In the face of some surprising and disappointing endorsements of divisive and false smears, it is important to remember the candidates themselves are much better than some of the activists and bloggers who seem intent on ripping the Democratic Party apart:

[Comments now closed]

< They Like Him, But Will They Vote For Him | Guam Caucuses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good stuff (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    Obama's closing comment about W not being on the ballot seems out of place, but overall this is what I like to hear.

    Maybe there's a chance yet for us to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat--from the jaws of victory. :-D

    sounds to me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    like O has a new tune here--am I wrong?  I admit I don't usually listen to him, but my partner is on the phone and Tivo is paused so I thought why not, and the stuff O is saying seems like he's moving toward the middle, maybe cutting his losses and making it known he'd be willing to take the number two slot.  Or am I just making that up?

    From my recollection, the last JJ dinner at which he spoke, he mostly talked about how wonderful he was and bashed Clinton a little, then was gone in a puff of smoke.


    I think you're just making it up ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    Though I have rarely heard him talk about Democratic unity before, so that's a welcome change.

    It's not a new tune. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Faust on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    It's just that a lot of good things that these candidates say gets tuned out by the opposing side.

    Obama has bashed the Clinton admin (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    repeatedly. And now his young impressionable supporters believe the Clinton admin was evil and did nothing for the Democratic Party, America, or the world.
    Obama has given the GOP many ads.

    I don't entirely disagree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Faust on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:55:33 PM EST
    I think Obama went too far with his "everything has been the same forever" lines.

    Both sides have given the GOP plenty of fodder. Both camps regularly spew right wing talking points when talking about the other side.

    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has produced many ironies and strange bedfellows this primary season.


    I disagree with this part: (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    "Both camps regularly spew right wing talking points when talking about the other side."

    Whenever I ask an Obama supporter to supply examples of how HRC has done this, they tell me her questioning Obama's qualifications is just what the RW will do. Well, yeah... but he has to get through his Democratic opponents doing that first, just as Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark et al did last time. That's what primaries are designed for, to pick the best qualified candidate.

    Contrasting experience and qualifications isn't the same thing as using anti-Democratic talking points like Harry&Louise, Reagan was the best president, Republicans are better on National Defense and the economy, and "Social Security is in crisis."

    And nobody ever gives the GOP fodder; they find it or make it up all by themselves.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:52:21 AM EST
    and Obama feeds that entire scenario.  He displays annoyed impatience when asked about his experience, qualifications, plans for change, connection to people who are not considered good for the safety, security, and attitude of this country.  These aren't unfair, unreasonable, or negative questions.

    He spent months screaming for disclosures of the Clinton's tax returns, earmarks, Bill's library donations. Not because they needed to release them, but because he intended to paint them as dishonest, untrustworthy, hiding illegal activities, etc.  Nothing surfaced to support that, but those negative numbers on Hillary sure did stick.


    "I will have to think about it" (none / 0) (#204)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    Michelle O did say that when asked if she would support Hillary if she were the nominee.

    I think that Obama is getting some pressure to be VP.  His and Michelle's body language after the loss in Penn has shown much...  That is also when his tone changed.

    Anyway, I think that the smartest thing Obama can do to prove he is a man of his word would be to accept the VP spot on the ticket.  They can win and Americans will have a greater opportunity to get to know and trust him better.

    To me, this is the Republicans worst fear and the strongest ticket the Dems can offer.


    He also admitted (none / 0) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM EST
    that there are significant policy differences (like him being generally annoyed about having to have policy positions at all) between he and Clinton.

    One difference here is that he spoke after Hillary and could hardly resort to his usual tactics after her call for unity.

    I also understand (via corrente) that his supporters erupted in an Obama chant while Hillary was speaking and booed when she acknowledged Governor Easley who endorsed her.


    Not shown in the clip was whether he admonished his supporters for the classless treatment they gave Hillary.

    If he didn't then he's revealed yet again that he is unsuited to high office.


    He never does (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:18:14 PM EST
    admonish his supporters for anything.  That is why they behave the way they do.  

    Hate feeds the machine.  It is volatile and explosive...  Just the tool he needs.


    It is (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:48:54 AM EST
    actions like this by his supporters that make it so hard to separate a dislike for some of his policies or issues and a rabid dislike for his supporters. It ends up all running together to the point that some of us, many of us, can no longer even bear to listen to him.

    I also think it was sheer unadulterated stupidity on the part of those of his supporters that booed a popular "Democratic" Governor simply because he supports Hillary Clinton. Isn't there some cliche about all politics being local? And isn't booing a popular local pol kinda dumb?


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cate on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    Obama says he hopes Hillary supporters will support Obama "supporters" ?? Did I hear that correctly?

    Again with the hope (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    He better do a little more than hope we support him.  He better give me a good reason to do so.  VP Hillary Clinton would be a good start.

    VP Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM EST
    No it must be Hillary with VP Obama.

    Why would she accept 2nd spot to an inferior candidate?


    I would much prefer that (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    but the more I see of Dean and the SD's idiotic decision making processes, the more I am convinced they will never let her be the nominee.

    I don't think she should (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    accept the VP spot if it is offered and I really don't believe that Obama would offer. I think that she would be more affective in the Senate as Majority leader.

    That's also true (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST
    I'd be happy with that too. But I think she has more luck with actual voters than with the  Dem power structure right now.  The same senatorial SDs who are not supporting her for pres may not support her for Sen Majority Leader either.

    but if we can get rid of that (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:37:52 PM EST
    particular democratic structure?  Whatever democrat wants to run against pelosi and group, please speak up..I will write out a check right now.

    God yes (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:07:48 PM EST
    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    will never be VP.  She's heads above him.  She'd go crazy, first of all, watching him screw it up.  

    She's alpha.  THAT much even the men have gotten in this election.

    I'm guessing a lot of men are starting to understand Bill a lot better.  LOL*

    She's definitely alpha.


    Hillary (none / 0) (#123)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    will never be VP.  She's heads above him.  She'd go crazy, first of all, watching him screw it up.  

    She's alpha.  THAT much even the men have gotten in this election.

    I'm guessing a lot of men are starting to understand Bill a lot better.  LOL*

    She's definitely alpha.


    i would hope that (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    she would refuse.  The more highly-competent woman playing second fiddle to the less-experienced man would not sit well with many women.

    I would rather see Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    than some even less qualified conventional white guy. I think she would take it, and I think she should.  She would be a very powerful VP, with her own built-in constituency.  She is the only one who can stiffen Obama's spine on the issues we care about.  She cannot be ignored.

    If Obama (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    needs Clinton to "stiffen his spine", then he shouldn't have the job. She wouldn't need him to stiffen hers.  But I like "spineless" as a adjective to describe him.  It fits.

    In my head it goes without saying (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:12:39 PM EST
    that he shouldn't have the job!

    I'm just playing out worst case scenarios.  I must be feeling morbid tonight.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    You think this completely arrogant guy would listen to anything from Clinton?  Only if (as he's doing here) he realizes HE is on the line, but I don't think it would happen a minute until then.

    I think Pelosi want this slot.. (none / 0) (#206)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:15:03 PM EST
    There Is Only So Much I'm Willing To Do (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    for my counting and supporting Obama supporters like those who interrupted Hillary's speech with shouts of Obama and booing Gov. Easly is not one of them.

    That behavior has happened too many times (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:34:26 PM EST
    at caucuses, from what I read -- and again at the National Press Club for Rev. Wright there.  Their hosts, the media, were pretty appalled, and especially by the behavior toward the young USA Today reporter/moderator by Wright and his audience.

    The media was appalled? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    I thought they were cheering and then went back to writing stories about Obama's "juggernaut" "insurmountable lead" and planning where they will build the first statue for "saint barack"

    Replacing Bush Thugs With Obama Thugs (4.66 / 3) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    is not something I find appealing.

