home

Obama Supporters Harming Obama With Divisiveness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Some Congressional Obama (I know some pretend to be "neutral") supporters seem intent on damaging Barack Obama's candidacy.

I have already mentioned Jim Clyburn's disastrous behavior. Nancy Pelosi has been a disaster for a while now. Now a new WaPo article provides more of the same:

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.) What an insulting, divisive and stupid remark. With friends like these, Obama needs no enemies. They seem intent on making Obama unelectable. More . .

And Clyburn comes back for a second bite of the apple:

"We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter."

Is Clyburn intent on making Obama the black candidate? I honestly can not imagine stupider political actions than what Clyburn is doing to Obama here. Is the Obama camp on board with this? Is Axelrod happy about this? I can not imagine he is. Someone needs to tell Clyburn to shut up. NOW. He is killing Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

[Comments now closed.]

< Detainee Abuse and the Question of Fair Trials at Guantánamo | Gerry Spence Opens for Fieger in MI Criminal Trial >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Supporters Harming Obama With Divisiveness | 211 comments (211 topical)
    It's doubtful Clyburn and Wright (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    went on a TV blitz without consent from Obama's PR team.
    That would be my first thought, too. (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    Except it's beginning to feel like the Obama campaign is losing control -- of its message and especially of its surrogates. Although, I think it's clear, Wright does not consider himself to be a surrogate, seems to me he's out to rehabilitate his own image and is not too concerned with Obama at the moment.

    [ Parent ]
    I only saw part of Wright on Moyers (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    Did Moyers ask him, in his soft, non-confrontational way, about Wright's comments about Hillary or Bill Clinton?  I had the impression that nobody bothered to bring up those "snippets" going around the 'net and giving the good ol' Rev a chance to 'splain the bigger context as to how those are not offensive things.

    [ Parent ]
    No, he did not (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama is immature and the most bitter one of all (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by NOBAMA08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    I am not surprised that this is happening with his approval. His goal now is to win by destroying the Clinton legacy and making any person out there who will listen believe that the Clintons are racists. He wants anyone he can still brainwash to believe that it is their fault he lost OH, TX, and PA.

    Big media eats this mess up. I thought everyone said Hillary should stay in the race if she won TX and OH. She did it. Next they said she would have to win PA and she did it by 10 points. Now they want her out of the race because she can really win this now or at least prove that Obama is a very flawed and unelectable candidate.

    Bill Clinton says that if someone is telling you you outghta quit, it's because they're afraid you won't.  And if somebody tells you, you can't win, it's because they're scared you can. Smart Bubba. If she wasn't a threat they could care less if she hung around only so that they could make fun of her as a crazy old bat case. Hillary is winning and she's winning all of the states we need to win in the general election. Obama is scared and he's pulling out all the stops without thinking of the consequences. I guess he's also mad at all of us Clinton supporters who won't budge. He took us for granted and I wouldn't be surprised if he is shocked that polls are telling him that we won't vote for him in the general election. He's too arrogant for his own good. I think this election is good for helping him come back down to earth. Newsflash Obama: not everyone likes you and wants to kiss your feet. You might actually lose states like MI, PA, OH, MA, and CA after eight years of Bush. That's how much we dislike you Obama. You are not a Messiah.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree re: Clyburn (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    but IMO Wright may have done this on his own, without prompting from the Obama campaign.  

    I think perhaps he realized he's been thrown under the bus and is trying to salvage his reputation.  

    If both Wright and Clyburn are acting under the auspices of the Obama campaign, it's an incredibly boneheaded move.  

    [ Parent ]

    Boneheaded Decisions Are Obama's Forte (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:59:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What an awful story -- and what I don't get (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    are statements tossed off like this: "Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters."

    Uh, explain, please.  How are the Clintons doing so?  By not getting those voters to not vote for Obama?  So what Hillary Clinton needs to do to appease Clyburn, Clay, and their ilk is to get more AA voters away from Obama?  That's their solution?

    Please, someone, parse for me just how the Clintons are "marginalizing" any part of the electorate -- say, in the way that another candidate did by dissing them as clinging to God and guns? -- and then just what Hillary Clinton is supposed to do other than take AA voters from Obama.

    Oh, that's right, she's just supposed to quit and abandon the majority of voters so far who voted for her, her policies, her experience, her judgment, and more.  Take one for the team and all.  Go in a room and not come back out alive.  Uh huh.

    Clyburn, Clay, et al., you are fools with such lack of political logic, common sense, and such claims.  And now it is becoming clear to the country at large what is wrong with AA leadership in Congress, along with Dem leadership at large.  

    You are not the ones anyone has been waiting for.

