E-Mails and Open Thread

As a general rule, I do not like to judge an entire group of people by the e-mails that get sent to me. For that matter, I do not like judging an entire group of people because of comments from a select few.

That is why I like to name names when I criticize. I am criticizing the person I name, and no one else.

For that reason, I disagree with what Duncan Black chose to do in this post and in this post.

This is an Open Thread.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< TX Supreme Court: Seizure of Polygamous Compound Kids Invalid | DNC National Blogger Credentials Announced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So the Unnamed Emailer and the Straw Man are one? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    I KNEW IT! [/and I guessed Keyser Soze correctly too]

    You are genius!!! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    I have a problem with the Major Media (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    On CNN's Lou Dobb's, Lou was not there, they had three people speaking on behalf of Obama and no Clinton delegate there to speak on her behalf. They trashed her. I have never experienced anything so blatantly unfair and outright cruel.

    That's what we should be talking about. The media reaches millions of people and they give a kind of permission to everyone, that it's okay to be dissmissive and disrespectful of a serious contender for the race...

    This is a PR attempt to quell the firestorm that erupt resulting from Saturday's inquest...

    i have to limit myself (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST
    to 1 hour a day of cable news a day.  There is no fairness, and very few know the facts.  I think a lot of viewers know way more than the pundits. And there are very few real journalists any more.

    I watch none (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    It is not news. What we have are a variety of TV channels devoted to talk. It's like Jenny Jones, but they talk about "news" instead of whatever Jenny Jones talked about (forgive me, but I don't remember or care to look it up).

    I've stopped watching cable news, too (none / 0) (#108)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    and I used to be a cable news junkie. I have no interest in what any of these people have to say anymore--especially on MSNBC. I can't imagine that Hardball and Countdown are faring well after alienating millions of Hillary supporters...

    I will check in at nine and kind of bounce back and forth between Larry King (if the panel is political) and Hannity & Colmes, because I'm curious to see how the right is covering the Democratic nomination. Man, are they gonna skewer Obama....


    I do that, too. Today I was lucky enough (none / 0) (#76)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:29:37 PM EST
    to catch Terry Mac taking Mrs. Greenspan to school! He is teh awesome. He said that he did threaten punishment to keep the calendar straight but once threat or punishment works, there is no longer a reason for the punishment so it has to go away because every vote counts. And, no, she's not organizing the protest-grassroots!

    I dunno.. (none / 0) (#202)
    by rhbrandon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    McAuliffe looks like he washes down his Stacker 2 with Red Bull. He's certainly among the foremost true believers in the Clinton campaign.

    msnbc is reporting on the Rev. Pflueger (sp) (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    flap that is starting against obama...

    As a Christian (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    I agree 100% with your cousin. Also, I think so many bloggers are secular that they don't understand how offensive Wright and Pflueger are. They don't understand that mainstream christians NEVER hear this kind of stuff in church on sundays either.

    I don't worry about it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:02:30 PM EST
    Nor do I watch.

    If I had to comment on it, that kind of media stuff solidifies her support.


    I happened to catch a little of it (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    on XM in the car a little while ago.  Who was the guy they called Mark?  Total liar.  He said Clinton is mathematically eliminated from the race, and no one contradicted him.  

    I did not recognize any of the voices.  One of them, not Mark, sounded like a weasel.

    I don't watch CNN at home, and am about to delete it from my preset list in the car.


    Since this is an open thread (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    Fox News is all over the Father Pfluger story.  

    Anderson Cooper will be covering the Alice Palmer story - Obama bumping her off the ticket.  I'm not expecting anything earth-shattering.  

    Anderson's clearly (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:33:42 PM EST
    a big Obama fan.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    which is sad for me b/c I liked him a lot after Hurricane Katrina.  

    I liked him for a while (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:23 PM EST
    but then CNN started foisting him off on us practically 24/7 and he started to become a caricature of himself, so now not so much.

    Bring back Aaron Brown, I say!


    Aaron Brown is back (none / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    PBS hired him.

    good for aaron. i hated to see him (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    treated that way by cnn. and wolf is on so much. talk about burn out.

    He seemed too quick to blame Dems (none / 0) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    For Katrina.

    Maybe that's why he likes Obama.


    I wonder if he has asked Obama (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    what he did for the victims of Katrina. If anything. I know Hillary got to work and came up with bills to fund repairs and rehoming of people. What did Obama do?? Anything? Anything at all??

    Cmon Stilllife....you have to hope for better.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:06:09 PM EST
    there is more and more stuff being aimed at putting obama in a bad light...vetting...whatever you want to call it.  It is not going to be pretty.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#168)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    But I just have this feeling that the 360 piece tonight will be a cursory examination of Obama's past and will come to the conclusion that he's a really cool guy!  

    Anderson, please prove me wrong!


    Anderson may be trying to act like he is a (none / 0) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    cool guy himself...Rev. Pflueger, auschwitzgate, etc. are not making obama look good.  Really, I think the general public is more aware now than they were in the past, about not trusting the media.

    Will do! (none / 0) (#170)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:19:19 PM EST
    I'm recording it.  I don't feel like watching the entire show.

    Well, it wouldn't surprise me... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    ...if virtually every major LW blogger were getting hate mail from one or both factions.  I wouldn't regard it as broadly representative either, but just reflective of the intensity of this race.

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM EST
    Sort of my point.

    If I were to describe the e-mails I get from Obama supporters, well, I can not print them at this site.


    Well that's cause you.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    ...have someone managed to remember that you are a grownup throughout this whole mess. Apparently that's not so easy for some to do.

    Well that didn't make much sense.... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    ...basically, what I am trying to say is that BTD has managed to hang on to his maturity, while others have not.

    integrity is an even better (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    word to describe it

    BTD (none / 0) (#113)
    by tedsim on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    what do you think of rev.flaeger remarks?

    And what is the point of emailing? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    Just shows you have too much time on your hands and hardens the position of the person who reads it. Worse than useless.

    Digby makes a good point (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    [T]o the loathed minority of people like me, who don't particularly love or hate either primary candidate, [. . .] MSNBC [is] as unreliable as it was in the run up to the war. [. . .]  [S]ince their friendly Democratic bias seems to stem from an idiosyncratic, personal basis, they are not behaving with any more journalistic integrity than they ever were, it's just that their corruption is benefiting our side this time.

    that really does say it all (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST
    Somerby missed that point (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    the other day.

    Except, isn't Digby (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    basically doing something similar to Duncan here?  (And I say this with the utmost respect for Digby).

    I mean, I'm assuming she is exagerating, but when she writes that she is in a minority because she neither loves or hates either candidate, isn't that basically another way of implying that all of Obama's supporters hate Hillary, and vice versa?  Now, I can well imagine that Digby, like BTD and others, gets a whole lot of hatemail, so I can totally see why she would make this kind of comment.  

    Again, I don't really think that Digby believes this (unlike Duncan, who I think based on his blog posts of late really does seem to generalize about Clinton supporters), but I'm not really certain if the statement you quoted her is all that helpful.


    Exaggerating? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    She's not exaggerating.

    You guys don't get it.  They're winding you up to the point that you don't even have good reasons for supporting him or not supporting her.  

    It's all emotion.  And the rest of us want something more than that after Bush.

    Crazy, dude.  Just crazy


    I do not follow your point actually (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    Sorry. (none / 0) (#57)
    by dk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    I'm not talking about her description of MSNBC.  That's right, of course.  I meant the part where she states that she is in the minority of people who don't love or hate either candidate.  To me, the flip side of that is that most supporters of either candidate hate the other candidate.

    If not wanting to elect someone President necessarily means that you hate them these days, maybe that's true.  But I guess I just don't believe that.  I'm sure some people (the people who send you, and Digby, and Atrios all those emails) say hateful things.  But do the majority of people really hate the other candidate, even if they have decided they won't vote for them?  


    How about the hateful (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:52:57 PM EST
    things said about her?

    I won't include Obama here because I have't heard anything hateful said about him, other than the fact that he's less qualified for the job.