    Edit - Need New Glasses (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:45:19 PM EST
    should read

    There is only so much I'm willing to do for my country


    Stuttered (none / 0) (#12)
    by rangerkeeper on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    He kinda stuttered with that line, just didn't come out correctly, I wouldn't read anything into it.

    Some people say... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by wasabi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
    "They say, boy this campaign has been going on a long time, and maybe we're getting divided.  Will the Obama supporters support Hillary, or will the Hillary supporters support the Obama supporters?"

    Where have I heard this before?  Questioning whether one's supporters will back the other candidates in the general?  Hmmm.

    But good to see that they are both singing the same tune now.  It's about time.

    Unofficial results from Guam.  Obama by 50.1%.

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST
    says that Obama wins Guam by 7 votes.  7 votes?

    I guess I did not misread it if you sat he got 50.1%.

    After he was supposed to cruise there?

    He was up in Indiana by 5 not too long ago, and now trails by about as much.  NC is tightening.

    Maybe he does see the need to talk unity if things are really getting this close.  Is the writing on the wall for him?


    it could be an omen (none / 0) (#32)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:07:32 PM EST
    Clinton practically didn't even try in Guam.  I am surprised by her "bounce" out of Pennsylvania.

    Ah, but Bill called a radio station in Guam (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    -- I read about it, and it was a hoot.  Great excitement in Guam, headlines in the print media, too, because Bill actually picked up a phone and called Guam last week!  And stayed on talk radio there for a while, as Bill does like to talk. . . .

    The story said that no president or former president had called Guam before.  It sounded like none ever has gone there, either.  Terrible treatment of our territories.  I want both Clintons in Puerto Rico!


    They've both been there already (none / 0) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    Chelsea was just in P.R. last week and Bill was there last month.  woot.

    Excellent! I do wonder why Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    went to the Virgin Islands on his vacation, instead of Puerto Rico.  (Frankly, I couldn't figure why he went on vacation at all, with the Pennsylvania primary looming.  Not the time to take a week off.  Clinton used it well. :-)

    That did seem a little retro Bush. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    Wonder If He Becomes President (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    if he will try to  break Bush's record on number of vacation days.

    I woudn't begrudge him (none / 0) (#87)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:20:39 PM EST
    a vacation. He does have young children that need to see their dad once in awhile.

    I don't begrudge (none / 0) (#151)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM EST
    him the vacation either, but what if a female candidate took a few days off to spend with her kids?  Guess we have to wait until we get "old" to run.

    Voting Rights (none / 0) (#175)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:42:28 PM EST
    Clinton made quite a pitch to Guam. And it would seem PR, DC, everybody? How many new states would she add?

    7 CAUCUS votes (none / 0) (#95)
    by zyx on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    whatever that means--it is gibberish to me.

    I had heard that Obama was favored there, but not how much or why.  I doubt that there was much (any?) polling done.  Was he favored because Guam is nearer to Hawaii than to New York?  


    He Expected To Win By 10-11% Per (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:58:04 PM EST
    his spreadsheet.

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:38:51 PM EST
    'Some people' meaning him and his wife.

    Glad to see him changing his tune.  Guess he felt like Hillary was scoring points by singing this tune louder recently.


    So, let me get this right (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by MichaelGale on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:21:44 PM EST
    The candidate knows what he reads in the papers, hears on television and what friends read on the internet and he says we need party unity? He's scared; that's why he is mouthing these words.

    I am supportive of all who decide to vote for him but I think it will be difficult for women to follow this rhetoric. Sort of like an abused woman. I forgive the blogs for their sickness in bashing women but that's ok. For party unity, I'll vote for him. Oh...I also forgive Donna Brazill and the DNC for setting it up so I didn't have a vote in Florida for the primary and for manipulating the election.

    A ..huh.  When h*** freezes over.

    I think hell (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    is experiencing global warming, too.

    good point (none / 0) (#78)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:06:01 PM EST
    there.  Some things are more important than my pride, I suppose.


    but I still insist I'm Independent!


    Was it Obama supporters on the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    that decided FL and MI would lose all delegates rather than 1/2 as the rules state?
    Guess they knew he couldn't win either state.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    You're right on the mark Josey.

    Why, yes, yes it was Obamans (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    who sponsored the amendment to change the party roolz, who spoke forcefully for it, etc.

    And it was good Don Fowler, one of the loyal folk who worked for the party in the Bill Clinton years, who was the only one at the meeting to speak up and say that amending the rules to strip all of the delegates from FL and MI would be unwise of the party to do.  He was, of course, entirely ignored by the fools.


    Like this? (none / 0) (#180)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    Does this guy qualify as one of the people "intent on ripping the Democratic Party apart"?

    I didn't listen to this (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kayla on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    because I cannot stand his voice.  But I did happen upon some live video of him today on CNN and he sounded good.  Changed the stump speech a little and spoke about real people and real issues.  I was impressed.

    I'm glad he has a more unifying message, even if I can't stand to listen to it...

    Can we have make-up sex now? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM EST
    I don't care about a speech on unity.

    Ask for my vote on POLICY. Fixing his broken health care plan would be a good start.

    And internally, his campaign could find out who's ratf**king Hillary with doctored videos, and get them to stop.

    FIne words butter no parsnips.


    Me too (none / 0) (#163)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    His speechifying cadences is, we don't need a preacher in the White House.

    You are in good hands with AllState.. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:22:39 PM EST
    That is the voice I hear.  His voice makes me feel sleepy or content, knowing that all will be ok regardless of the tornado hitting my home...  I am in good hands  ;)  Yikes!

    What about Michelle? (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    She said on Larry King she didn't know if she could support Hillary.

    Unity, count me out Obummer.  I passed the I will "hold my nose and vote for him" option some time back in January.  I wouldn't vote for him now if I they payed me to.

    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    I'm still smarting from the:

    (paraphrasing) "I think her voters will vote for me, but mine won't vote for her" garbage.  Hillary never said anything like that.  And praising Republicans at the expense of Democrats is another unforgiveableness.

    He reminds me of my bratty nephew who thought he could treat people any way he wanted and they'd still treat him well. Relatives started giving him a rough time and suddenly he became nicey-nicey.  Many of the bridges were already burned.  He would have to redeem himself a whole lot more before his own sh*t-upon relatives would respect him again.

    Back to Obama:
    I think this speech should have been given in January/February, rather than the words I paraphrased above.

    Now, sorry, big guy Obama, the bridges from your own behavior are already burned and you have nobody to blame but yourself.


    Wasn't that GMA? (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    or is she saying it in other outlets?  I know she said it in January on Good Morning America.  I would be unpleasantly surprised to know that she is still doing so.

    She hasn't said it again, I suspect, but (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    until she rescinds it, and she ought to apologize for it . . . it stands.  So I haven't changed my stand on the Other Obama saying it, and it tells me what to do.

    she ought to at least say she misspoke. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    Larry King (none / 0) (#219)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:30:39 AM EST
    She was much more direct on GMA.

    On Larry King when asked about the first strong female candidate she said something about she believed with all her heart that Obama is the ONLY person in this contest that could unite the country or the party or something like that.

    Don't remember if Edwards was still in it then.

    They were pushing the Unity theme that week. The Judgment theme was also short lived.  

    They were always giving backhanded compliments and never showed a drop of respect to Bill or Hillary that I saw.  

    The remark that sums up his "boneheaded" off the cuff nasty remarks is "you're likable enough."


    Paid you? (none / 0) (#185)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST
    Not even for like $5? ;o)

    A wise man said "it is important to remember the candidates themselves are much better than..." well...you.


