Maybe the kool-aid is beginning to wear off.

    And I do believe his wife's comments will come into play, especially if he's the nominee.  The Repubs will have that out there over and over and over.

    Until an Obama supporter can tell me (none / 0) (#65)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    how on earth they will deal with all this information out there even if only half is true, I cannot vote for him in the primary...It is that simple...

    Obamamania Very Unkool (none / 0) (#70)
    by pluege on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:21:55 PM EST
    its pretty much a travesty that the dem primary got overwhelmed with a very transient Obamamania. Its looking like we'll be stuck with him and he is truly untested, and so far all dazzling hat and little meat. Obama supporters did us a great disservice by not keeping their kool.

    I'm thinking BTD may be right (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    after all.  There ARE more Clinton supporters on TL.

    I am a (none / 0) (#85)
    by phat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    Gore->Clarke->Dodd->Edwards->Clinton->Democrat supporter.



    Ya Think? (none / 0) (#89)
    by obscure on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    Of course this site tilts to the Hillary side, by a large margin. Some of the folks in the comments here are just a few uMarshes shy of a toxic level of Hillary cultism.

    Still, there is always BTD, who is incorrigibly antagonistic towards everything. That's ok, because it's fun.

    To be fair, I am supporting Obama since Edwards quit the race. I'm not a cultist for anyone. I just think that Obama is acceptable enough to me, without the problems that I see in Clinton.

    While I was unhappy about Hillary and Iraq, what finally clinched it for me are the little things. Flag burning amendments? Videogame legislation? Undying love and support for Joe Lieberman? Add all of those together and I started to think she was too craven for me to support in the primaries.

    However, come the general, if Hillary is the candidate I will gladly do anything I can to make her president. There are no Democrats (save Joe Lieberman) that are worse than a Republican. There are no comparisons. Anyone who won't vote for the Democratic candidate in the general is a loser.


    He's just another great speaker (none / 0) (#84)
    by Sunshine on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    Have you ever heard Louis Farrakhan speak, he is a great speaker..  During the million man march, I thought he hasn't said anything I don't agree with.. The trouble was I hadn't heard everthing that he believes..  At another time, I heard much more of his policys and there was a lot there that I disagreed with..   I have the same feeling about Obama, what he's saying is great but what else does he believe in?  There is an awful lot more that we haven't heard about and maybe we won't like it..   He does sound a lot like Louis Farrakhan..

    I thought this was BTD (none / 0) (#93)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:27:56 PM EST
    when I first read it.

    perhaps once the vapors (none / 0) (#103)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:26:24 AM EST
    clear from your brain, common sense returns, and you get the strange feeling that, to quote gertrude stein, "there's no there, there." that behind the empty rhetoric lies an vacant space. the "little man" in my brain has been telling me this about sen. obama since the get go; my brain's "little man" is rarely wrong about these things.

    to use one of the sen's. own bits, i ask myself: were he in jfk's position during the cuban missile crisis, would we be here today? or would the survivors still be cursing his and kruschev's names, while their children were born with two heads? i'm afraid i always come back to the latter.

    Buyer's Remorse (none / 0) (#104)
    by Randinho on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:09 PM EST
    I've had it with Hillary, one of my two senators, since she voted for the war authorization and the Patriot Act.

    How I wish Russ Feingold would move to New York.