    Unreliable (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by zebedee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    It would at least be nice to think this slant will last into the GE. But I wouldn't be surprised if by November they are sneering at Obama (like they are doing now with Clinton now) and the flavor of their coverage is "What were the Dems thinking of to put up such a rookie as their candidate"

    Just like watching the coverage of McClellan's book yesterday you couldn't imagine that Russett and co were in any way implicated


    I read what the Bushies (none / 0) (#80)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:31:54 PM EST
    had to say about McClellan's book: sad, misguided, disappointing and slightly worse.

    Doesn't matter.  The damage has been done.


    I don't think the corruption (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    "is benefiting our side".  I think the corruption is DIVIDING our side.  And I think that's just the  way they want it.

    "benefiting out side" (none / 0) (#119)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    If one side is benefited, there is no benefit.  Everything that's one sided is suspect and all credibility is lost.  I might as well go to hillaryclinton.com or obama.com and get the one point of view.  I like to read comments and blogs that are not venomous because they represent many views.

    I have got to read her more.n/t (none / 0) (#157)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    On Fox (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    It looks like Obama's church has the basic beliefs that the Rev. Wright had... I saw this on Fox this afternoon from Brit Hume, "Obama's Church: Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed.... and found it on YouTube...  Obama renounced The Rev. Wright but not the church...

    Can (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    Obama ever stand up? He constantly dances around and does nothing.

    at ABC.com (none / 0) (#41)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    there is a statement from Obama throwing the white Rev under the bus.

    Is that the same one that shows a LONG (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:25:40 PM EST
    history between Obama and this pastor? Including the $$$ he's put into Obama campaigns?

    No, this is a new one (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:29:17 PM EST
    Found what I was referring to. I read it kinda (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    wrong. He has contributed, but $$ figure I was thinking of is money Obama has directed to his programs:


    . . .is a longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.

    Their relationship spans decades. Pfleger has given money to Obama's campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina's, according to the Chicago Tribune.

    he the priest is also a friend of ayers. (none / 0) (#189)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    lol!~ but of course he is! Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    Maybe so (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    But doesn't this show that this is a basic theme that runs through this church and Obama says he never heard any of this sort of thing for 20 yrs and look how many times we have seen and heard about it in 2 months...

    That statement (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    is pathetic. It starts out "I'm disappointed etc." Can he ever just make a stand and say something is wrong!!!???? The statement made me madder than the Rev's sermon.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    From Wolfson: "Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics. We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pflegler's dispicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

    I'm sorry, what is it the new Democratic (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    Party offers me again?  Only BTD of the blogosphere pointed out that ridiculous diotribe against Hillary by Obama's pastor friend.  Obama, in his statement, didn't even offer a kind word directly to Hillary.  None of the Party "elders" have defended Hillary at all against the brutal onslaught of misogny directed at their Party's first viable female candidate.  This hurts all women.  And, there's be nothing but silence from this Party.  And, so what do we have from Atrios?  The old Hillary supporters are racist, I guess.

    And the e-mails I got for that (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    were not to be believed.

    And I said it had nothing to do with Obama.


    I can imagine. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    But it did have something to do with Obama (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:26:33 PM EST
    because this Rev was campaigning for him in Iowa, unlike Rev Wright.  



    And it's now listed as a top story (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    on ABC's front page.



    Ha! Obamas geek squad is too slow (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:03:28 PM EST
    Tapper posted the link to a yahoo cache page after Obama scrubbed his web site of any mention of the good Pastor.

    Tapper is the guy that gave Obama cover after Obama was called out for exaggerating about weapons shortages in Afghanistan.

    What this Pastor said is beyond disgusting and maybe just too much for Tapper. But what is most likely happening is that the media has proceeded to Phase II of the Save-My-Tax-Cuts-2008 plan.


    it might be time for Obama to cut (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    ties with Trinity, not just Wright. The new pastor at Trinity thought what Pfelger said was wonderful!

    I think it's too late (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:16:39 PM EST
    it's that judgment thang. He owns this one.

    McCain could toss his pastors much easier because they weren't his pastors or long time associates. This video is it's own 527. You don't even need the Hillary part. I'm sure a large chunk of white America will be not too happy to hear his views on their ownership of past deeds. Heck, I found it offensive and I have squat in the family history dept that ties me into any of the issues. And I can happily claim my inheritance guilt free. Dad was a dirt poor orphan child  ;)


    the barn door has closed. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    all the preachers and priests are out there.

    How can he disown a congregation? (none / 0) (#228)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    Obama has to be close to many in the congregation. They loved the hate this clown was spewing.

    And Obama got Pfleger almost (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    a quarter of a million funding for his church, when Obama was a state legislator.  It's a long history of campaigning for each other.

    Yup! (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    And that's another ginormous friggin electability Obama problem when the GOP 527's crank it up.  This black liberation theology stuff is not going to go away and it is just going to get worse for Obama until he addresses the whole mess head on now.  And it is going to take longer than November for the average American voter to resolve and digest the dialogue and the crud that is going to be drug out about it. If he starts that social conversation today he can't finish it by November, but I don't think he's going to start any sort of conversation.  If he doesn't though, he has no hope against McCain.

    Can't we ever just say enough is enough? (5.00 / 8) (#131)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    Seriously.  Hate is hate.  Because we want a progressive in the White House are we actually going to swallow this crap?  Just dismiss the ongoing and fervent association with hate merchants a la the Republicans?  Only it is worse than the Republicans, because few of their candidates, for POTUS at least, actually belonged to the megachurch that was ground zero for the hate being spewed or wrote books praising the merchants themselves.  Perhaps this is disingenuous of me to ask because I have already crossed over against ever voting for Obama, but if liberals excuse the embrace of hate merchants then what chance do we ever have of reaching a better and more enlightened place in this country?  If we consider ourselves liberals, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard than this?  Guilt by association=mindless smear is the talking point of the weak and spineless.  If you support BO have the courage to call him out on this.  Please.

    I said this (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    about three months ago on Eschaton. I was, of course, ignored.

    How many chances do we give Obama before we just admit that yes, he is who he seems to be?

    This duck is quacking and walking, my friends. He associates with people that reflect his beliefs.

    To not accept and understand this, is to acquiesce to the takeover of the Democratic Party by a candidate (and organization) that does not reflect Democratic values.

    Hate is not a Democratic value. Sexism is not a Democratic value. Winning by bullying and lying and payola is not a Democratic value.


    I don't think he has any (none / 0) (#186)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    strong beliefs. He uses others beliefs when it benefits him, then tosses them aside.

    Excellent post IMO! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    Speaks to all of my higher angels.

    Trinity Church of Christ (none / 0) (#98)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    Have you seen (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    this from Pfleger?

    Or this one...

    I am speechless... What a bully... What is all these about?


    Honestly, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    when you have a white Catholic priest spouting this type of speech against Hillary, it makes me think they are intentionally trying to leverage her race against her gender; make her seem like she's the archetypal White (Guy).  Bludgeon her for her racial privilege and ignore the obvious hits her gender has made her endure, throughout her life.  You can't understand Hillary without understanding both.  

    As for Catholic priests, look in the g*damn mirror.  Again, what a joke.  Please, tell me how awful white people are, when you stop colonizing non-whites and stop abusing the weakest of the world.  The ones you made weak by applying strict codes of goodness that basically equalled white man = great!  As for apologies, I recommend Father Pfleger tell them to Hillary Clinton in a tiny room, alone.

    If you can't tell from my comments today, I have a thing about grandstanding Catholic guys.  


    This kinda stuff is (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:40:57 PM EST
     middle America poison in a slow release capsule.

    Well, Obama isn't making us any promises (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    so, maybe only the TUCC knows what the changes are he has planned.

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    it does.

    Pfleger is one of Obama official spiritual advisors they just pull his name out of the webpage when this erupted but people
    knew about him for a long while. Besides they have had a long  intimate relationship and Pfleger campaigned for Obama in Iowa.
    It's about Obama's membership on that church; his choices; his judgment. Pfleger has been defeding Farrakhan for ages.


    yea right (none / 0) (#134)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    Duncan Black=Atrios (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    and his blog is Eschaton.