    Is the new definition of "Unity" (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    Hillary getting shouted down by chants of "O-Buh-MA! when she's talking and the mention of the NC Gov getting booed by Obama supporters and Obama making no mention of the behavior of his people in the audience?


    Stay classy, Obamaites!

    He does have an extremely high percentage (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    of the immature amongst his supporters. The new average age of commenters at DailyObama seems to be about 13. This crowd in the vid was also extremely rude as well. Not a good combination.

    Speaking of classy, this one made me laugh (none / 0) (#47)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    It's a fact that most of Hillary Clinton's supporters are lower class, un-educated, and never went to college (Dailykos.com)

    My, such a classy diarist (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    that -- check the history -- s/he had a first diary disappeared there.  It seems, from its header that remains, to have reported that McCain has cancer.

    Classy punctuation, too, in said diarist's detritus.  A friend of mine used to describe such overuse of the exclamation mark as "sorority-style writing."


    well there are four degrees (none / 0) (#60)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    between the two of us (clinton supporters) two bachelors, one masters, one phd, 41, and 40, but one of us is a woman guess that discounts us both.

    And there (none / 0) (#69)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
    are three degrees here held by 2 Clinton supporters a Master's and a Bachelor's.

    Let 'em say what they want - calling us dumb ticks us all off all the more....they'll need us later though, ....OOPS!...too late.


    3 degrees here (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    through doctorate -- after three previous careers, including in media -- and a post-doc since, too.  And my research involves politics, race, and gender.  And I've been an activist in politics for decades.

    But yeh, I'm so dumb, so low-info about it all, that I really need some diarist at the orange place to tell me what to do with my ballot.   And my bucks -- I just got another call from Clinton's campaign, and I just gave another donation.

    That donation is in the faces of the fools who don't know how to behave before fine public servants -- plus national tv.  I actually hope they're just Dems for a Day, as I sure don't want them on tv from Denver, too, disgracing the party.  And their candidate.  Does he ever tell them to represent his campaign and his purported party better than this?


    love you. n/t (none / 0) (#181)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:51:26 PM EST
    Obama rules re: college degrees (none / 0) (#188)
    by noholib on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST
    I guess the Ph.D. degrees of many Clinton supporters don't count, because according to Obama rules, we're all uneducated and bitter. We simply haven't seen the light yet and come to the savior.  

    The media is not focusing on people like you. (none / 0) (#199)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    Not in support of Hillary. Right now it is about how the poorest white people are voting, and they don't have degrees, don't read blogs, and might not even be online. They are susceptible to the worst tricks, and they are not predisposed to vote for Obama. They are, however, being touted as the one nut Obama just can't crack and thus he cannot win. That is how the media--of which you are an expert--portrays it, imho.

    The post being commented from DKos looks as though it were written by someone with a similar education level to those voters, only in this case the voter is black, and people here pounced with great joy; you piled on, strutting your own feathers in the process.

    I would expect better from you, Cream.


    and love you too n/t (none / 0) (#182)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:51:55 PM EST
    Don't you know (none / 0) (#167)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:25:33 PM EST
    all Obama's college student supporters already have degrees???  Or...something???

    Ummmmm (none / 0) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    I don't think he could scold them or should.

    These are adults.


    Really? (none / 0) (#153)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:06:34 PM EST
    Just words, imo (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    I'm not buying it anymore, quite frankly.

    Too many speeches contradicted by actions.

    Me neither.... (4.50 / 2) (#94)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    Mr. "post-racial" is allowing the most despicable kinds of race-pimping imaginable -- its everywhere, including mainstream outlets at this point (Becky Reed at The Nation, some guy at the Times, etc).  

    There is simply nothing more damaging to racial reconciliation and "getting over race" than false accusations of racism, and right now Obama's supporters are doing it in droves, and he doesn't seem to mind one bit.

    And its why I think he's unelectable -- while I think that Obama can probably get most of his supporters to vote for Clinton simply by telling them to, much of the support that Clinton is now getting are people who will not vote for Obama in the fall because of all the race-pimping they see.  


    The minute they started that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    before SC, I kissed Independents goodbye in the GE. They may be able to guilt some Dems and win primaries with the phony racism charges, but Independents will just walk away in the GE- especially if they have their so-called Maverick hero McCain greeting them on the other side.  Nothing is more toxic.

    Surprise!!!!!! (none / 0) (#136)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    Obama's taking the high road!!!!!!

    Film at 11.....


    Too little too late (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by mm on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:10:28 PM EST
    Get back to me when he gets on his knees and apologizes to President Clinton.

    Unity anecdote (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by magster on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    At the Colorado 6th Congressional District convention, the two factions were unified by boredom and ineffeciency into removing from the agenda the Clinton and Obama speakers so we could move to vote.  During a long delay, an Obama supporting pilates teacher gave an impromptu yoga class to a bleacher section of Clinton and Obama supporters alike.

    I certainly didn't see the blogosphere rancor amongst real people.

    We nominated Hank Eng (great guy) to run for the seat being vacated by Tancredo.

    And I found out I won't be going to the national convention as a delegate.  :(

    That's too bad, magster :( (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    I'll bet you would have done a great job advocating for your guy. But I'm glad to hear your convention went well! Seems like the caucus problems depended on where you live. I have Clinton supporting relatives in three districts in WA, one district in NV, and two in ID-- some had a great time, others left in fury after being shouted at and derided, and my cousin and his partner ended up helping a new Obama supporting chair run their usual voting place smoothly and easily. Big turnouts for the caucuses seems to have thrown a lot of people off this year, lots of newcomers who changed the usual chemistry.

    I'll say only this... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    why did it take him this long to say this?

    What took him so long? (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    He'd never experienced the fear of losing, and he never needed to until now.

    Now he wants to appeal to loyal Dems from the base, instead of Republicans and independents, so he wants to shift his message.

    "Honey, I've changed!"


    More like "Honey, I shrunk the base!" (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    Although I don't agree with the Clintonites (none / 0) (#155)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:07:30 PM EST
    in the polls who say they won't vote for him if he is the nominee, I'm glad they answered the polls that way. I hope it is just a reflection of the heat of the moment, but it does seem to have put the fear of god into him.

    which g-d? (none / 0) (#159)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    the Christian one or the Muslim one?



    Whichever one is in charge (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:22:43 PM EST
    of d**ning America.

    Money where mouth is (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Foxx on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:41:41 PM EST
    If he backs this up by advocating for seating FL and MI NOW not later I'll pay attention.

    This ship has sailed for me (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by miguelito on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    It's too late for me.  The only thing I know for certain in November is that I will not be voting for Obama.  More because of Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy and their ilk (who escaped blame on BTD's post) than Obama's ineptitude.

    His (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    back is to the wall.  He knows he is damaged goods and needs every vote he can get.  So now he preaches unity?  He wants to win us over.


    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    When your opponent's drowning, throw him an anvil.

    Unifying people is what he brags about most (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST
    So let's see what he's got. From the looks of this thread he's got a long way to go.

    I agree with those who say he needs to start by talking to his own supporters, not the Clinton supporters. He has (at best) turned his back and benefited from the utter disrespect they have shown Clinton. This is what has caused the most anger and solidified her support among many of us. I really don't know what he can possibly do to fix this at this late date.  We will know it is insincere if Kos and the rest start changing their tune.

    Typo? (none / 0) (#214)
    by lambert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:01:32 AM EST
    "Insincere" or "sincere"?

    I wish to remind people that like in unions (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:06:59 PM EST
    the leaders of organization such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are not always making their decisions based on real data but on what they think is politically convenient for them.  That is why SEIU and others backed Obama when they thought he was a shoo-in to win, even though he called Unions Special Interest Groups and derided them.  The same way NARAL and Planned Parenthood backed Lieberman even though when it counted during the attempt to filibuster Alito's confirmation he voted the wrong way.  