    [ Parent ]

    It's appalling (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    the implication seems to be that if you engage in a tough primary fight with an AA candidate (especially "The One"), you are a de facto racist.  IOW, Clinton is marginalizing black voters by not dropping out and yielding the nomination to the Candidate of Destiny.

    [ Parent ]
    Rep Clyburn, and Rep Clay are just trolling KO at (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    this stage just throwing racist bombs and threats to run up negatives for the race and Clinton.  Serious though needs to be given to Speaker Pelosi leadership and her leadership team however for behavior unbecoming their office.  Maybe Representative Hoyer can challenge her successfully come next Congress she really has not delivered.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahh Cream (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    You are not the ones anyone has been waiting for.

    I am so jealous that I didn't think to say that first. Spot on lady, spot on!

    [ Parent ]

    I would add that... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by sumac on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    by making these kinds o statements, these supporters are fairly clearly suggesting that if Hillary were to get the nomination, Obama wold not get out there to help her win the election. He would take his ball and go home, leaving the Democratic party in tatters...particularly that group of AA members who may just feel abandoned.

    [ Parent ]
    The desperation in the Obama camp is evident. . . (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST
    ... in his surrogates, his supporters, and in Senator Obama, himself.

    I've seen enough.

    In the 36 years that I've been eligible to vote in a Presidential election, I never thought that my choice - assuming Senator Obama is the nominee (which I fervently hope will not be the case) - might be between being a minus one for the Democratic candidate (i.e., not voting at the top of the ticket) and being a minus two (i.e., voting for the other party), but those are really the only ways that I could keep faith with my conscience. My country is more important than the party, and he is not ready to lead either one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    It says (none / 0) (#197)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    Stop it Hillary.  Let him win. We deserve it.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright on PBS (none / 0) (#192)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    I agree regarding Wright -- I fully expected to conclude from the Moyers' interview that Wright was damaging to BO; but after watching the interview, I was left with the feeling that BO threw Wright under the bus and that the inflammatory NC ad, etc., does take Wright out of context.  Did I miss something?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly.. its Obama campaign strategy not (none / 0) (#94)
    by TalkRight on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    just his supporters boneheaded mistake.. we should call this as it is ... its' Obama's political strategy.. you may think it is a mistake.. but it worked during and after SC in a way that it brings the ire on Clinton Camp from party elders (and super delegates.. the people that matter more now going forward). It is a shrewd politics and lets stop calling this a cheap shot by his supporters and call it more of an astute/cheap politics by a politician.

    I hope people and party elders can see through his cheap shots. We all know that it is easy to make a cheap shot on former President and his family by either the party elders or the media that it is to make a correct observation on a black candidate running for a president.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Cream (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    and also add: these guys need to look at the last US census.

    Also, why does no one ever worry about ignoring, disenfranchising, ignoring or screwing over women?

    [ Parent ]

    We're invisible. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    Once we graduate from the youth group, we are considered invisible until we hit the older/senior group. Hillary is starting to change that and we are getting more notice, but not necessarily notice of the impact we could have.

    [ Parent ]
    we'll have plenty of impact (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    if Obama steals the nomination.  And of course I mean the impact of our elderly as*es on the couch come November.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, my elderly behind does NOT (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    like being taken for granted. He's already counted my vote in his GE win column. Ooops! to him  ;)

    I may get off my behind if some local dems need support. Otherwise my behind will only be going to the park that day. My dog has better judgment and runs circles around him on the Unity schtick  ;)

    I will write Hillary in if I go behind the curtain, and I may go just for that purpose.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#193)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    I support Hillary & I am an avid Bill fan, but I think Bill's remarks about BO & Jesse Jackson regarding the SC primary fanned the flames of this.  Better for him to stick to the Bubba theme and perhaps foreign policy.

    [ Parent ]
    In SC, (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson is a native son and not totally
    unappreciated.  Ok, so he did not get the nomination.  It is not a de facto insult to compare Jackson and Obama.  What fanned the flames was the deliberate use of Clinton's words to incite anger.  Personally, I would rate Jackson higher than Obama.  It looks to me as if many are pulling out hoary characterizations of Jackson from the days of civil strife.  (But, yes, Andrew Young and others have taken what I believe to be the higher road.)

    [ Parent ]
    I can never understand this statement. (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:43 PM EST
    Clinton said that Obama had run a good race in SC and that Jesse Jackson had also run good races there in the 80s. What is racist about that statement? It is true.