    Of course, everyone here but me already knows all this stuff.

    no, I didn't either (none / 0) (#67)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    I had to read Atrios posts several times to even get BTDs point because it was like another universe to me over there.

    I hate generalizing (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    I think it generally sucks. Hee hee

    What Atrios did (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    was stereotyping.  He's practicing bigotry against Clinton supporters.

    I don't think people not voting for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    and his electability problem has much to do with his being black.  There will be people out there who are extremists about race and won't vote for him for that reason, but there are people out there who are sexist extremists who won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman.  There are extremist sorts out there who won't vote for Obama or Clinton because they are black and female and neither one should be considered for the presidency because of those "faults".  It is the independent minded voters who decide the elections in this country and they tend to stick to certain ground rules of which BTD is often very in touch with.  They don't care much for racism or those who support it and that will include people who practice black liberation theology which preaches and inspires certain types of racism.  That is Barack Obama's electability problem and while the Democrats ignore the issue, believe me.....the GOP won't, not for one second.  Duncan is being intellectually dishonest with himself, something that doesn't often happen, and he is wrapping it up in looney emailers.  Indy voters don't like social b*ttheads, no matter what their justifications for being that certain type of social b*tthead is.

    "He'll Lose" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:35:21 PM EST
    Well, currently we are faced with that as an imminent danger wrt Obama. Anyone who denies this is in an alternate reality.

    Does it take a certain Audacity to Hope that Obama will somehow repair all the damage he's done before November? Yes, yes it does. That's not what I imagined he was talking about in his book, though.

    Sorry folks, while it may not be a certainty, it is a BAD BAD IDEA to start a race against the slime machine with your legs tied together. I'd rather start with the proven fighter who is ALREADY AHEAD.

    This is a social conversation (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    that is going to take longer than six months to have and work through.  I completely agree, Obama is going to start out with both of his legs tied together.  I blame him for it though. Racism is racism, he needed to address this long ago and not just hope that standing in a certain light and allowing the rays through the window to create a halo affect around his head was going to carry the weight of such discussions.  He's too smart for this to have happened.  He is also too smart to have accomplished as little in real time as he has.  I tend to suspect he is a little lazy.

    You have (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    to come to the conclusion that Dems really want to lose. Or they are stupid. Or they are too chicken to want to win. Feh, Obama is their problem and they can deal with it.

    Have you noticed how the press is starting to slowly talk about how McCain might win? Truly, if Obama was going against any other candidate the GOP put forth he would probably have a good chance. I just don't see how he wins against McCain who is innovative and can adjust to the political climate like Hillary can.


    What formerly sensible people suggest these days (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Madison Guy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    If Hillary was dreaming of an assasination the night I saw her in Madison, she sure didn't show it. Here we are, in the sixth year of a cruel and pointless war that looks as if it will go on forever. We were lied into the war by men, the war was started by men, bungled by men -- and now the guys can't agree on how to stop it. So who is accused of harboring dreams of violence? A woman who wants to end it. Hillary Clinton, of all people, is the person accused of hoping to benefit from the violent death of someone else. Go figure.

    Madison Guy... (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    you are a gem.  You have no idea how much this comment means to me.  I am heart sick about what this campaign is doing to women.  This has been so destructive and I hold the Democratic party responsible.  History will not look kindly on their silence.  Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

    well said (none / 0) (#112)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    Eeewww...he smokes? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by indymom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    "WASHINGTON (May 29) - Barack Obama's doctor said Thursday the presidential candidate was in excellent health at the time of his last checkup 16 months ago, but he has a family history of cancer and a big, obvious risk -- a smoking habit that he's trying, again, to break."

    Right now on AOL

    16 months ago? (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:20:50 PM EST
    And this is news? Why? Is there something that they are hiding that they are relying on a 16 month old check-up?

    McCain released a current health report so Obama has to do the me-too thing. It really is getting pathetic.


    Unity Pony may go to Iraq (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    Not because McCain pointed out he didn't know what he was talking about having not been there in over two years, but because he thinks it's necessary :)

    The "I can reach across the aisle" candidate is, however, flatly turning down McCain's offer to go along and teach him something about the area and the progress that's been made.

    I love it. McCain made the clear reach across the aisle move and Obama pulled back his hand. It's almost worth him getting the nomination just to watch the GE Circus.

    Oooh, ponies and circuses? I'm in. (none / 0) (#164)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    McSame offered to teach the young pup (none / 0) (#225)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    a thing or too.  He didn't reach across the aisle, he established himself as the authority.  If he had said this to Hillary, you'd be calling him on his sexism.  Why do you chastise Obama for not falling for the ploy?

    I don't need a warmonger telling our Democratic candidate he'll help him learn what a great job we've done in Iraq.  He's no war hero to me.  


    Maybe if Duncan would stop posting (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    his ignorance, he wouldn't get crazy emails

    Head Scratching

    I know I'm not alone in the League of Mostly Nonaligned Bloggers in being rather puzzled by Clinton supporters. I don't mean all people who supported her, but the ones who are still pushing for her candidacy. As far as I can tell they want her to be the candidate and really just don't care how that happens as long as it does. At this point only a drastic rule change combined with a massive shift in support from superdelegates even gets her close to the nomination. In another words, cheating combined with the smoke-filled room residents overturning the outcome of the primary process.
    I never really cared all that much about who won this thing, but at some point Obama became the only one with a legitimate path to the nomination. I just stare and scratch my head and wonder what it's all about. I appreciate that there are people who don't like Obama for whatever reasons and prefer Clinton for whatever reasons. But he, you know, won?

    James Carville (3.00 / 2) (#33)
    by SpinDoctor on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    This gives me hope for a unified Democratic Party against John McCain in the fall:

    In a quick phone interview with me just now, prominent Hillary supporter James Carville diverged from the Hillary campaign message on several key "electability" questions, saying that he thinks Obama "will" win the general election.

    Carville, surprisingly, also seemed to downplay Obama's problems with non-college whites -- a cornerstone of Hillary's electability claim -- saying that if Obama gets the same level of non-college whites that John Kerry did in 2004, he "will" win the general.

    Asked if he thought Obama would beat McCain, Carville said: "I think he will. I think Democrats will win in November...There's a crushing desire for change in this country. No one has seen a party or brand held in such low esteem" than the Republicans.

    Carville's repeated suggestions that Obama "will" beat McCain contrast with the core Hillary message -- repeated frequently by Hillary advisers -- that Obama merely "can" win a general election, while Hillary "will" win it. Carville's comments also suggest that with the fall contest looming, it's becoming tougher for prominent Hillary backers to sustain any argument that doesn't show full confidence in Obama's chances against McCain.

    Carville stressed that he thought Hillary was a better bet against McCain, but reiterated his confidence in Obama. "Hillary would be a stronger candidate, but I think he'll win this thing," Carville said.

    Asked about claims that Obama has a problem with non-college whites that could hamper his electability, Carville said that thanks to changes in the electorate, to win Obama merely has to match the performance of Kerry, who underperformed with that group.

    "I would argue that if he gets what Kerry got he will still win the election, because the dynamics have changed," Carville said, pointing to likely larger turnout among young voters, African Americans and other demographic changes. Carville joked, however, that he'd be loath to see Obama fall below Kerry's performance.


    Kudos to Carville for this.  Hopefully this will be just the beginning of both sides ratcheting down the rhetoric and focusing on what now matters most.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    The Clinton camp leads on this too.

    They (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:19:52 PM EST
    are trying to be nice but you have to realize that Obama is the one with the problem. It won't matter what Hillary says or Carville says. Obama will have to take the bull by the horns and issue a massive and public apology for the way his campaign has been conducted.

    Pssst (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:20:07 PM EST
    Most sane peopel think he will. Most sane people ALSO think at this point in time, hillary is the one MORE likely to win IF she could be th e nominee.

