Obama's Worst Enemies Part 2

Chicago Sun Times reports:

The chief of Illinois’ National Organization for Women chapter today called on Barack Obama’s “political godfather” [Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones] to resign immediately from the Illinois state Senate for calling an African-American Hillary Clinton delegate an “Uncle Tom.”

. . . The Senate president added today to his version of what happened, saying he called Cobb a “doubting Thomas,” not an “Uncle Tom” in a Saturday night exchange in the lobby of the Denver hotel where the Illinois delegation is staying. Jones did not offer up that explanation when confronted by the Sun-Times late Sunday.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama: Bill Clinton Can Speak About Whatever He Wants | Michelle Obama's Big Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    With friends like that (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    PUMA was born

    Yeah, tell me again (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Cards In 4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    which campaign accused the other of being racist?

    it must be (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Turkana on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    bill clinton's fault.

    damn, i'm in a snarky mood, today...

    I for one am glad you are :) (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:35:03 PM EST
    Yep, me too (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    I am feeling outrage.

    Obama campagin...stupid, stupid, stupid.

    I want a Dem in the White House, and I have never been this angry at any Democrat in my long life....well, maybe Lieberman and the guy in north Georgia.


    It's all implied in the ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:43:30 PM EST
    ...BTD post about worst enemies, but quickly vice versa what Jones is saying.  Does that mean all whites who vote for Obama are ____?  Can his surrogates be taken seriously if they continue the wierd persecution of black voters and pols who just happen to like the Clintons  and feel a bit of loyalty to them?

    I can't be the only one to have thought this is the reverse logic of Jone's comment.


    I think the blanks would be ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    "race traitors". I think that's as close as we can come to "Uncle Tom". And no, they are not, any more than blacks who don't support Obama are disloyal to any group. Thinking that way is just sad. "Doubting Thomas". He's going to have to provide some context to back that up.

    I don't think that's what (none / 0) (#66)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    they would be. The first one starts with an N the second one starts with an L.

    I refuse to fill in those blanks (none / 0) (#68)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:03:56 PM EST
    I like my version. Well, "like" is the wrong word. But I can stand to think my version. Why is there so much hatred in the world?

    LOL, I know what you mean. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:14:18 PM EST
    But that would have to be the fill in words. Race traitors is just not as vicious as "Uncle Tom."

    And to answer your question there is a lot of hate in the world because G-d allows people like Emil Jones to roam this world.


    tPerhaps this explains why, when Sen. Jones (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    spoke at the DNC today, the tag line only stated he is a D Ill. Sen.  

    Whoa, they need to put some.... (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    ...impulse control meds in the kool aid.

    Operation Scapegoat Perhaps? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST

    No matter what he called her (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by themomcat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    He shouldn't have called her anything. Unity my gluteus.

    Thank you, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:46:04 PM EST
    for deleting Dadler's comment.  Much as it was a classic, far better than the other attempt here, in proving your point.

    But that's not what Dadler meant to do, of course.  The CDS is making them more stoooopid by the day.

    Say what? (1.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    BTD has his own worst enemies, himself chief among them, as ALL OF US ARE OUR OWN.  Clinton was a schmuck, and still is in many ways, that's the irony of his political being.  A brilliant schmuck.  CDS, my ace, I would vote for either in a heartbeat if that were my choice.  The point was Clinton overcame his own associations, which were of the utterly and dysfunctionally and co-dependently carnal sort.  Obama's are of another sort.  But if instead of CDS, you have Clinton romanticizing syndrome (no pun intended, or maybe it is) then you glorify the past when the future dries up.  And it may very well be.

    Delete away, tho.  I am used to it.  Come on BTD, hit the D key.  


    So (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    What are Obama's "associations?"

    You seem so adept at talking about Bill's.

    Do you not want to do Obama next?


    Cobbs has two witnesses... (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:46:10 PM EST
    ...that Jones called her an "Uncle Tom".   And while they say that they think Jones was joking, from Cobb's description it was a pretty pointed joke.

    Jones decision to come up with this "doubting Thomas" BS is really bad.   A simple admission of guilt and a sincere apology ("yes, I said it, and I was trying to make a joke -- but even as a joke, it was inappropriate, and there is no excuse for what I said, and I apologise to her.") is the only way to deal with this kind of gaffe.

    Jones first claimed he didn't say it (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    When the witnesses confirmed that he did, it became a "joke"

    In political parlance, a "joke" is something stupid and/or offensive that you get caught saying.


    Sad. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by 0 politico on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:55:15 PM EST
    If that is unity building...

    Whatever happened to (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:59:19 PM EST
    admitting fault and apologizing?

    Most of us are jerks at one time or another, whether it's a miserably failed joke or an impulsive outburst.  Admit it, apologize and move on.

    All you gotta do is "man up"!


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:21:56 AM EST
    And usually best if done quickly and as sincerely as possible. I'm not sure that demanding his resignation should be the first reaction however.

    Gotta Love (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    I didn't call her this name, I called her that name (which I just now "remembered" having totally forgotten it on Sunday).