    The only thing that could conceivably be construed as racist about it, is if you think there is something wrong with being compared with Jesse Jackson. In other words, the Right Wing has successfully tarred Jackson, a colleague of Martin Luther King, who was with him when he died, and a tireless worker in Civil Rights, as somehow despicable.   Excuse me, I think that speaking Obama's and Jackson's names in the same breath is insulting to Jackson. Jackson is ten times the man, with ten times the credibility of Obama.

    Oh I remember: the other thing the Obamaites were complaining about with Bill's statement was that it made Obama into the "black candidate," by comparing him to the obviously black Jackson I guess. I'm with Bill Maher on this one, who asked, "Didn't everyone already know Obama was black?"  

    Then there's the fact that Obama has used his "blackness" every minute of the day as a weapon in this race, by twisting the Clintons' words to absurdly accuse them of being racists.  I mean who stood to benefit from this? Certainly, not the Clintons. And why would they suddenly become racists when they had never shown any such inclinations in their whole lives?

    [ Parent ]

    I still haven't figured out (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Clyburn's calculation that Hillary could "steal" the nomination in a "backroom deal" when the DC establishment and elites support Obama.
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Foxx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    That whole scare tactic is bogus, I've always thought so too. Her problem is most of them are (not so) secretly leaning to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe the backroom deal they're worried (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    About is the backroom deal that goes on between voters and Sen. Clinton in a voting booth.


    [ Parent ]
    LOL - Bingo! (none / 0) (#238)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The AA Vote (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    is highly problematic for the Party.  Obviously, the arguments that women shouldn't be subordinate to male candidates applies equally to AA supporters of Obama not need to apologize for their support of him.

    I think where I'm at "right now" is that I agree with the editorial today that the Dem party is in better shape than we dare give ourselves credit for.

    We've endured some huge losses.  It's natural to react in a fearful way.

    But you know what?  We DO seem to be the party that is willing to thrash through hard issues.

    That gives me a lot of optimism.

    There's no question that the "race" card is silly given his stats.  90%?  Come on.  Obviously, he's relying upon a race issue.

    But nobody really is complaining about that on the Hillary side.

    OK, so we have to beat him in the middle ground.

    She has to win Indiana.  She has to win PA.  She has to win Texas.   She has to win Ohio.

    I personally think this is fair game, and I am so in the bag for Hillary.

    But she has to give up the AA vote in the primary.

    And she has to earn it in the general.

    I hold Obama to the same hard standard.  

    Earn it.

    Putting all the Race Cards on the Table! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    Wow!  this is a very comprehensive analysis.

    DU - 4/26
    http://tinyurl.com/3rvryn


    [ Parent ]

    that is amazing (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by DJ on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    why is this not in the news?

    [ Parent ]
    Census Bureau (none / 0) (#220)
    by DaleA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    The Census Bureau has all the data on ethnic composition by state. Basically, 55% of all AA's live in the south. The remaining% are pretty much in the rustbelt states. In the west, only CA and NV have more than 5% AA population. Hispanics are concentrated in the west and Texas. There are states where the AA vote is central to Democrats. And there are a lot of places where it doesn't matter much. Washington has 3.6% AA, Oregon 1.9%. California is 35.9% Latino, 12.4% Asian, 1.2% Native American, which adds up to 47.5%. These are hard core Hillary supporters who may be tempted by McCain.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
     

    [ Parent ]

    BUT, (none / 0) (#222)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    But that doesn't say the breakdown as far as percent AA or White in the democratic vote.

    [ Parent ]
    General question (none / 0) (#90)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    Does anybody have a breakdown of the percent AA vote in each state separately???

    I know this is harsh, and I know they are a large constituency. But it seems to me that even though they are a large part of the Dem Tent, the states that they are the largest percent of the vote are Red states.

    I might be wrong but I am curious to see a breakdown of the Dem vote.

    Also, I believe if Obama is the nominee a large part of the Latino vote swings to McCain because of his well publicized co-sponsorship of the last major immigration bill. Also, it seems to me that their largest numbers are in states that could more easily be considered purple.

    [ Parent ]

    I can tell (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    you that it is 25% here in GA I think and 33% in MS. AL may be between the two. But yes, you are on point that the AA vote alone will not be enough and that's the thing that Obama's surrogates can't seem to face. Obama would somehow have to split the white vote with or come close to splitting the white vote with McCain to win. Right now I could see him getting about 30% of the white vote in the ge which is about what Dukakis got in 1988 leading to about 40-45% of the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Any more??? (none / 0) (#186)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    Thanks, also in S.C. about half. Each of these states are solidly RED. Even if all the AA vote for Obama. N.C. has a good size amount also.

    But I can't think of any purple states that have a big AA population. Louisiana is hard to tell now because of all the relocation.