    Cept shge has almost no chance.

    The two thoughts are NOT mutually exclusive.


    Most sane people do not think that. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    All bets are off after the last two elections.

    If being accused of subliminal messages (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:51:46 PM EST
    of assassination is their idea of making nice, then maybe he really can hold hold own against the R's.  

    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:57:55 PM EST
    It only worked on some Obama supporters.

    The rest of us laughed.

    We are talking about November, right?


    Yeah, I was kidding. But obviously I didn't do (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    such a great job.

    Darn. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:09:53 PM EST
    If I knew you better, I'd have seen the invisible snark tag.  :)

    Most sane people think he will win the GE? (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:19:37 PM EST
    Since when? There is lots of doubt about Obama. I am far the only one who believes he will not win th GE.

    Guess I am not sane, then. Did I get that one right?



    yeah i guess those of us who (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:46:35 PM EST
    are crazy enough to believe the polls and have good memories of 04 better get the unity pony and head for the bus. it is actually nice under there. great conversation and dinner at 6:00.

    Bridget- you are not alone (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    I talk to family and friends who do not keep up with poliics and they all agree with you and I and many others who do pay attention that Obama will not only lose in Nov, but lose BIG.

    I don't think Obama can win (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by oldpro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    the GE nor do I think he ought to.

    If I'm not sane, I don't care and I reject treatment, thanks.

    Unless it involves bourbon or chocolate or both.


    I saw the vide of the interview (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    and I think that Carville was being political in not saying that Obama had a big problem.  Of course he said that Obama would win, just like Hillary said when she was pressed during the debate.  Nothing new.

    Her supporters have all been saying this. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:52:16 PM EST
    She has been saying this. What else could they say without starting the "harming the nominee" meme?

    non-college white... (none / 0) (#190)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    the question is whether Obama can outperform Kerry in this demographic in Ohio, right?

    Lets put it this way... in 2004 in Ohio, those with no college at all constituted 34% of the electorate, and Kerry carried them by 55-45%.  

    Those with some college were 29% of the electorate, and Kerry lost them 48% - 52%.

    The 2004 electorate was 86% White in Ohio -- there is no education/race breakdown in the available exit polls.

    In the Ohio Primary, Kerry lost the 'no college at all' vote by 65% to 33% and they made up 30% of the electorate.  The "some college" group was 32% of the electorate, and Obama lost them 52%-47%.  Whites made up 77% of that electorate.

    Kerry could not have done that badly among the white "non-college" cohort in Ohio, regardless of what the definition was.  

    So I'm not entirely certain that Carville wasn't delivering a poisoned pill dipped in sugar here, because if you look at the number from west virginia -- which was 96% white, Obama got only 20% of the "no college at all" vote, and 24% of the "some college" cohort.

    I'd say that given current trends, Obama could easily do worse that Kerry did among the "non-college white" crowd in Ohio.... and that Carville was saying in a nice way that Obama is probably going to lose Ohio.


    One more reminder (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    When comments are closed, that means do not comment any more.

    With respect, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:28:11 PM EST
    comments can get closed while one is in the midst of reading a thread and responding to various comments already posted, and there's no way to know it's been closed.

    I think virtually all of us are happy to obey the rules and intend to, but there's a built-in Catch-22 here that it's very easy to stumble into unknowingly.

    Just sayin' people aren't necessarily doing it deliberately.


    Dammit, BTD... (none / 0) (#230)
    by oldpro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:20:07 PM EST
    it's not deliberate....

    ie.  I was just reading down the thread, decided to respond to #171...my answer popped up # 227 or some obnoxious over-200 number...as will THIS  ONE!

    Gotta be a better way to stay out of trouble here!?


    Duncan doesn't need to resort to emails (none / 0) (#7)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    There's an entire site (DK) full of examples on Why Hillary Doesn't Deserve to Be Treated Fairly. Come to think of it, there are whole sites full of that c&^p.

    Given the treatment Hillary's supporters have taken on blogs, cherry picking email subjects from annonymous senders is a bit too rich.

    I don't read his site anymore.  Did he get outraged over the Friday's non-scandal?

    Yeah, their mind is made.  Do not confuse them with facts.


    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with the second post.  I mean, if that's the common theme of most of the emails he gets, then it seems like a useful piece of information.  Unless, of course, it's wrong to believe that one candidate or another has electability problems.

    The biggest problem (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    is that he doesn't really explore the possibility that they have a point. But Atrios wouldn't really be Atrios if he worked that way. In a sense, I'm happy that I don't have to read tediously long (and wrong) entries a la Chris Bowers.

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    That post was, imo, an attempt to generalize all clinton supporters.

    It so happens that many many commenters here who are Clinton supporters say "he'll lose." but I do not believe for a second that represents a substantial number of Clinton supporters GENERALLY.

    For example, my e-mails generally accuse me of being a paid operative of the Clinton campaign due to the fact that I represent Wal-Mart as an attorney.

    I do not believe that is the general basis for why people hate me. Personally, I like to think it is due to the fact that I am pretty honest and effective in arguing my points that do not always favor Barack Obama.

    But that is the egotist in me.


    Duncun also (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    posted that Hillary supporters who are pushing her candidacy are "cheaters" willing to "overturning the outcome of the primary process".

    Too bad Duncan can't figure out that calling people cheaters results in flaming emails.


    At least the Wal-Mart thing (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    is consistent, but now they hate you about other stuff.

    They hate you now more than they hate.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    ...Walmart. Funny how that works.

    Heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST
    I actually wanted to send you an email earlier, but it didn't occur to me to check your profile for the address.  For what it's worth, I wasn't intending to accuse you of being a paid operative of the Clinton campaign.

    It is in my profile (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:08:03 PM EST
    and has been found by all sorts of people who hate me.

    My hate mail now is approaching my numbers I got when I was a dkos FPer.

    And it was alot back then. It is a lot now.


    Ok, this is going to sound stupid, but (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:44:35 PM EST
    why send a blogger hate mail?? If I think you are wrong, I will say so, and have. Constantly. But if I really dislike you, why waste the time writing an email?? I would do what I did at DKos. Stop going and giving them my traffic. Hate mail is a waste of time, to write and to read. Surely a dedicated supporter of a candidate can find better things to do with their time. If I got hate mail from a candidate's supporter, I would forward it to the candidate with a notation that perhaps they should answer it for me. Let the campaigns find out what sort of people they have supporting them. Let them deal with it. Heh.

    hopefully you are not reading (none / 0) (#27)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    it all!

    Generally not (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    sometimes I get fooled by a reasonable subject line

    yeah, they are sneaky that way.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    reminds me of a fake subject line where their real goal is to sell you viagra... :)

    The second link (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:52:45 PM EST
    looks better to me than the first time I read it. I think I read it the first time as him saying "they all think he can't win because he's black." I'm glad to see that I was wrong about that.

    On your topic, I guess I don't see the problem with doing what he does, though I do take your point that, in writing and in life, the specific is preferred over the general.

    I think the second link (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    reveals that Atrios, like most of the A-list, is now pretty well ensconced in his echo chamber.  I rather doubt he is confronted with many other people other than Obama supporters at all these days.

    Now, as someone who spends lots of time here at Talk Left, I'm the last person to cast aspersions at echo chambers (of course, I like to think of it as wanting to associate with respected, like-minded thinkers!).  I would imagine that the only non-Obama supporters who even bother to read Atrios these days are the types who like to let off frustration by venting at the sorry state of what the blogosphere has become.  


    I've learned through experience (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:15:28 PM EST
    not to send angry emails. I tend only to email the bloggers I like.

    The difference is that (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM EST
    we're not in an echo chamber by choice, we got chased into it.

    It was way cooler when he stayed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Burned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:55:11 PM EST

    Yeah But (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by talex on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    look at all the Clinton supporters he is winning over by posting what he is. It certainly wins me over, right?