    Salvation by works (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by lambert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:16:27 AM EST
    Rhetoric from Obama on unity means nothing, since rhetoric from Obama means nothing, by definition. I mean, that's why a lot of us are here, right?

    So, how about something we can verify? I can think of three suggestions for Obama to lead the party toward unity, instead of meta-leading the party to talking about unity:

    1. Something concrete on policy. Rather than running Harry & Louise ads, why not have Obama fix his broken health care plan? If he's got issues with how the mandate's implemented, than fix the mandate's implementation and stop demagoging.

    2. Alternatively, get the OFB under control. The doctored "War Room" video was a true "dirty trick" in the Nixonian mode. Against a Democrat. [Please, OFB, STFU about the 3AM ad or whatever. That's just a hard hit, not even a foul. This is cheating.]

    When Obama talks unity and dirty tricks happen, he's p*ssing on me and telling me it's raining.

    3. Alternatively, propose a fair resolution of MI and FL. Hint: 50/50 isn't fair.

    Fine words butter no parsnips.

    Sorry, but sitting it out is unacceptable (4.75 / 4) (#50)
    by pluege on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    anyone who thinks either Obama or HRC aren't leagues better than more years of destruction, fear-mongering, endless war, lawlessness, ignorance, and plutocracy under the breathtakingly stupid, duplicitous, and disingenuous chief republican loon mccain is staggeringly and sadly disconnected from reality or has cognitive defects beyond repair.

    But more than anything, not supporting either Obama or HRC... not supporting the democrat to defeat mccain is just pure unadulterated callousness for the thousands that will die unnecessarily under 4 or 8 more years of republican rule.

    Everyone that has an ounce of consideration for humanity needs to just stuff their egos, hold their nose if they have to and vote for the democrat - their is no other option.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM EST
    do what you want.

    I don't need to be lectured about what to do.  I have voted for Democrats through thick and thin since 1971.  

    From now on, the Democrats have to earn my vote.


    I'll second that! That was the year I cast my (4.50 / 2) (#111)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:43:41 PM EST
    first vote, and I have never voted Republican, ever; but, the manipulation and bias that is evident in this primary election is a bit more than I'm willing to accept. It seems to me a large coalition of Dems are holding a big grudge against the Clintons and are using the voters as chips in their little game. It's unconscionable for party leaders to disenfranchise voters in two states. And, it is petty and undemocratic.

    Further, Mr. Unity is riding that wave to the shore. If that behavior is supposed to represent unity, I want no part of it!


    And so is decades (4.20 / 5) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    of more disenfranchisement of voters (ala Fl/Mi) okay?  Don't you think the garbage the DNC has pulled this time could eventually get really dangerous if we say, "oh well, we'll vote for you anyway?"

    There is no guarantee that any candidate will get us out of Iraq any time soon.  There is no guarantee that Obama wouldn't do anything McCain would do given that he praises Republicans (did so last Sunday) for things that people like Krugman find absolutely abhorent.


    What if the Prince gravels to the Queen? (none / 0) (#68)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    "He who blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss." --Niccolo Machiavelli, the Prince

    But the DNC has proven that they are (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    incapable of learning anything in defeat. I don't think they're going to get any "message" when/if  O loses.

    That would be true (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    if I believed that Obama is a Democrat, but I no longer do.  

    I second that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    No vote from me.

    Then you are in plain disagreement (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    with your candidate. Maybe you should consider why.

    We aren't campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    ...pretty simple, don't you agree?

    Hillary Clinton (4.00 / 4) (#85)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    is a member of the Democratic Party establishment, and although they have treated her in a way that deserves contempt, her party loyalty is important to her. I owe no such loyalty to the party.  I have been voting for Democrats since 1972, and this year they have shown me that my vote is irrelevant.  If I really believed that Barack Obama would be a better President than John McCain, I would vote my own self-interests this time and consider my options for the future.  But the God's gospel truth is that I DON"T believe that Obama would be a better choice than John McCain so this is the year to draw the line in the sand. I don't believe that the Republicans are better at regulating business as Obama does.  I don't like Obama's connections to the nuclear power industry. I believe that a bandaided health care policy instead of full universal care will prevent us from doing it the right way for a long time to come.  I don't think that we should privatize social security. I think our children deserve good public schools and real sex education, etc, etc, etc.  . Will John McCain try to do things that I don't agree with?  Most definitely, but it will be a real Republican and not a faux Democrat doing it. Long term I believe that McCain will do less damage, and it won't keep us out  of the White House in 2012.

    This is what it comes down to for me: (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    I can easily see Pelosi et al supporting anti-choice but otherwise liberal judges (to "grow" the party) that Obama might nominate, but I see them fighting tooth and nail to stop an anti-choice but otherwise conservative McCain nominee.  

    With a republican as their common enemy, the democrats can unite and fight.  Especially if Clinton takes over in the senate and actually moves her agendas forward.  The current dems in power have basically laid down in the street for Bush and waited for the steamroller to come.

    Clinton would change all of that on either side--as president or as senate majority leader.  She's not going to stop fighting if she loses the nom.  She will keep pushing for dem values and pushing for the dem party.

    Does anyone think Obama will do the same when he loses the nom?  He'll just go back to being the junior senator from IL?  I predict he'll call in the rest of his term, then go back to being a professional board member.


    This (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:28:45 PM EST
    But the God's gospel truth is that I DON"T believe that Obama would be a better choice than John McCain
    Is beyond idiotic. You need only look to the Supreme Court to understand why.

    Hillary gets this, and you do not.


    Has (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:37:25 PM EST
    Obama said that he would put pro choice judges on the bench? I haven't heard him say that and I think that he's too afraid to say something like that. I've asked Obama supporters on other blogs and they haven't been able to come up with an answer. So unless he actually comes out and says what he'll do we really can't bank on it then can we? If he's into unity he might want to please the GOP and put a pro life judge on the supreme court. Frankly, I just don't know where he stands on most things. I've never had these doubts about a Dem before.

    Wait a minute (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:42:01 PM EST
    You're from Georgia and concerned about an inner-city dem from Chicago on choice?

    IMHO you should quit while you're ahead (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    or, since you're not ahead, while you still have a head.  Lots of people are not blinded by the D after a name.  It makes for a more open mind.  Try it you might like it.

    Naderite claptrap. (none / 0) (#149)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    I guess it must be all that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM EST
     Resentment and Clinging that we do down south,  

    Pffft (none / 0) (#164)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    Nader was largely about puerile perfectionist entitlement against Bill Clinton. A lot of white liberal Obama support is very similar, actually.

    I won't speculate about what your nonsensical attitude comes from.


    To me non-sensical is to question that (none / 0) (#173)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    a person from a rural area (State) could doubt the pro-choice credentials of an inner city candidate.  That is the kind of thing that gets Obama followers in trouble with a lot of undecided.  BTW I happen to be one who will probably vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  That is unless people like ... make change my mind.

    People from rural areas (none / 0) (#174)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:40:06 PM EST
    are much less likely to be pro choice and support pro choice politicians. That's especially true in the south. Do you really question this?

    inner city and found that specially in the religious AA community so called pro-life and anti-gay is the norm I find such generalizations to be flawed.  I worked in the Public Health arena Rural and Inner City for over 40 years and found no difference in attitude based on geography, it was mostly based on church up-bringing.  A lot of the folklore surrounding country bumpkins is just that folklore, ignorance is prevalent in the inner cities as well as the rural areas.  

    Which white Congressman from GA (none / 0) (#183)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:50 PM EST
    is pro-choice again?

    You have you anecdotes, and I have election results.


    Are the ones in Maine pro-choice? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:07:58 PM EST
    Btw those people don't get elected just on their position on pro or against choice.  If your not going to be serious don't argue.