    I actually think the Dems would be hurt a lot more with defecting Hispanics and angry women.

    Seems like Hispanic impacts N.M., Co, Nv, which are swing states 19 electoral votes.

    I also think racism may come into play in some swing states. Ark, maybe Va.

    I am taking swing states from this site:  http://www.270towin.com/


    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#223)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:22:21 PM EST
    you probably could google and find them. Anyway, yes, purple states are more hispanic. And I agree it would be worse for us to lose them and women than AA's even though I would hate to lose any votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Google (none / 0) (#225)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    I haven't been able to find them with google.

    (that is why I was asking)

    I am not saying it is not a problem if AA stays home. It could put some states into play. But not many people seem to see the problems that will come up when Clinton's coalition goes into play.

    [ Parent ]

    at least in PA AAs apparently didn't (none / 0) (#163)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    come out full force for Obama.

    By districts, Hillary got alot of 70% - 30 +%

    I'm not sure what they were aiming but it didn't work obviously

    [ Parent ]

    What Happens Depends on How Candidates Respond (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    What happens to various demographically-defined Dem voter groups depends on how Hillary & Barack conduct themselves once nominee is chosen.  

    [ Parent ]
    They're Panicking (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    I'm not sure why, he's still in this race.  Heck, he's still the favorite.  But something has happened since Tuesday, the Obama campaign is spinning madly about electability, lying (saying he has won the working class white vote in lots of states, when it's only been one) and saying incredibly stupid things (Dems can't win working class whites, the vast majority of racists are Republicans (well, that should fit in nicely with his Unity theme).  And then apparently saying that Americans want "straight talk"?  That's the choice of words for such an eloquent speaker? (and maybe it's just the press report, but this appearance makes him seem all over the place in terms of narrative).  

    Then we have these black congress members who seem determined to try to force Hillary out by threatening to split the party.  Not exactly a sign of confidence in Obama's ability to win this thing.  

    I would love to be a fly on the wall up on the HIll because something has got the Obama backers very, very worried.   I have no idea what's going on, but it's very interesting.

    If it's true that the vast majority (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    of racists are Republicans (and I'm sure it is), then why do they keep accusing Bill Clinton et al of race baiting?

    They have an incoherent strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    One Trick Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    It worked the last time, they're hoping it will work again.  

    Obama sounds tired even in print.  Maybe that's why he used "straight talk" because I can't believe he'd use that phrase otherwise.  And look at the sentence structure ""I was convinced that the American people were tired of the politics that's all about tearing each other down. The American people were tired of spin and PR, they wanted straight talk and honesty from their elected officials[.]"  Was convinced?  He's not anymore?  Very weird.

    [ Parent ]

    Can't Think Of Another Campaign That Contains More (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    spin or is more of a prepackaged PR event than that of Senator Obama.

    Now I have felt really uplifted by being labeled an uneducated, low information racist. I'm sure all the people referenced in "Clinggate" felt uplifted too. Good thing I'm hard of hearing (snark) or I might have interpreted  the things Obama says about Hillary on a regular basis as tearing her down.

    [ Parent ]

    what did the Obama camp say? (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by ccpup on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    I started to read it, but there were so many big words and I got tuckered trying to sound them all out.

    I've been told by those smarter than me -- we have one or two in my small village here in NYC -- that I should be angry, so I'm thinking of getting my pitchfork and setting my torch on fire before heading to the town square to shake things and make angry-like sounds.

    Then it's time for a nap after I come home and slop the hogs.  May wear the fancy overalls for that, as I'm feeling feisty.  But then I do need them for those Sunday Services I cling to so desperately.  And, of course, gotta have my gun.

    (snark)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, so glad you put the snark label (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    on this, or I would have felt a little guilty about starting to laugh at the second sentence and spewish soda on the screen by the end of your comment.  :-)

    And hey, MOBlue, you and I are referenced in the Clinggate comment from Senator Obama, as he said it was so of all Midwesterners.  Except for Chicagoans, apparently, like him -- who cling to their church, too, but just don't listen to what the pastor says.    And somehow, that makes him so much better than us.

    [ Parent ]

    I Somehow Thought It Was About Small Town (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    white Americans. I'm a born and raised big city girl - St. Louis (although some may laugh at that description of SL).

    The funny thing is his description is sooooo not me. Don't like organized religion at all, think guns should be restricted to hunting and sport and love diversity and interacting with people not like me. My motto is celebrate the differences. About the only things that fit is that I'm for fair trade not free trade and I haven't heard an immigration policy yet that I think actually works.