    This is how they view Clinton Supporters (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    it seems they are already setting Obama up to lose in Nov if he's the nominee and blame white working class voters. Obama HAS not helped himself with his numerous pastor problems because he has legitimized those racial views by going to a church where they do support reparations for slavery. His church is the same as those KKK churches where they preach hatred of blacks except his preaches hatred of whites.

    I wonder... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:41:26 PM EST
    what the report would have looked like if they had interviewed poor African Americans in Alabama or Mississippi.  Hmm..

    was this produced by (none / 0) (#18)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    Al Jezeera?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    But Markos posted it on his front page and they all seemed to agree the video accurately represented Clinton's support.

    I am speechless (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:07:25 PM EST
    when more and more Clinton supporters say they will never vote for Obama I'm sure that they'll take no responsbility whatever for chasing people away. Everytime I start to get on the fence about Nov. they make me run from not voting to voting for McCain.

    that is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    How do they then explain Massachusetts where Hillary had a very comfortable lead over Obama.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST
    I didn't think it made any sense.

    the problem... (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    of course, the reason they do this is because Obama has so many high-profile people like Wright and this catholic priest who are actually associated with Obama....

    Its the same trick that the GOP has played so successfully -- the old "accuse your opponent of doing the bad stuff that you are guilty of" ploy.

    I really don't think that the racists who we see trashing Obama are actual Clinton supporters -- in other words, they aren't going to vote for Clinton in November.  They[re just racists.

    But the blatant race-p*mping of the Obama campaign -- and the refusal of Obama and his supporters to deal honestly with the issues raised by Wright -- have emboldened some people to feel 'liberated' to be just as racist as Wright is.  


    I had this discussion just today with (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    a very intelligent, politically-aware friends who support Obama.  They had no information about Donnie McClurkin appearing on stage w/Obama at Obama's request during this campaign.  One of my friends sd. candidate shouldn't be judged by candidate's supporters.  I pointed out Clinton campaign rejected Bob Johnson's statements when he introducted Clinton before she came on stage.  Friends got my point and agreed.

    Keep in mind, too (none / 0) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:23:49 PM EST
    there are internet cafe's all over the world, many in the middle east, that are being used to try to get Clinton out of this race because they want Obama.

    YouTube has an interview from Gaza and one of these groups.

    It's possible that many of the over-the-top comments are coming from out of the country. Although, the anonymous nature of the internet could bring out the worst of some citizens, too.


    I think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    Obama's race is the least of his issues but has anyone thought that perhaps America isn't ready for a black president? I have no idea. When Chris Bowers said "wow, we nominated the black guy" isn't that saying that Obama has no other qualities and that he got picked because of his race? That's the impression that I got.

    Now, my argument against his being nominated is due to no experience, being from the southside of chicago, his associations and lack of accomplishments and the polls continually showing him doing poorly.

    Is there still a bradley effect out there? We know it doesn't appear to be so in the Dem primaries but is there any current polling to show whether it matters in a statewide or congressional race?

    Of all the possible reasons not to nominate... (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    ...a Democratic candidate for President, "he's black", "she's a woman", "he's Jewish", "she's Hispanic", or "he's gay" should NEVER be considered a valid rationale, in my opinion. I don't even care if the supposition that they won't be elected for that reason is accurate, we still don't do things that way.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:50 PM EST
    but is implying like Chris Bowers did that he was nominated because he was black any better? And perhaps his race will cause him to lose in Nov. I have no idea.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:19:43 PM EST
    ...I just finished studying Torts in law school, and there's this thing called "but for" causation.  Basically, the test is, "but for X, Y would not have happened"

    I don't think Obama's race passes that test as an explanation for winning the nomination, any more than Clinton's gender passes it as an explanation for her strong performance.

    And we have no clear idea whether Clinton could hold onto her level of white male support in a general election contest against a white male war hero, either.

    I'm not sure its useful or productive to worry about it.  We just do whatever we can to put our best foot forward, so to speak.


    I do (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    Try this on: but for his overwhelming support from black voters on Super Tuesday, Obama would not be the nominee. Tell me seriously, how do you think Georgia, Alabama, Delaware, and Missouri would have voted if the race had been between Hillary Clinton and Barry Oberly, liberal Senator from Illinois?

    ok, but... (none / 0) (#129)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    ...try this one:
    But for her strong support from women in New Hampshire, Sen. Clinton would not have survived to Super Tuesday.  The big shift in the women's vote there was key to her comeback.

    Obama finished first in Iowa and second in New Hampshire.  He also did quite well in a bunch of states with very few black voters.  

    The problem with the argument is that it's not necessarily true that any black or female candidate could have accomplished what each of them did.  Their personal talents and team organization played a larger role than their demographic identity did, in my opinion.


    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:58:08 PM EST
    Because Hillary Clinton is who she is, I think it is very likely that she would have gotten overwhelming support from African Americans on super tuesday, no matter what happened in New Hampshire.

    Identity mattered this year.


    Jesse Jackson 1988 (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont). Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.

    Does that sound even a bit familiar.  I agree with andgarden on this.


    11 states... (none / 0) (#236)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:56:16 PM EST
    ...versus 30.  6.9 million votes, versus around 17-18 million.  Apple, meet orange.

    I don't think that was the implication (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    I disagree with Bowers quite often but I read that as more along the lines of being pleasantly surprised that alot of America was able to look beyond color.

    I do think though that they aren't doing Obama any favors every time they insist that the reasons people aren't voting for Obama is racism.

    If I do not vote for Obama it will not be because of his skin color, it'll be because I do not approve of the tactics that I have seen being used, I philosophically disagree with him on dealing with the GOP and because he failed to make a compelling policy argument that compels me to look past the ABOVE. People are more complex than Bowers is giving them credit for


    I think he meant "we are so cool and edgy (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    and forward-thinking and not racists".

    In other words... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:47:04 PM EST
    It's not about him, it's about us. Us feeling better about us.

    David Brooks (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    had an aritcle about this very thing in the NYTimes, that Obama supporters didn't want to just vote, they wanted to have this positive "experience" of voting.  Like it's not just coffee, it's Starbucks. The non-AA supporters are not those who have problems with the bread and butter issues Hillary is proposing to solve--they don't have the same economic hardships (hence, the Starbucks), so they wrap up their support for the candidate with the good feelings about the experience like the big rallies.

    I don't think the Bradley effect (none / 0) (#47)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    is a big factor in this election.  I think we're not supposed to discuss the racial aspects of the election here, but if Obama loses (and I believe he will) in the GE, it won't be so much about his race but about his associations, which will be perceived as anti-American.  His lack of experience (which is my principal reason for not supporting him) will be a contributing factor.  

    Nobody knows who he really is or what he believes in.  He doesn't have much of a record to counteract his associations.  As the man himself said, it's not about experience, it's about judgment.  And his seems to be sorely lacking.

    No matter how you feel about Wright, Ayers, Pfluger, and no-preconditions meetings with leaders of hostile nations, it's not gonna play well with the average voter.  


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    with you. The anti americanism is really cranking up with the GOP. It seems to be sticking according to the polls. His name, background and associations do make it easier for them to do it to him than to do it with Kerry and it worked against Kerry. I have no doubt it will work extremely well again.

    I didn't interpret Bowers that way (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    I think it was a comment on the historical and against-the-odds nature of the nomination of a black candidate, not saying that he was nominated because he was black.

    And I'm just using the past tense because Bowers did - I haven't given up in Hillary  yet.


    And the fact that he is running against (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:35:58 PM EST
    MSM's public enemy #1, Hillary Clinton.  You're right -  I will redact the 'against-the-odds' part of my comment.  Consider it stricken from the record.

    But I still think that was along the lines of what Bowers was thinking.


    I have been saying "Bradley Effect" from (none / 0) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    the get-go...Think about it, back in the day, some of the most upstanding citizens were found out down the road, that they were members of the KKK...sometimes we don't even know who to trust.
    Secret ballots can bring about very different results than, let's say in a caucus.

    obama won't lose because of his race. (none / 0) (#214)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    he'll lose because of his lack of real credentials and the fact he can't and even worse won't close the deal.