    Yup, both pro-choice (none / 0) (#191)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST
    as are the Republican Senators (nominally).

    Look, the cultural attitudes are different in the south. And with southern whites, those attitudes translate into votes. Do you think the white Democrats who used to represent everywhere south of Washington DC were liberals? I can assure you they were not.


    Same kind of thinking that use to tell us (none / 0) (#193)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:18:33 PM EST
    that racism was a southern thing.  Yet some of the worst riots and most bitter resistance to bussing was in Boston and in Illinois.  How did your pro-choice Republicans up north vote on the SC confirmations for Bush nominees??  Did they help the Democrats in Defeating it, oh wait a second they got nominated along party lines.  
    Again it is this kind of generalizing that has created a problem for your campaign with a lot of people lately.  And the more you talk the more I think you will continue to spew it so I will stop any more comments.

    My campaign? (none / 0) (#196)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:25:02 PM EST
    You understand that I voted for Hillary, right?

    The spewing is coming exclusively from you, And

    How did your pro-choice Republicans up north vote on the SC confirmations for Bush nominees??  Did they help the Democrats in Defeating it, oh wait a second they got nominated along party lines.  
    Goes to MY POINT, not yours.

    I don't care who you voted for but (none / 0) (#198)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    your comment was elitist. and what I meant was that those Republicans you claim are pro-choice voted to confirm SC nominees that are anti-choice.  Because, bigotry, racism and ignorance is not defined by geography.

    BTW (none / 0) (#200)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:33:29 PM EST
    You're from Georgia and concerned about an inner-city dem from Chicago on choice?

    Is the comment that I find uninformed.


    The point is (none / 0) (#202)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    that politics is about compromise.

    Do you know who represents the 6th district of Georgia BTW? I can assure you that he agrees with Barack Obama about just about nothing.

    In other words, get your own house in order and run a purity campaign where you live before kvetching about your vague uncertainties on the national ticket.


    No, I was not being elitist. I was being (none / 0) (#201)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    descriptive. You might not like the political profile of the rural south, but it is what it is.

    Because, bigotry, racism and ignorance is not defined by geography.

    No, it's not a 1:1 relationship, but there IS a relationship, and there are trends. There might be bigots and regressive halfwits in Atlanta or New York or Philadelphia, but we tend, as a general rule, not to elect them to office.


    I don't know where you live but I have lived (none / 0) (#203)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    In PA NJ NY and CA so I have vast experience with live in different states and their constituents.  I was also a Republican operative in CA and NY as well as in PR for a while so I have experience with constituents of that kind.  You continue to defend the indefensible by insulting those you do not know.  There is a trend of bigots and racists in L A and in Atlanta and Miami and all kinds of big cities and the more you comment the more elitist you come across to me.  

    andgarden (none / 0) (#178)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    something tells me the issue here is not whether rural southerners tend to be less pro-choice.  surely that has naught to do with voting for Obama or not?

    Bur but but (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    every one knows that us older, uneducated, sexless, rural southern racists deserve scorn.  If them smart northern city folk don't tell us how to vote, how will we ever decide?   :-)

    That is why we cling and resent :-() (none / 0) (#179)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:49:26 PM EST
    What I love about this is when they get offended if they are called elitist.

    whatever (none / 0) (#184)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST
    It would be great... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Thanin on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:06:40 AM EST
    if you could make an actual point.

    Not Naderite at all (none / 0) (#168)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:27:04 PM EST
    in fact there is a large difference in the stated policies of the parties.  What I object to is the actions seem to be roughly the same.  Can you say spineless?

    So us hicks are not hip on Choice? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    Outside of Atlanta, (none / 0) (#121)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    people from the south seem unable to elect people who are. I think that's meaningful.

    andgarden (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    you are just wrong about that.  Outside of Atlanta, pro-choice dems get elected a lot.  I'm not saying 100%, but I have lived in this state all of my life and divide my time between downtown and up in the mountains, and pro-choice dems are spread out everywhere.  

    Last I checked, an overwhelming number of Americans believed that abortion should be safe and legal.  They are not all living inside the perimeter.

    Reproductive rights are a national issue.  If a woman living in Podunk, KS, is forced to bring an unwanted child into the world because she does not have access to safe and legal abortion, then we all suffer.  Reproductive rights should not be a luxury for the wealthy and well-connected.  A good friend of mine was forced to carry a dead fetus in her body for two weeks because the procedure to remove it is illegal in Georgia.

    When one woman has to suffer through this kind of horror, all women suffer.


    Try this (none / 0) (#144)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:58:52 PM EST
    Name the Georgia congressmen who are pro-choice. How many come from rural Georgia? How many are white, for that matter?

    You don't have to lecture me about the need for access. I fully agree and am 100% pro choice. But the fact of the matter is that the north has a much better record of electing pro-choice politicians--mostly because a large percentage of people are pro choice up here.


    The last time I worked with Emily's List (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    in GA, we had around 20 democratic, incumbent pro-choice women we were supporting in the house and senate from rural counties.  I'm not sure where it's at now, but you can google around for yourself.  I never said that the North didn't have more pro-choice politicians, but I took offense with your stating that no politician outside of Atlanta was pro-choice.  That is simply not the case.  As I said earlier, and will state again, it's not 100%, but in a LOT of rural communities, choice is not the political death nell you make it to be.  There are openly pro-choice candidates who thrive.

    Lookit--I am not arguing that they are hyper progressives all over Butts county, but I hate that Northern view that we're all backward Bible thumpers down here.  I've been to upstate New York.  I've been to Scranton.  I've been to small towns all over this country and everywhere you go, the farther you get from the big city, the more conservative lots of folks are on a lot of issues.  This is true all over the world, whether you're in Amsterdam or Hindeloopen.

    There are hicks in Epworth, GA who are just as socially progressive-or regressive-as hicks living in Watertown, CT.  Don't use such a wide brush when you paint those stereotypes.


    people who live in those big cities as in NY and LA.  Pro life chapters are just as common in the inner city as they are in the rural areas they just get lost in the crowd.  

    I didn't say that there (none / 0) (#197)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    were no pro-choice legislators in Georgia. What I said was that there's a difference between the north and the south on these matters. A rather stark one, in fact.

    And while race relations in the north have often been pretty nasty, it was not Philadelphia (or Scranton, for that matter) that was systematically segregating its train stations in 1955.

    There are lots of people with lots of different attitudes around the country, but people in different regions tend to vote in different ways. That, BTW, is why Obama's claim to be able to turn southern states blue was always phony baloney.


    If you want to talk about segregation (none / 0) (#209)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    then I think you should look at the North's history. There is a landmark in NY city where a handful of aa's were lynched during the Civil War because so many New Yorkers were against it.  But, if you really want to get into it--seen Boston lately?  Looked into school bussing lately?  Been to Watts lately?  Been to Harlem?  Been to the Hamptons?  Met the heads of every major Hollywood studio?  Met the heads of every New York publishing house?  Met the CEOs of Fortune's 500?  Seen the list of the wealthiest Americans?  How far down until you see a non-white face?  How often do you see women, who represent over half the population?

    And you did say that outside of Atlanta, there were no pro-choice legislators, which is where this started, and I told you there were, and now, suddenly, we're onto segregation. If it's the south, it must be segregation!

    Again, you are painting with pretty broad strokes here.  There are so many nuances you choose to ignore when you make these blanket statements.  I live in the south.  I know the south.  (you know, one of those southern states that went dem for pro-choice Clinton in 92)


    Georgia is a traditionally Democratic state (none / 0) (#211)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:31:48 PM EST
    that Clinton barely won in 1992 and then lost in 1996.