    [ Parent ]

    City girl here, too, but coastal types (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    such as the Californians to whom he was talking, and the Eastern elite that educated Obama, think that St. Louis and Milwaukee are small towns, y'know.  For that matter, so do Chicagoans.  So he meant us -- even though I never have even held a gun, either, and live in an integrated area, and etcetera.

    I bet it's because we're "beer towns" and not "wine cities" -- although I'm not a beer drinker, either.  But it's where we are, not who we are, that seems to matter to the coastal sorts. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by nemo52 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    Small town Buffalo here.  Clingin' away to my chardonnay.

    [ Parent ]
    Hi Nemo. I used to live in Buffalo. (none / 0) (#255)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    What's the mood there? Pro Obama or pro Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    North Carolina (none / 0) (#96)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    They do it every time a vote is coming up in a state with a large population of AA. I drives up the Obama vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    That strategy is not going to work in rural NC In fact it will drive up Hillary's vote total in WNC and down East

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm, (none / 0) (#194)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    I agree with western NC but why in Eastern??  (I am not from NC)

    [ Parent ]
    You think so? I'm in Western NC (none / 0) (#257)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    and I'm worried, but we are a college town. The Dem activists and the college students all seem very pro Obama.  The older faculty are pro Hillary, as much as I can tell.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe they saw the polls coming -- as (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    yesterday was the report from CNN of "dead heat" polling in Indiana, and today Gallup has the national race all tied up again . . . and after his 10-point margin on the Gallup poll only four or five days ago.  That is a huge drop, and the campaign "internals" often see that coming even sooner.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree they are (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    a little panicked.  I don't think they need to be, but it would be smarter for Obama to put the full court press on issues rather than have his people out there crying racism.

    [ Parent ]
    "full court press on issues" (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    uh, wouldn't that require being more specific?  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    And then there is the 5/31 meeting of (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    the DNC Rules committee to examine if the party overstepeed its authority in totally denying the elections in Michigan and Florida.  According to another thread, there is a possibility of a 50% penalty instead of 100 percent and seating all the super delegates from those two states.  That is definitely bad news for Obama.

    I think that that is the real cause for the seeming panick.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps It's As Simple As Fatigue (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    But the Obama campaign needs to pull itself together.  

    I can't believe I just said that.

    [ Parent ]

    are internal polls better? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    Why do people believe that campaign "internal" polls are any better or more reliable than others that are more public? Just curious, because I have heard this several times..

    [ Parent ]
    A lot more detailed, a lot more sensitive (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    so they sometimes can show coming shifts not picked up by polls of smaller universes, fewer questions, etc.  So I'm told by those I know who have been political consultants, conducting such polls -- and so they cost a lot more but are said to be worth it.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree too (none / 0) (#184)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    I saw the WaPo article early am and thought - Whoa!

    However, I think something else is going on. Somethings pushing this.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well, if we want "straight talk," we (none / 0) (#254)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    know where to go.

    [ Parent ]
    The fact that WWTSBQ has been racialized (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    is indeed very disturbing.

    I don't like where this is headed at all.

    what is WWTSBQ? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    See (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST
    here.

    [ Parent ]
    why won't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    that stupid b*tch quit

    [ Parent ]
    Short Answer: (none / 0) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    because she ISN'T stupid. Hllary knows that it isn't over until the fat lady sings and she may be in the wings but she ain't on stage.

    [ Parent ]
    Is that a calculated message (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by bslev22 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    being sent to superdelegates that the AA bloc will not tolerate anything less than an Obama nomination?  It's curious that the Clyburn and Clay comments are coming in tandem.  Tough situation for a super, and yet another reason for allowing the voting to continue.

    Possibly (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    it does seem like they're trying to play chicken with the AA block.

    Tricky waters.

    [ Parent ]

    Very tricky. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    And it seems incredibly short-sighted, as it further stratifies race politically, which would seem to be harmful to the AA community long-term.

    [ Parent ]
    It was pretty short sighted for the (none / 0) (#191)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    party leaders to encourage the two "historic candidates" to run simultaneously. I can guarantee that the GOP will make a play for AAs if Obama isn't the nominee and they have been waiting for the opportunity forever.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    Here is how I see it.  The AA block is vocal.  That's a time-honored strategy.

    However, look at the real exit polls.  Voting with your feet is really, really vocal.

    If her exit polls showed even or slightly below?

    This race would be over.

    However, the fact is that in 3 exit polls, her supporters indicate they will not vote for him on a much higher percentage.

    That's the reality.

    [ Parent ]

    If this is true they should (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST
     be making the argument in private then.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans must be very amused. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    They are always observing that blacks are taken for granted by Democrats. Maybe this year McCain will have a shot!