    Since comments were closed in the previous (none / 0) (#35)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    thread by the time I got home, I have a question.

    I do not believe that the pundit on Fox who was saying Hillary was suspending her campaign knew what she was talking about anymore than any other pundit saying the same things today.

    When Hillary gave out her post primary schedule to the press corp, Spokesman Jay Carson said, "There are a lot of places for us to go between June 4 and November."

    I do not believe he meant to she will be campaigning for Obama and he didn't say August, he said November.

    Does anyone think that there is even a sliver of truth to the rumor, that even Lou Dobbs talked about on his radio show yesterday, that Hillary is concidering a run as an indy? she has until the end of June to decide.

    james Carville said today that the Obama camp's role in the RFK comment dust-up, as well as the party and media reaction was very hurtfull to her and he called it a 'game-changer'.

    Does anyone have any thoughts on what her changes would be if she chose to do this, dam the torpedos? Who would vote for her? would she be a viable alternative to voting for Obama or a repub?

    Not even a sliver of a sliver of truth to that (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:26:16 PM EST
    IMHO.  She and Bill are Democratic stalwarts - after this election he could very well be the only Democratic president for over 30 years.  I doubt running as an Independent has ever seriously entered her mind.

    I don't know. That RFK nonsense was way off (none / 0) (#89)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    the deep end. Who knows, maybe she is going to say
    F*ck Off.

    Of course they won't hesitate to remind her that she's a dem, so STFU, smile pretty and bring that Clinton name out on the campaign trail.


    The Audacity of Starting a New Party (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    How better to cement your place in history? Creating a true populist party - Democratic Values with Republican Vigor.

    I'd join within a few seconds and donate $1000 the next few.

    This won't happen, though. You're right: they still respect the Democratic Party, even if it wants them gone.


    Yup, I'd join too. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    Well if she picks up Edwards (none / 0) (#163)
    by cosbo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:12:20 PM EST
    along the way...that would make it a clincher. Can you imagine!

    Praise the lord and pass the popcorn!!


    personally i don't think the clintons (none / 0) (#217)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    have that much respect for the party right now. they may be loyal to the idea of the democratic party, but frankly what's to be loyal to these days. we aren't bush/repubs is getting less inviting to me the more arrogant and noncaring they are towards the american people.

    Yes, if anything could push her over the edge (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    that would do it.  Just made up out of whole cloth.

    Nutpicking (none / 0) (#43)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    aka confirmation bias.

    Whenever I read someone not responding to the best arguments against the writer's position, I know it's not worth reading further.

    RBC Obama campaign picks rep (none / 0) (#64)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:26:48 PM EST
    Obama campaign has now also picked a representative to speak at the RBC meeting - Representative Robert Wexler.

    He joins:

    Jon Ausman, DNC member, uncommitted currently but former Kucinich supporter and the one who brought the appeal

    Raul Martinez, Clinton supporter and former Hialeah mayor who is currently running against Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart for a House seat

    Janee Murphy, Obama supporter and DNC member

    Senator Bob Graham, uncommitted currently as he doesn't want to declare prior to the RBC meeting and former Governor and former Senator

    Senator Bill Nelson, Clinton supporter and current Senator, will be representing the state party

    Rep. Arthenia Joyner, current state Rep who is speaking for the Clinton campaign

    Bill Nelson will be the best (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    I think.

    For whatever reason (none / 0) (#138)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    Bill Nelson has a high favorability rating in Florida. Plus he has been involved since last spring. In fact, he was the one who suggested that since Florida Dems couldn't change the primary date that the other early states each move up a week. Of course that offer was declined and then later implemented.

    But I think Bob Graham might be the most interesting as he's not currently a politician so he has nothing to lose. Plus I believe he was more loved than Nelson. And Wexler may be walking a tightrope with whatever he says so that could also be interesting.


    I like Wexler (none / 0) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    maybe during the meeting he'll exercise the fairness I've always seen in him.

    Wexler (none / 0) (#142)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    is representing the Obama campaign position. He won't be speaking on his own behalf. He has been promoting the "seat the delegates but not based on the primary" position.

    Doesn't mean he won't see what (none / 0) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    is really fair.

    Definite cheap shot (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    Any pro-Clinton blogger could do the same and more.

    He is one of the few blogs I still read, and I am sorry to see him get more and more unfair in his posts as the Kool-aid takes possession of every last brain cell.

    I read him (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:50 PM EST
    until the Penn primary.  But I could clearly see through his "neutrality".

    Donald Sutherland, one of my (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    favorite actors [Tales of the City] has a piece up on Huff Post excoriating Hillary Clinton.  Why does he care so much?

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    Why do you care? Donald Sutherland on politics seems like something I do not care about.

    I liked Brad Pitt's answer the best (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    He said he was an actor, what did he know about politics?  If actors become politically active and have some political experiences like Sean Penn going to Baghdad, I tend to listen to what they have to share.  Actor's though who suddenly step out of the wings to share their political expertise......no thanks.

    Ha. I didn't actually read it. Just (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    disappointed.  He acts like he has good judgment.

    they live in an alternative universe to (none / 0) (#220)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:57:36 PM EST
    the average working person in this country. i think that tends to shape their views. i haven't seen paul newman come out for anyone. he lives on the east coast so maybe that makes a difference.

    Contradictions (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    A few days ago, before the Wesleyan commencement speech became public, O'Reilly had a couple of guests discussing Obama and his connection to Ayers & wife.

    Compare to the speech he gave at Wesleyan:

    " I began following the debates in this country about poverty and health care. So that by the time I graduated from college, I was possessed with a crazy idea - that I would work at a grassroots level to bring about change.

    I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.

    And I said yes."

    Bill O'Reilly promised so much more of this once the full attack begins on Obama.

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#177)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:24:23 PM EST
    I must say, and perhaps this is the main reason, one of the reasons I dislike Barack Obama is that he sounds exactly like all the pretentious people I knew in college.  "I refused an expensive job at first!  To work for a non-profit!  But I have a fancy home now.  Don't hate me.  I haven't changed.  Have some cavaiar."  I know there are few true ascetics out there, and that most ascetics are actually hare-brained.  Good people can be born with caviar.  Have millions.

    Bragging about the magnanimous things you did right out of college is nice but not enough.  If Hillary were younger, I'm sure we'd hear "My Texas voting drive! My Wellesley speech!  Aren't I amazing?  Aren't I grassroots??"  We hear a little of it now.

    For a summer in college, I did grassroots fundraising for the DNC.  It sucked!  By which I mean, it was really difficult.  It was unpleasant.  I wasn't PAID ENOUGH (a cry I'm sure I share with many others in this country).  I suppose we helped usher in a new Congress.  Better than the alternative, but...Looking back, I think of the people I worked with and see them migrating to Obama.  It's a waste to think of all that sweat being used solely for "a new political style," and not for more ambitious goals, such as universal healthcare.  Grassroots is good, but easily manipulated.  Again, Obama's message of change does not prepare us for change.

    In short, Obama's community organizing is a trumped up part of his image, that I find due to personal experience annoying.  It drives me away.  His youth makes it a somewhat relevant reference.  But many years have passed since then, and a record stands.  Have you stayed true, Obama?  Are your goals really all that grand?  No.


    l listened to a video of ayers (none / 0) (#222)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    talking about education. i sat there with my mouth open thinking how incredibly dumb he sounded. he talked in circles about nothing. he threw a few big words out but it didn't sound like he really understood them. not to say that he isn't a devious trouble making dude who could and would wreck havoc in education if given the chance.

    Holy sh*t (none / 0) (#118)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    Bill O'Reilly is ranting about the disgrace of MSNBC trashing Hillary Clinton while giving Obama a free pass.  

    Of course, I realize he has ulterior motives, but it's good to hear.

    It seems to be part of that bigger picture (none / 0) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    They do not want to have to go against Hillary. So, they are just dropping little crumbs against Obama.

    Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Edger on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:49:55 PM EST
       Editor's Note: In light of explosive revelations made Thursday morning by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claiming that President Bush ordered the leak of classified information in the CIA leak case, The Public Record is republishing an April 2006 story by Jason Leopold who first broke the story about Bush's role in the leak.

        Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak, by Jason Leopold, Thursday April 06 2006

        Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

        These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.

        The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

    --The Public Record, Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak?

    "Impeachment" is off the table... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Edger on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:45:17 PM EST
    And on her knees? I'm confused by this comment. (none / 0) (#213)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    At least, I hope I'm confused by this comment.

    Blue dress ring a bell? (none / 0) (#221)
    by Edger on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    Figuratively speaking?

    Lest We Forget, Nancy Pelosi has done nothing but, and everything she could do to, enable George Bush every step of the way since November 2006.


    Ballot access could be a problem (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
    but, with her name recognition, I think she'd have a decent shot.  In a 3-way race, she'd probably do no worse than 2nd.  I would be 100% behind it and, from recent discussions with Democrats here in TX, it could catch fire.

    Obama Pastor Hate Speech Against Clinton (none / 0) (#144)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    Tonight on CNN, just now. 7:30PM. CNN dismissed it. Obama and Pastor apologized.
    It took a minute, the video, Candy Crowley dissmissing it and then they dropped it. Now they're talking about the end of an era.
    I've never seen anything like it. The media despise the Clinton's. All they're talking about is how hard she has to work for Obama. There are going to be a lot of DEMs voting for McCain.

    The thing that floors me is how they accuse this (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by leis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    woman of harboring fantasies of O's assassination and in the next breath demand she campaign for him or her days as a D are over. Over, I say!  What kind of f*cked up psyches do these people have?

    How can she campaign for him? (none / 0) (#178)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    Every interview she does she will be confronted by tapes of all the horrible things Obama or his people said about her and she will have to  be a good little soldier about it.

    Here's the thing: (none / 0) (#183)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    If she suspends her campaign next week, she can sit back and relax until the convention.

    She will not have to campaign for him AT ALL.

    Then, when he completely implodes, the SD's can choose her at the convention.


    Let's see. They spend all this time (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:10:30 PM EST
    trashing her and recently implying she's not even fit for his VP and now they think she needs to work hard for Obama?*

    There's also going to be a lot of women staying home.

    *ok, I did know this was going to happen, but I was holding on to a sliver of hope that they would find her too toxic and say she needed to stay far away. {sigh}


    Since the RFK flap (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM EST
    I hope she doesn't campaign for him.  She really should blow it off and have a nice rest.  If he can't win on his own, let him lose.

    That's how I feel. He broke it, he owns it. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:41:51 PM EST
    That's the impression I got from Carville... (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:50:20 PM EST
    ...when he said that Obama's campaign jumping all over the remark was "a game-changer."

    Speaking of women staying home (none / 0) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    Obama's support among white women has dropped 8% since February.

    According to Pew:


    And about the independent thing from another thread, I think that -- by their actions -- the Democrats are BEGGING Clinton to run as an independent. And I'd vote for her in a heartbeat!


    Ooops, pardon me (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:43:26 PM EST
    Obama's support from white women has dropped 8% since APRIL.  Same link above.

    (worked too hard again today.)


    i was reading a poll on another blog where (none / 0) (#223)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    the aa support is starting to go down. i am sorry i wish i could identify it. i was taken with the numbers. it had gone down about 20% or so.

    An independent run would make my day (none / 0) (#232)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:27 PM EST
    While I don't she would ever do anything like run as an independent, I really wish she's tell the party to p!ss off.  

    Anecdotally, some of my AA friends at work were Obama voters and they are having major second thoughts.  It's not just white people who are hacked about Wright, so are they.


    Different strokes for different folks (none / 0) (#179)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:25:21 PM EST
    Maybe it's time some of these people apologize to Hillary Clinton...  The media and Obama think they can say anything they want to about Hillary and then not owe her an apology is beyond me...  What was it Bill Clinton said that Jesse Jackson also ran in SC and that was supposed to have started a race war....

    Major apologies (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    I just deleted about six comments that I shouldn't have....I thought I was in another thread to which they were off topic. They concerned an independent run. Feel free to repost, again, my mistake, I'm sorry.

    Anyone else notice? (none / 0) (#182)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    In reading Newsweek, Time,the papers, ect; watching the MSM on TV and online that I am seeing story after story about how the Dems are coming together behind Obama, that Hillary and Barack get the same number of white voters (absurd),that the Repubs cannot win in November, and how historically parties always reunite after contentious primaries. I believe that this is a concerted effort to sway superdelegates that this is like any other primary. They are subtly being told to ignore all the evidence that shows Hillary winning in a landslide, while Barack would get blown out. Is the media that out of touch with reality? Newsweek (June 2) tries to give Obama a plan to win- thinking he has a real shot at Colorado, Wis, Mo,Fla, Ohio, NC, and Virginia! These are political "experts?"

    Hey man, I had another identity crisis today (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:36:51 PM EST
    It's dyed a very inky chocolate, then I had it stacked in the very back breaking even with the bottom edge of my skull.  Shaved all the wispy hairs off my neck. The hair gets gradually longer as it nears my face and the hair closest to my face is the longest and gently wraps around my face.  This is the best identity crisis I've had in about two years of continuous breakdowns.  I'm not sure that I know who I am yet though until I get highlights.  Maybe tomorrow.

    MT, are you on a mind-altering substance? (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    Sounds like she's happy with her new haircut :) (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    I'm debating my next identity at the moment. And the timing of it. I finally have almost a couple feet to donate . . .  :)

    I change my hair a lot (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    It grows like a weed.  You wouldn't believe it.  Nothing I do has much of a lifespan longer than three weeks and I think we all need to enjoy our gifts fully so I do.  When someone did that stupid writeup about Hillary's hairdos having something to do with her having an identity crisis it really stuck in my craw.  Jesus, if a woman changing her hairstyle has anything to do with her identity just call me multiple personality Eve.  I dye all sorts of colors too anymore now that I know how to choose colors that compliment my fair skin tonally.  I go from chocolate, to light red, to auburn, to black cherry.  I'm just an emotional wreck I guess.

    I'm pretty sure you could sort it all out (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    by getting a book contract and taking off for Bali for a couple of months to search for your truest self.

    lol, I think it's a haircut. But what is (none / 0) (#201)
    by Teresa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:44:05 PM EST
    inky chocolate?

    New color. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:47:11 PM EST
    I guess the country's discussion of race (none / 0) (#212)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    is well underway, though I'd have preferred to wait until after the GE, if only because our candidates have their hands full still campaigning against each other and McSame.  

    Rereading earlier posts, I have to say there's still a lot of tension around race and white guilt (or defensiveness).  It's not that complicated, folks.  White privilege exists.  AND white poverty can be as oppressive as AA poverty.  Trinity church stirs up it's membership because that's what keeps people coming and giving money.  For the same reason, the right wing & Murdock's Fox use inflammatory BS they know will get them ratings and money.  Face it, talking about Jesus and the good we can do in the world just isn't enough to compete for those high ratings they both need.  It would be useful if Obama or his surrogates could put together something that denounces the deliberate sexism and racism that emerges from Trinity and any other church, while still recognizing that the basic message is valid.  For instance, is it possible to point out that terrorists flew two planes into NYC's center of capitalism while only one was flown toward Washington DC?  From this, I'm sure we can recognize that our enemies hate our economic policies as much as our government.  But instead we get "chickens coming home to roost" because we are unable or unwilling to take responsibility to stop the rampant capitalistic machine that is poisoning our country and our world.  Point is, if we dealt with the underlying problem, we wouldn't be stuck responding to someone like Pastor Wright.  Just sayin'.