    GOP growth there was based almost entirely on racial appeals and "values" issues like abortion. Oh, and the growth of white Republican suburbs. (Hint: one of the big differences between the north and the south is that the suburbs are going in different directions politically).

    What you aren't seeming to get is that there's a difference between how people may feel and how they vote. There is a reason that race, abortion, and gays have more political salience in the south, and it stretches back a very long way.


    And then you complain of being called (none / 0) (#138)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    elitist.  Look we here are not the ones voting for those idiots actually we vote against them.  But, it was Obama who said that we did not understand the moral angst of the ones who do vote for them.

    Yep, (none / 0) (#220)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:22:28 AM EST
    lots of them are unreliable in this area. You have to remember that there are lots of pro life blacks.

    I'm sick (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    of the "but look at the Supreme Court".  Obama approved of Roberts until someone told him it wasn't good politically. We've had good judges chosen by Republicans in the past.  For goodness sake one of the most liberal Chief Justices was Earl Warren brought to us by Eisenhower.  Reagan gave us the first woman on the court. Obama is only lukewarm on Roe v. Wade. I think the senate would be more willing to question the choice of a Republican President than a President from their own party.  I'm more worried about who Obama would bring us.  

    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#127)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    Reagan gave us the first woman on the court.

    She helped give us George W. Bush, although her record was pretty good up to that point.  The Court is definitely trending rightward and can't be trusted to avoid partisan politics.  Not pretty at all.


    and in what do you base your opinion? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    Obama's pro-choice credentials (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    and no, I don't want to hear about the present votes. Obama is demonstrably more pro choice than Al Gore was at any time before 1990. Probably Bill Clinton too.

    anything you have stated.  It is easy to state things as facts without providing evidence.   Also do not say things about Al Gore's and Bill Clinton's stand on choice unless you have evidence to back up your rhetoric.  Actually a lot of what Obama has said about abortion is what has made me doubt his pro-choice credentials.

    Try (none / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:54:56 PM EST

    Meanwhile, Do you know Gore's history on abortion? Until the 1980s, he not have a great record.


    Do you know Bush 1's history on abortion? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    Yup, (none / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    He changed to fit his national party at the last minute. They never trusted him, and he betrayed them. I don't see how that's relevant.

    You don't see how this is relevant? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:00:47 PM EST
    They never trusted him, and he betrayed them.

    Are you listening to what we have been saying here about Obama and reproductive rights?  We don't trust him, and feel he will betray us.

    That's so relevant it's in the dictionary under relevant.  See, also, duh.

    This isn't a Nader situation.  Nader didn't have a chance.  If it's Obama vs McCain, we know without a doubt that barring a health crisis or an act of nature, either Obama or McCain will be the next president of the United States.  The dems (led by Clinton) would fight McCain.  I don't trust them to fight Obama.


    Obama is by every possible definition (none / 0) (#192)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:14:17 PM EST
    a liberal. He uses centrist language in a way that annoys the hell out of me, but he has rarely if ever proposed anything that could be called "conservative." The fact that his voting record is largely identical to Hillary's speaks to this.

    Bush Sr. was, in some respects, a Connecticut RINO (elected from TX, but who cares) and had a mixed voting record in Congress. Obama is a liberal law professor-cum-Senator from Chicago. Only the blinders of the current contest make you immune to seeing this.


    My vote means more to me (none / 0) (#210)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:27:02 PM EST
    than going lock-step to vote for a candidate who does not speak to me.

    Women died for the vote.  They starved themselves for the vote.  They were beaten.  They were abused.  They were ostracized.

    My vote has to be earned.  I will not compromise because I'm "supposed" to be a good little dem.


    You're being obtuse about this (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:36:46 PM EST
    But the key is to realize that this isn't about YOU, it's about the country.

    Do you know why I turned away from Obama in the first place? Let's just say that it wasn't about health care policy differences. But I will vote for him in November if I have to because my personal concerns are insignificant compared to the danger of a McCain presidency.

    I hope you will come to the same view, as does Hillary Clinton, but I can't force you to vote.


    Amen n/t (none / 0) (#215)
    by Thanin on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:03:49 AM EST
    I live in a pro-choice state (none / 0) (#99)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    One Obama needs. He still isn't getting my vote. I'm sick of SC threats.

    I am sick of SC threats, too (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM EST
    Because of the above-listed reasons, but also because I can easily see Mr Unity tossing aside abortion for one of his Great Compromises with the republicans.

    Lookit, abortion's biggest threat is not outright challenges, but the erosion of reproductive rights.  In my state of Georgia, if you want to have an abortion, you have to go home and come back three days later.

    Here are some of the laws that have been introduced lately: (1) an additional "time-out" to the waiting period, where the woman has to go into a room for thirty minutes to think about what she is doing before having the procedure.  (2) Spousal or partner notification-she has to have a man with her, in other words, before she can get the procedure.  (3)  Medical records made public to ensure abortions are not being "illegally" performed (whatever that means)  (4) Forced ultrasounds (adding more expense to the procedure.  (5) higher malpractice fees for doctors performing abortion--the anti-choice folks have started finding women to sue doctors who gave them abortions just to run up the bills so the insurance premiums make it too costly for the doctors to practice.  Oh, and my favorite oft-repeated restriction: only a woman who has been raped can have an abortion (because if she enjoys the sex, then she should have to live with the consequences)

    Have you seen ANYTHING Obama has done or heard anything he has said (other than about folks like me, who want reproductive freedom, don't understand that abortion is a "moral, wrenching choice," or talking about the "sanctity of sexuality" or saying Bush has done a great job with abstinence education) that makes you think he will fight for abortion rights?

    The dems would cut off McCain at the knees.  Obama, maybe not.  Which is the bigger risk?


    Whatever (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    This is indistinguishable from the argument used by Ralph Nader in 2000. It was as wrong then as it is now.

    Wow, that's powerful... (none / 0) (#152)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:05:31 PM EST
    And I have to say I never considered voting for McCain seriously until I read it. Ick. (The argument that Obama's fake health plan will destroy our chances for a real one is  a good one.)

    (I have to say that the doctored "War Room" video really p*ssed me off. Even if it's only supporters, one thing that we learned from Bush is that the base really, really matters. And Obama's base is into ratf**king, doesn't support universal health care, and would just as soon throw me out on an ice floe with a can of dog food, as far as Social Security goes.)

    The argument can be made that of two Presidents, McCain and Obama, neither of whom will listen to us, it's better to have McCain because he'll be easier to cripple... And why not leave him holding the bag?

    I'm ha ha only serious on this one, but I figure BTD put this one out as a feeler or to test the water, so I'll say what I'm feeling, instead of trying to write rationally. That "War Room" thing makes me really angry. And against a Democrat. Unbelievable.


    So over the SCOTUS threat (none / 0) (#169)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    With the exception of 1972 (I cast my first ever ballot for Shirley Chisholm.), I have always voted democrat. And the candidate has rarely been my first choice. This campaign has so angered me that for the first time ever I have considered not voting for President. Now, before anyone jumps on me, please note that I expect I will come around before November and vote for either Clinton or Obama.

    I have come to so dislike Barack Obama and his campaign that I could just spit. And I resent the idea so many have put forth that the women will come around because of the choice issue. Like it doesn't matter what the candidate and his surrogates and supporters say about my candidate or even me, I apparently must remain open to blackmail on the issue of choice.

    I resent that. It infuriates me. And I find myself wanting to scream from the rooftops "No, I will never vote for Obama!"


    Watching Obama urging folks to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    Vote for Clinton if she's the nominee reminds me of watching our little one learn how to walk.

    After 10 or 15 steps she would look around with a "holy crap, what am I doing?" sort of expression on her face and then she would go plop right on her booty.

    I do think he's sincere.