    Oh, they're very amused (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    I caught some Repub woman commentator on Fox (I think) last night and she said from a Repub POV, it looks like the Dems are tearing themselves into pieces.  It actually looks like that from a Dem POV, as well.

    [ Parent ]
    They (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    are not only making it impossible for Obama, but for any other serious black candidate who ever runs again.

    Just how is this to be interpreted by many whites who do not, for reasons other than race, who do not support Obama. That is:

    If you don't support my candidate you must be a racist.
    I do not support your candidate.
    I must be a racist.

    I just don't know what is to be gained by this behavior.

    Unless it works. That is Obama's gamble. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    So far, you have to admit that he has succeeded.

    [ Parent ]
    Crying Wolf (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    He is risking pushing this country back from the 19th Century to the 18th Century, racially speaking*.

    All he is doing is encouraging white people not to even TRY to encourage AA (and perhaps other minorities) to run for president or other important positions. Why not? Because then you're left with the potential for some social dwarf like Obama to abuse the fact that by accident (the same kind of accident that we all have suffered as human beings) he was born black, and that it trumps all other possibilities.

    Racism is a shortcut for explaining why you otherwise dislike a person: If a person is an a*** who happens to be AA, why focus on the race? Just call him an a**.

    The problem arises when said AA thinks you called him an a*** because he's AA. And then you're screwed.

    *As for Gender issues, it appears we are still in the stone ages.

    **Nothing, just wanted to put a couple MORE asterisks in there.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah yes, the asterisk bold tag (none / 0) (#45)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    Gotta love it

    [ Parent ]
    Willing to Do Anything to Get Elected (none / 0) (#211)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    Applies more to Barack than Hillary I'd say

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#32)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    And until the Dems. come out against this sort of thing -- it will continue. Being PC is a powerful and debilitating drug. It will take real courage to talk about this now -- and I don't expect it from any democratic quarter.

    Look at how even BTD is delivering his message -- saying it is 'stupid' and will offend the white vote -- which at best is an oblique way to make his point. IMO, if people really believe that it is unacceptable for a minority segment to hold the Democratic party hostage -- which is what I see these arguments are hinting at, why not come right out and say that?

    [ Parent ]

    Overplaying His Hand (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    That's the risk.  I think the threat of losing the AA vote is one better left understated by the Obama campaign.  People already know it's there.

    But Super Delegates have egos.  They aren't going to like being threatened.  

    This is horrible.  If I were an African American voter I'd be very angry at my leaders.  Not only are they hurting Obama (whose entire campaign is built around Unity), but they're taking what has been a terrific showing of support and enthusiasm in the African American community for Obama and turning it into some sort of anti-Clinton (or anti-white) movement.  It takes what should be something to celebrate and turns it negative and ugly.  Ick, ick, ick. African American voters deserve better than this.  But then they almost always deserve better than what they get from black and white elected officials.  

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree w/ that a bit. (none / 0) (#85)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    Note that as it happened in SC, this is being done via surrogates. There's no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind this -- is there?

    Why do you think this will hurt Obama?
    In fact, do you believe there aren't AA's going 'there's someone speaking up for our power, and warning the Clinton camp -- go Obama!'

    It would be interesting to see the AA reaction to see if you are right in the coming days. A true sign that this sort of thing hurts Obama with AA voters will perhaps be in the NC results.


    [ Parent ]

    The Obama Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    Was behind it in SC.  Why wouldn't they be behind this?

    [ Parent ]
    Wow.. (none / 0) (#235)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:58:34 PM EST
    That was an interesting read indeed. I guess y'all may be right in that his campaign is behind it this time around too, but is there any evidence of that?

    I do know that Obama's camp did this in SC! Bill Clinton was talking specifically about Senator Obama's stance on Iraq and how it had changed once he joined the Senate when he said that 'Senator Obama having been always against the war in Iraq is a fairy-tale', but I recall Michelle Obama in one of her interviews saying that the Clintons were calling the entire idea of a "black man winning the white house was a fairy tale".

    Point being, no one called them on that, and it didn't hurt him in SC -- in fact, he went on to smoke Senator Clinton there and his entire campaign took off. No wonder he's doing it again (if he and his campaign are behind this time around too) -- since he possibly expects to get a similar bounce again. No matter how much the blogosphere may vent against it, I guess the tactic is proving effective. I agree with you all that as a strategy -- destroying Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's legacy on the way to the nomination could well end Obama's chances in November.