    Anyhow, to follow up on the other heated conversations today, how about some solutions instead of bickering about whether racism really exists or how bad it is or whether or not the experience of poor whites invalidates it.  Sorry McCauley, but reparations paid by taxpayers won't fix the ongoing problem, they would simply reinforce it.  You really do have to go after the beneficiaries of racism/slaver, and making all taxpayers pay does not do that.  Our ancestors who fought on the winning side of the civil war and my ancestors who worked for civil rights already paid the price.  And I won't pay off the bi-racial members of my own family to help ease their suffering caused at the hands of racists, current or past.  However, I will continue to work for racial and gender fairness and equity (and I'd be glad to elaborate on that off-line sometime). Having experienced sexism, racism and anti-gay violence, I can tell you that knee jerk responses to accusations of racism/sexism don't help much.  Reasoned and seasoned opinions do.  

    Here's a few examples:  There are lots of people who have an easy ride through college because they're competing with poorer students who have to make a living while going to school.  Many others get a free ride because their family or their family's associates and friends give them great jobs.  Did they work hard to get where they are today?  Maybe.  But plenty of hardworking people got nowhere in their careers because they didn't have the right connections.  Once you accept that you are the recipient of a biased and unfair system, you're more able to try to change it.

    There are plenty of wealthy southerners who live on land or off entitlements passed down from slave owners.  You know that.  For the woman from Florida who thinks she's only remotely related to the ancestors who've passed that wealth down to her so she can spend her days riding horses, may I ask whether or not she hires low income Hispanic workers to shovel the horse manure and clean her own toilet? I don't expect you or anyone in your situation to give up your inheritance (though it may be wrested from you someday.)  But I do expect you to work for equality and justice.  (Given I don't know your exact situation, if this doesn't fit you experience, please envision it as a description of someone else who does still benefit from slavery and racism.)

    All I'm saying is that the issues of racial and sexual oppression are, as we all know, very complex.  Let's not try to simplify OR ignore them.  I see Father Pfleger attacking a specific person, using sexist imagery intending to denigrate a girl for crying.  That's despicable But deep in my heart, I don't know if Hillary faked the tears or not.  And that's the real discussion we should be having here.  Because that's where your candidate loses women like me.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    There were two planes aimed at Washington DC.  You might recall that United 93 didn't quite make it.

    Anyway, there is a strain of liberal activism which says that we must always make our point in the most offensive and attention-getting way possible, and anyone who has a problem with us calling the President a Nazi fascist baby-killing warmonger (or whatever) is just too weak-kneed to handle The Truth.

    In reality, I don't think most folks are ready to cope with a church whose newsletter calls 9/11 "a wake-up call for white America."  Maybe I'm just too much of a goshdarned pragmatist.


    well you make some important points. (none / 0) (#231)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    i read some of your other posts. i appreciate your taking a reasoned approach. i have to tell you that my impressions is that there are far more than a few thousand rascals out there creating trouble. it goes to the heart of the obama campaign. i was a fan of jackson's run for the presidency. i was happy to see two aa dems run in 04 and thought they brought some great comments to the primaries. but the conduct of this campaign and the misuse of race for politcal ends is what has turned off many hillary supporters. i agree that equality needs to be more than just a talking point. as you might have noticed when the blame game starts it doesn't help. it turnes people and especially voters off. thanks

    We should be discussing whether (none / 0) (#233)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    Hillary faked tears in NH.  That's what we should be talking about?  Are you more than a little insane?

    Your long and rambling comment blows chunks.


    No, we don't need to discuss fake tears, (none / 0) (#235)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    we need to discuss why so many women like me, who should be a main part of Hillary's constituency, don't trust her but do trust Obama.  

    In spite of all his problems and associations, Obama has inspired millions of Americans to RETURN to political participation.  And many of those people are women who don't trust Hillary.

    Do you understand that a lot of the online vitriol is because Obama supporters think people like YOU are being duped?


    Enough with the Obama worship (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by pluege on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    People are retuning to the politics this year for one reason and one reason only - they hate what bush and the republicans have done to the country.  

    Dislike HRC and like Obama all you want, but don't be crediting Obama with unsubstantiated outcomes.

    80% of Americans think the country is on a seriously wrong track and has been for a long time. less than 30% of Americans approve of bush. Americans are participating because they can't wait to be rid of bush.


    Nope, it's not just Bush (none / 0) (#239)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    I've hated Bush and his ilk since long before the war and the crumbling economy.

    You don't have to worship Obama to understand that he'll be a vehicle for change in a way the old politics wouldn't allow.

    Hillary's announcement a year and a half ago did NOT bring people like me back into the fold.  The Yes We Can movement did.  It's not so much about Obama as it is about the rest of us.  


    Evidently some opinions simply cannot be ... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:41 PM EST
    ... reconciled. I read your long post above, and while I agree with some of the statements you make about the origins of inequity within society, I disagree almost completely with your conclusions.

    I reach that disagreement from two perspectives. Firts, you say that "if we dealt with the underlying problem, we wouldn't be stuck responding to someone like Pastor Wright." But as I understand the foundations of Christian thought, your point that

    talking about Jesus and the good we can do in the world just isn't enough to compete for those high ratings they both need

    does not make it OK for an organization to claim to be a Christian church while behaving in ways that are completely incompatible with Christian principles, as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    Secondly, I do not accept that, in a capitalist society that has a systems of laws, government, and taxation, individuals should be held personally responsible, or be expected to feel guilty, for wealth accumulated by their ancestors. I agree that society as a whole has a moral responsibility to right previous wrongs, and that individuals have a moral responsibility to vote for equitable laws and support fairness in their administration. But unless you are advocating that the US adopts an entirely different system of government, like communism, or at least a radical form of socialism that will implement estate taxes an a scale that will "wrest" inherited wealth from people, as you suggest, then what is your point?

    If you want to do away with capitalism altogether, you should say so. Otherwise, under a capitalist system of government there is always going to be an unequal distribution of wealth. Such imbalances are not only a consequence of the systematic exploitation of one class by another, and not limited to previous generations. They arise in every generation, as some subset of the population figures out how to amass wealth, while others end up struggling to get by. That's why it is so irrelevant to complain about some students having an easier time than others, for example. That's life. If you want to change it, advocate for higher taxes and higher student grants, as in the UK, for example.

    I don't think wide disparities in wealth are a desirable state of affairs, but if you believe they can be eliminated in the US without a political revolution, then -- in my opinion -- you are being completely unrealistic. This is the country where people want to believe in the myth of unlimited opportunity, where anyone can rise to the top if they are smart and work hard. And there are plenty of success stories that testify to the truth of that myth. So if you really are advocating political revolution, you'll have a hard time drumming up support. And if you think that electing Barack Obama is going to change anything of any consequence, then I don't understand how you have arrived that conclusion absent of any credible supporting evidence.


    You're right, two wrongs don't make a right (none / 0) (#241)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:49:53 AM EST
    I agree. What happens at Trinity Church is completely bogus, imo, and the antics there seem to have more to do with stirring up dissatisfied people than finding real solutions to their problems.  

    I don't look to Barack Obama to make all the changes I hope for in this country's near future.  I look at him as an opportunity to make sweeping changes in Congress, if only because the Hillary-haters on the right might sit out the vote, and the Obama supporters will be at the polls voting down ticket like crazy.  I also think that the millions of new and reengaged voters will have expectations of progressive change, will demand transparency and integrity in our government, and will be mobilized and connected to effect that change.  That's what I see from the Yes We Can Movement. It's less about Obama and more about the rest of us who support him.  Change is coming.


    Atrios caving (none / 0) (#237)
    by pluege on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:06:36 PM EST
    its been evident for a long time that Duncan was an Obama fan. He did yeoman's work for many months resisting the crazed Obama supporter illness with its accompanying Clinton derangement syndrome side effect that has stricken sooooo many 'top Librul A-List' progressive bloggers this primary season. But Atrios seems to have reached his limit the last week or so and his resistance is crumbling - not just from the cited posts, but quite few others recently.

    It would be the greatest tragedy yet if Atrios had to be filed on the markos crap pile along with JMM, Olbermann, Open Left, yglesais, and soooooo many other former icons of progressivity.