    If he were sincere, he should have said (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    something to his supporters in the hall who were booing. What, it's ok to boo, as long as you vote for her if he doesn't get the nod?

    I agree. Hoping I can continue (none / 0) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:55:56 PM EST
    to feel that way.

    But I'm hoping the mostest that I (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    get to vote for HRC!

    Thanks for this (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rashomon66 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    Your view is appreciated.
    I don't understand the crying about MI and FL when it is evident even with the two states there is little difference in Pledge delegates, which is what counts. And also MI and FL WILL be seated at the convention in some fashion. So let's see what happens then.
    But anyway, either candidate is better than what McCain will continue to do to this country.

    If FL and MI aren't going to have any impact (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    Seat them now.

    Dean and Obama have everything to gain for the General Election.

    Why not now?


    Lack of courage and stamina, which is Hillary has (none / 0) (#91)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:23:09 PM EST
    You, know, like you coworker who is mad at you because you're smarter

    Like a co-worker who wants your job (none / 0) (#156)
    by lambert on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    exactly because your better than they are, and they know it.

    Barack and his minions have hurt me deeply (none / 0) (#162)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:20:09 PM EST
    and he will really have to work hard for my vote. In 2004 I supported Gephardt, but had no problem with Kerry- they had never treated fellow Dems in this shabby manner. I started voting in 1980 and have never seen this before- the behavior of many of the "obamamaniacs" is bizarre and vicious. And NO--- Hillary supporters are not behaving in a similar manner.

    Please the drama. (none / 0) (#190)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    My choice has little to do with my ego. I'll do what I chose, I own my vote. The only way I'll vote for Obama is if he's on the ticket as vp and that's pushing it. I will not vote for McCain. I will write in Clinton's name or leave it blank.  I'm done with holding my nose. I'm not voting for the better of lesser candidates.  This is about what I feel is right for our country and neither Obama or McCain are right for this time in history.

    I can't do my homework and ignore the facts about Obama or McCain. It's become a matter of trust and I do not trust Obama to do what is in America's best interest only his own. I don't trust his associations. He takes no responsibility for his own failures in judgment. I may agree with his initial stance against the war, but in his role as senator he was not moved to change our circumstances in Iraq until he ran for President. He is no different than Clinton on that score. But Clinton's campaign is not predicated on a speech without action. Obama offers history laden lessons that define a problem and stops short of offering solutions for those problems. Its call saying the right thing (especially when you're in hot water) and having no plan to make the necessary change happen.  

    I do not agree with McCain's agenda but in the very least McCain will stand on his principles. The US is embedded in his heart and he will not waffle or hide. I obviously don't feel the same about Obama.  

    Let me add, I'm not going to count on Congress to do the right thing under the Democrats or Republicans either. Little has been accomplished with regards to our nation's greatest woes in the last 8 years. Neither party can be trusted. It's exactly why I'm an independent.

    I support Clinton win or lose whether she supports my decision or not. I chose who I support. It may be the best form of protest I can render as an independent. I'd be willing to bet the numbers of independents will continue to grow after seeing the DNC at work this primary season.  

    I've cried enough for my nation over these last 8 years. I'm not afraid to be an independent and make an independent choice. I'm voting for the person best qualified to lead this country, that person is Clinton hands down.  

    You're entitled to your opinion, but its my right to say back off, my vote's MINE, you've got your own.


    The partisans are often ridiculous. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    they should act more like their candidates than attack dogs.

    Perhaps i should say, 'we'.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    I think I'm guilty of a little sniping myself.  

    Thank you for this post! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM EST

    Nice job. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST

    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#29)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST

    I hear a lot of white Obama supporters saying blacks are going to be excessively resentful and stay home if Obama loses the nomination but I haven't seen too many blacks actually saying that.  

    Frankly I think it's insulting to claim that blacks would be too stupid or emotional to understand the difference between Hillary and McCain.   The black vote has always struck me as quite pragmatic.

    In general I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    The wild card is whether the Obama camp or the media will try to push a storyline that Hillary "stole" the nomination if she wins it.  If people really think Obama was cheated out of the nomination, I would not blame them for staying home.

    So far I have only heard that rhetoric from media hacks of all political persuasions and venues, not from the Obama campaign itself.


    I looked up more about Charles Blow (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    when I read this piece yesterday.  Never heard of him, thought how had I missed this sage voice of his people?

    He's a graphic designer at the NYTimes.  Fine, great job (not that it's a great graphically designed newspaper, with its constraints; I used to do that job so know a bit about it:-), probabl a great guy.  

    But not trained in journalism, and I didn't see credentials in the community to tell me this was more than his opinion.  To which he is, of course, entirely entitled . . . but I don't give it weight.


    Oh, and didn't the NY Times used to be (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:07 PM EST
    timely?  As I read the graph, the data is only up to the start of April.  Not including Pennsylvania data was poor reporting, and that adjective is generous on my part.

    It never ought to have gotten past the desk.  That's what passes for journalism these days, even at the Good Gray Lady.


    Wow. I didn't have the stomach (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    to read Blow's piece after reading the Giordano piece about it that BTD posted. That made me mad enough, and blew my Saturday afternoon post-nap mellow.

    Another place I used to look to faithfully, deteriorating before my eyes.

    Maybe they take this idea of the creative class a little too literally? Someone should tell them they don't really have to give op-ed space to their graphic artists.


    Did anyone else (none / 0) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    notice that Obama's unity statement is exactly the wording Hillary has been using?

    Didn't hear him say anything about (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    working his heart out, though.

    I noticed that too. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:14:07 PM EST
    Hoping and working are not the same thing, as we in Hillaryland know.

    She is always so kind-what is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    with the haters? I don't think CDS is even enough to describe it anymore.

    I read (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:24:03 PM EST
    this post from Anglachel today.  I don't know if it's the answer to your question or not, but it certainly could be.  The level of vitriol directed at her from supposed democrats has left me shocked and angry.

    Clinton going for the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    has been the fulcrum that has pried off the festering scab of sexism that pustulates the so-called progressive blogosphere as well as the democratic party.

    "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman."

    Okay, well, which other woman?  Who do you think is "good enough" to be seeking the nomination?  What kind of resume should she have?  Let's find another woman with a thin, Obama-lite resume who can make really good speeches.  Would you vote for her?  Would that woman be okay?

    The entire nexus of hatred toward Hillary Clinton is centered around the fact that she is a woman.  It started back in 1992-cookie bake-offs, the constant bs about Rodham vs Rodham-Clinton vs Clinton, the denigration of her looks, her sexuality, her friendships, her "coldness," her willfulness, her womanliness (or lack thereof) her cocktail parties (or lack thereof) her office in the West Wing (doesn't know her place!) her taking on universal healthcare (the nerve!), the calls of "impeach the president...and her husband, too!" the crap about her being an ice maiden, etc.

    All slurs centered around her sex (and the socially acceptable, inherent limitations) rather than her actions.


    I thought that Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    being chosen as the first female Speaker would smooth the path a bit.  When it happened and soon after, people were quite complimentary and talked positively about her becoming prez if Bush and Cheney got booted (a fantasy, I know).  She's been a disappointment, but still has done a better job that her predecessor.  As much as she's been criticized though, there was nothing even resembling what some of those same people have said about Hillary.  It wasn't just that she was a woman.  CDS is a good term for it.  The MSM have brainwashed them and fed the hatred to the point that they've become deranged, irrational neanderthals.  

    It all started-I mean in the very beginning (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:46:13 PM EST
    because she was "too smart" and didn't know her place.  Now, if you want to tell me that they would have said that about a man, then go ahead.

    A lot of folks who say they hate her now say it's because she didn't leave Bill during the Monica stuff.  I mean--really?  That just floors me.  You hate her because she worked to save her 20-something year marriage?