    [ Parent ]

    BHO needed to serve out his term first (none / 0) (#63)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    I think if he served six years in the Senate and was effective in that role, he could have run on his merit. Instead he does not have the crucial experience and his biggest draw are the AA voters. Now people are actually allowed to note this out loud as before you were called a racist. Interesting that a campaign uses racism when it is good to get out the AA vote but stays away from it in the case of NO and MLK day. Now these AA people are coming out to speak of it again. Maybe they know that the Super Delegates might not be falling their way after all & so they want to rile up the AA voters. But,nothing riles up the WWC more than seeing reverse racism. Not a good move at all.

    [ Parent ]
    ah, but then he might have voted (none / 0) (#252)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    on something controversial -- we can't have that, now can we?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, nothing is gained by the behavior (none / 0) (#203)
    by feet on earth on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    of declaring oneself "I am racist" in solidarity.  I don't like it.  But, from this type of discussions and from the totally unfair "racism" accusation coming from the Obama camp we may learn how to respond calmly and clear-headed without feeling paralyzed.  

    As part of my job I provide equity  and antiracism education and training.  
    I hear  over and over again from good and very well-intentioned white people how they feel emotionally paralyzed and silenced when accused of being racists when they strongly believe they are not.  Whatever help shake out this "paralyzation" feelings can only be a good thing for an honest dialogue on race-relation,  IMHO.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is harming Obama (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    with divisiveness.  Yes, I do believe that Clyburn's comments have the blessing of the Obama campaign.  If they didn't, why the deafening silence?  I don't hear Obama or his spokespeople "rejecting and renouncing" Clyburn.  

    The Obama campaign has its eyes on the prize - the nomination - and is hoping that the Presidential election will take care of itself.  

    This part is particularly ridiculous:

    Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter.

    And why did Clinton get such a small percentage of the black vote?  Couldn't have anything to do with the Obama campaign playing the race card in SC, could it?  Nah...

    If the Clintons are racist, well I guess so am I.  

    we've heard this before - the other way 'round (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by moll on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    my first reaction to hearing this statement about 'loyalty' was, hey, can we dig into the grab bag full of all those things said about Clinton feeling "entitled" and how she resents Obama running and wrecking her coronation? I remember her being belittled at the suggestion that she somehow feels Obama should have the "loyalty" to the Democratic party earlier in the nomination. And the "loyalty" question hurt the Clintons when they threw it against Bill Richardson, too. Loyalty might be how it really works behind the scenes, but you are not supposed to air it outside where people can see.

    That perception hurt Clinton then and it is going to hurt Obama now. And it hurts ALL Democrats, because to people outside the party it looks like Democrats are all-consumed with entitlements, as if we just don't get that the Presidency is not a thing you get as a prize - it is a thing that MUST be earned, and it is a position of responsibility, not just free lollipops.

    [ Parent ]

    me too! (none / 0) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "If the Clintons are racist, so am I" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Wow, that sums it up.  Oughta be on t-shirts -- but that would not be her campaign's way.  

    That, of course, would be the Chicago Way, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton Got 10% In PA And IIRC (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    she has gotten at least that in most primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Guess Rep. Clay Needs To Hear From One Of His (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    constituents about this. He needs to hear that this is harmful for his candidate and for the party.

    BTW, Rep. Clay is a fantastic rep and always votes straight down the line on important issues like Iraq and FISA.

    Better His Supporters Prove Him Unelectable (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    It saves us time and energy and they do a better job.  Now, they need an expose of his divisive supporters who are just everyday people.  They have done a great job of making Clinton supporters not want to support Obama, if he is the nominee, at the peril of the America and the democratic party.

    No, No, they're *Wonderful* surrogates (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    Why stop them now? They're on a roll.  Besides, there's not much time before North Carolina to whip up emotion in the North Carolina AA community.  
    Let's put it this way, BTD, as long as Obama goes out on the stump and flips Hillary the bird and brushes her off his shoulder, as long a Keith Olbermann can advocate offing is opponent and doesn't get held accountable and as long as Clyburn, Jackson Jr and Lacy pump up the volume and Obama says nothing, it's cool with him.  He's onboard with it.  He approves.  I see no evidence to the contrary.  
    Come to the dark side, BTD.  Hillary is the better candidate.

    after ObamaCo egregious actions (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    and Obama supporters screamed about Hillary not denouncing the NC GOP ad against Obama.
    Then when she did - it wasn't good enough.
    lol


    [ Parent ]
    I do not think she is more electable (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    even now. Heck, I think neither one of them is electable without the other now.

    [ Parent ]
    The better candidate *is* more electable (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    And what makes her a better candidate?  Well, her campaign made some mistakes, like not going for the caucuses but winning all of the big blue and swing states except IL and GA by SuperTuesday.  Yeah, there was a miscalculation there.  But let's think about this in terms of natural selection.  That theory says that a successful organism has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.  
    We have seen Hillary do this.  She brought in fresh campaign staff, changed her game plan, broke down that fourth wall between her and the voters, let her hair down and it has been working brilliantly.  And she still runs circles around him in debate.  And what has happened is that she took his best shot and got right back up.  You're missing the message here.  The voters have a lot more respect for her now.  She is not backing down, she is not selling out, she's not throwing any constituency under a bus to save herself, she keeps going and going like the energizer bunny.  She's gone from being the inevitable nominee to the nominee who has earned it every hard won inch at a time.  This primary season has been fantastic for giving Hillary Clinton legitimacy to people who previously only thought she was a smart first lady.  
    So, I think you're dead wrong, BTD.  She is the one to beat and if she's the nominee, McCain is going to have a very tough road ahead.  But against Obama, who has ridden a wave of media orgasm, he will have a much easier time.  Without the support of the media, Obama is an empty suit.  
    And yes, they ARE different politically.  There's more than a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Hillary.  In Obamaworld, the working class and older women are entitled parasites.  That nuch is clear.  And that message is coming through strongly.  
    So, I can't figure out where you're getting this idea that he's more electable than she.  Unless you know some deep dark secret about Clinton that will come out on Halloween, I just don't see how Obama comes out ahead of her in this area.  She's just more presidential and a better candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    That was awesome (none / 0) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    and couldn't agree more.  Obama's running on empty, and I mean his experience (less than one term in the US Senate and NO oversight meetings on Afghanistan)...compared to her as a second-term senator WHO KEPT HER WORD that she wouldn't run in 2004.  Obama said he wouldn't run in his first term and has.  That, makes him, a liar.

    Plain and simple.  And I for one will be writing in Hillary's name on my ballot come election day if he's the nom.

    I am a little pissed off that I am referred to as "low information", "uneducated", "low-income"...and now a racist, by those in the 'creative class'.

    Screw them.  I have two college degrees, make over 120K a year and speak three languages.  Obama WISHED he had my vote.  I will never forgive him for his anti-gay stances.  Oh Donnie McClurkin, Bush's boy back in 2004 flying the anti-gay kite, better work harder for Obama to get him votes.

    [ Parent ]

    'kay, just no more Unity Tick talk please (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    Clinton's made more than her share of calls to her supporters to back any Dem. Obama has only amped up his message -- and had proxies take it to the masses -- to threaten or ridicicule her to fold.

    Obama's idea of Unity is the same as Bush's One Party "non" partisanship: My Way or the Highway. Obama presumptuously called his "tough" campaign against Sen. Clinton his "Spring Training". Oh yes he did. (cf Obama on the Daily Show.)

    I'm sick of hearing that the world will end if yet another unqualified doofus who can't work, wait or earn his bones gets the job and the better qualified female YET AGAIN gets "honorary" second place for being a good little workout partner.

    (Handy tip for working gals: Keep a ream of embossed, satin-finished "blow me" note-cards as a standard response to the frequent veiled threats or helpful suggestions you'll get to step aside or else [fill in the personal or global disaster in the immediate future]. Efficient. Classy. Evil.)

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Obama can't run against McCain (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    the way he's been running against Senator Clinton. No way, no day are the press or the public going to support him trying to depersonalize and dehumanize John McCain, make him into a racist warmongering liar. That strategy could lead to a complete blowout. What else has he showed us?

    Clinton's got the right touch, the delicate touch needed--we saw that on Olbermann. "We're friends, I respect him, but he's got the wrong ideas for this country right now. More Bush is not what we need."

    And this nasty primary campaign has actually gotten a lot of stuff done that I thought she needed for the GE, but would never get: she looks strong on national security, like a fighter for the working man and woman, and like someone who won't. back. down. Fox News has been building her up just by treating her fairly in comparison to Obama, so now the Fox News viewers see her as someone the "Liberal Media" hates. She's not "the woman candidate" anymore--she looks tougher than Kerry and Gore combined.

    [ Parent ]

    Your assumption seems to be (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    that his supporters, especially the AA community will not vote for Hillary in the GE.  I do not believe this.  As long as Hillary has people like Maya Angelou, Mayor Nutter, Andrew Young, Magic Johnson, Alice Palmer, Vernon Jordan and many others who can help her campaign, the AA community will support her.  Because despite all the accusations of racism hurled against her and Bill, no one can point to any one word either of them uttered that are blatantly racist.  Obama's camp just decided to use the word racist.

    The only ones who would adamantly oppose Clinton are the ultra liberals who couldn't care less about any other agenda except their own.  And they are always in the minority.  Their support might even impact the Clinton campaign adversely