    Okey dokey.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    but I still think Anglachel is getting close to the truth when she talks about the attitudes toward both Bill and Hillary as not fitting in in the elite circle occupied by people like Sally Quinn and Cokie Roberts, the media elite, the wealthy power brokers, and "real" class like GHWB and his beautiful-minded Medusa.


    Hillary has more class in her little finger that those two-faced sycophants will ever have.  Safe in their little bubble and fluffing Nero while Rome burned.

    I have nothing but contempt for the whole bunch.


    than not that! (none / 0) (#146)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:59:46 PM EST
    oh yes (none / 0) (#114)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:05 PM EST
    the so called progressives (except when ity comes to women of course)



    Uncool here (none / 0) (#125)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:48:27 PM EST
    What is CDS?

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    when their Clinton hatred has driven them over the edge of reason...but not in a cute way like Bridget Jones.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (none / 0) (#140)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    He used her exact words...... (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    She is his leader, frankly.  He does this alot.

    "Any differences between us pales in comparison to the differences between us and McCain."

    That's her line.


    Yes--he copied her exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    with the phrase "pales in comparison."

    They guy can't even hide his stealing anymore.  Maybe he'll say they're old pals and they exchange ideas a lot?  That would explain why he's Mr Me Too.


    Maybe we should start referring to him (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    as The Chameleon...

    I think what people like us have seen for a long time, that maybe the average, not-obsessed, voter has not been tuned into, is that who Obama is depends a great deal on who he's talking to; I think it's possible that people are, finally, beginning to ask themselves just who this man is.

    It would be easier to answer if he knew who he was, but I maintain that he doesn't.

    On the news tonight, I saw that he is dragging out his little girls - the children Michelle Obama has protected from this circus with ferocity, something for which I actually could respect her for.  But now he's so desperate to connect as an ordinary guy with ordinary voters that he's now using his children.  I cannot even imagine the fight that took place that led to the decision to make them part of the campaign.  And you know there was one.

    I'm all for unity, but something tells me that this is just one more campaign tactic, and not something he believes in.  I think he's scared.  I think he's now fully and unashamedly into co-opting Clinton's platform, positions and rhetoric and hoping that he gets credit where she did not.  I fully expect the media to marvel at the "new" Obama and be completely oblivious to the fact that this has been Clinton's message from Day One.

    One speech is not enough to convince me that he means what he says.


    Obama is, in fact, post-racial (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    which is why he has an identity problem.  Until he got to Chicago, he had no idea what it meant to be black in America.  His "blackness" is entirely an affectation -- he got the Jeremiah Wright power-point presentation of "what it means to be black in America", and used that early in his career to get into office.  But for Obama, "blackness" is like his health care plan -- somenting that he talks about, but doesn't really understand.

    There is nothing quite so ridiculous as watching Obama in front of a black church -- here's a guy who grew spend his young childhood abroad where his differentness was based on his being an American, then moved in with his white Grandmother in Hawaii, attended a small private school in California, and transferred to the Ivy League.  Put him in front of a white audience, and he doesn't sound "black" at all.  But put him in front of a black Church audience, and he adopts the speech patterns of a black minister.  

    He really is the African American equivalent of George Bush -- the guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple.  He has never had to "overcome" or "overachieve" because he was black -- to him, being "black" has always been either a non-factor, or an asset.


    And when you throw in that he was (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:29:46 PM EST
    abandoned by his father, and essentially abandoned by his mother, what you have is a man who is teeming with psychological issues, who will not resolve them no matter how many people express their love in the voting booth.

    I've always wondered (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    Why he seems to idolize his father so much. That just seems weird to me.

    Interesting perspective (none / 0) (#171)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:31:41 PM EST
    I know the blogs I follow with true AA activists don't like him.

    Got links on that? (none / 0) (#213)
    by lambert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    That sounds like interesting data.

    I don't think that's true. (none / 0) (#187)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:03:14 PM EST
    While I think his identity is a bit confounding, I think it is certainly true that his skin color means something to a lot of people, and he must be aware of that.  He may've chosen his church for largely political reasons but I don't doubt his experience with the humiliations of discrimination.  

    As this race continues, I am thinking more and more that neither candidate's unique identity will do much, purely on an identity/symbolic basis, to uplift anybody.  The day to day drudgery takes the shine off the first black president and the first female president - if either of those things happen, I will have plenty of mundane and/or not so fond memories of their not so idealist campaigning to look back upon.  It's hard and compromising work to become President.  

    I don't understand where Obama is coming from.  I don't understand his optimism.  But as someone close to me said today, it is easier to understand a religious figure than it is to understand a politician.  I can hear Rev Wright.  Obama I can hear less so.  Pols are pols, as BTD says.  And that goes for race as well.  Obama is limited by his race, but he also inspires in part because of it.  If his dad was from Bulgaria, it would not be so interesting.  I suppose Obama wasn't born into a situation where his skin color was normative.  But that doesn't change his skin color.  Sadly, while volunteering in SC I met some straight up racist Clinton supporters.  It's disturbing, and Clinton supporters have the responsibility to either educate or banish these people.

    There are many positive reasons to prefer Clinton (Obama - get on the healthcare train.  NOW.).  But undermining Obama's heritage is not good, IMO.  I don't think he's blind to its at times political boon, but I think he does understand the pain that comes with it.  It sickens me that his charisma has ended up mobilizing the ranks (including Kerry) against universal healthcare, but hey, that's just me.  Maybe that's the new frontier of which of these are not like the other when it comes to US v. Europe?  

    I think BTD gave the most probable reason for Obama being close to Wright - Wright brought him to Jesus.  Period.  That's stuff enough for loyalty, even though Obama's politics are at the opposite pole.  Obama DOES have a conversion narrative - and I wouldn't be surprised if it included a somewhat blind loyalty to his pastor.  It apparently does.  



    Oh good...... (none / 0) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    another one who pays attention.  I've been watching him.  In all the debates, he's learning from her.

    Obama can't bring himself to attack her in debates because the truth is......he's learning like mad from her.

    As well he should......

    He really would be a good VP.


    They're (none / 0) (#130)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    like Naugahyde is to "rich Corinthian Leather".

    How despicable... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST
    ...wouldn't want to be sounding the same note on unity, would we?

    I don't care if (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    he uses her words.  I'm always happy when he takes his cue from her.

    That's leadership, and I think she's pitch perfect for how to help people, even through a tough primary.

    So, no......I just noticed it immediately.

    She's in his head.  :)


    Might seem more sincere (none / 0) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:36 PM EST
    if he used his own words for it?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    What else is either of them supposed to say?

    The "unity" thing is "if the other person wins I'll support them." That's all there is to say about it. Did Hillary steal the line from the Republicans who said it about McCain this year? Did all the people this year steal it from the people who said it in 2000, 2004, and for the past hundred years?

    Get serious. It's a canned line.


    It's only canned (none / 0) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:09:18 PM EST
    when they both say it.  :)

    She's been saying it for awhile.  BTW, she should, since she's the "bad girl" who wouldn't fold just because she's behind by 1%.  LOL*  That burden to lead the way rests on her broad shoulders.

    Isn't that just a tad bit embarassing for him?


    Isn't this another example of Obama's plan (none / 0) (#89)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    for something being a copy of Hillary's plan?

    BTD, your unity schtick (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    seems to have failed miserably in this particular instance.

    There's a lot of anger out there. (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by pie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    Would be nice if the DNC could have figured out how to diffuse before it got to this point.

    Still, the Supreme Court nominations loom.  After eight years of the worst president ever, I can't in good conscience stay home or vote for McCain.  Who knows how much worse it could get, and it's pretty bad now.  

    It's been a nightmare.


    Oh, oc (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM EST
    you just love stirring it up!