    If this is how the Obama team is going to deal with these stories (and having 'met' some Obama supporters on-line, there will be more), then they are screwed.  Because instead of ignoring them and letting them die (or getting people to wonder how accurate they are given today's lousy media), they're just throwing fuel onto the fire.  So now the debate won't be whether this happened, but what exactly happened and you can already tell whose side the media is taking.  Hint: it ain't Emil's.  

    If the PUMAs and Hillary's supporters are smart, they will be nothing but the picture of graciousness and unity (or at least polite dissent).  The Obama people can do the damage themselves.  They've proven that. Repeatedly.

    too late on graf 3 (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:04 PM EST
    We didn't start the fight (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    but we intend to finish it

    Maybe (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    although I haven't seen a whole lot about what's happening at the convention (as opposed to side protests, websites, etc.).  But if they're smart, they'll give the Obama people the chance to self-destruct.  So far, the Obama campaign - and his friends like Jim Clyburn and Emil Jones - could not be doing more to ensure that this week belongs to the Clintons.  Why get in their way?

    Have the outside parades and celebrations (keeping the focus on Hillary, not Obama).  Vote for Hillary in whatever sham roll-call they come up with.  But otherwise let the Obama campaign do it to themselves out of their own paranoia and insecurity.


    Oh, BTD and you're helping (none / 0) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    with a put-down like that?

    Happy Days (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    I just want to know, will they play that song?  That one gives me the unity fuzzies.  

    According to Jose Rivera, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Iphie on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    (Bronx Democratic party leader) Obama can hold his own in the his-own-worst-enemies category.

    Take a look at the video -- he wasn't trying to be sly about his hand gesture.

    Howard Dean is not helping.... (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    Just now Dean said about Clinton supporters, "Some people can just not be satisfied."   His blaming me...for his ineptness and the Obama campaign's ineptness... sends me into orbit...again.

    Today, Hillary's appeal had me in the palm of her hand.   I decided to vote the Dem platform.  

    Tonight, when Howard Dean spoke, I wanted to jump threw the screen and tell him to change his d@mned message.   Dean is hurting his candidate

    Someone needs to get the word to him.  

    Dean has been abysmal (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by suki on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST
    through this whole thing.
    He lost me when he claimed to not know about the rampant sexism because he didn't watch cable.
    That's beyond insulting. One might even call it lying.
    I know I do.

    My uncle is an Italian gent from Boston... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Idunn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    I'd know that hand gesture anywhere. LOL!

    The worst part is that this (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:53:32 PM EST
    guy is retiring and trying to install his son. I'm thinking he is under the impression he has a job lined up in an Obama admin.


    You think he doesn't? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    What's acceptable? (2.00 / 0) (#6)
    by indiependy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:41:12 PM EST
    How is this any more reprehensible than repeatedly referring to Richardson as Judas?

    Gosh (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    Hey! Look over there!

    playing into the media's hand (none / 0) (#22)
    by indiependy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    Bottom line, "Barack vs the Clintons" is the storyline the media is dying to play right now. There's nothing to be gained by playing up these stories. My earlier comment was to show that many statements have been made like this before, from both sides, without much controversy. So making a big deal about something like this only helps the media in ginning up the conflict and drama they so desire.

    of course, (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by aquarian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    the smart politician could tell surrogates not to keep feeding the fire with stupid comments and brainless bahvior.
    Oh, never mind.

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    By Clyburn and Jackson, Jr.

    That's the problem.

    Oh, BTW, do you see any poms poms on me? You do not because I ain't no cheerleader.


    The story was not created by the media (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    It was caused by the folks who decided playing 'Divide the Party' followed by 'Bully the One You May Need Someday'.

    Ruthlessness is not savvy politics.  It is sometimes (maybe too often) successful politics, for short periods of time.

    Throw this in the pile with the double-dis to Charlie Rangel, and you're looking at a pattern, not some random incident.


    Hmm (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    That you would need that explained to you says something about you.

    BTW, Richardson was called a LIAR, by James Carville, not a Judas.

    I think Carville told the truth. What do you think?


    Judas (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    He did call him a JUDAS. And he said that if it had been around 4th of July instead of Easter he'd of called him a Benedict Arnold. I saw him say this on CNN. And he was really a mess of a man while saying it. Actually during that time Carville seemed unhealthy and unwell...I was actually concerned. Then I saw him again on CNN, Larry King with Richardson and he only got weirder, BUT oddest of all was that Richardson had a constant "tick" in his right cheek. Then I was worried about Richardson. Being a chick can get...well I think my mama (unlike Donna's mama) tought me to be concerned about others.  

    Oh but hell yessss, Richardson is a liar and a bad one :(


    Actually (none / 0) (#30)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    now I am confused and maybe utterly wrong re:times and.... But the "Judas" is right...

    And sorry if my whole "chick" thing offended anyone.

    I have written far too much in one day! I'm ashamed off hogging the boards. I'll just "read" for awhile instead.  Thanks BTD for the great posts and the refreshing intelligence and sensitivity. It's all greatly appreciated in these insane times! cheers.


    He didn's actually say it BTD (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:12 PM EST
    but he didn't leave a lot to the imagination.

    "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

    The other point is that Hillary is not on the ballot, and Obama is, so he needs to do everything he can to tamp down the rhetoric on his side.  


    BTW, Carville did call him a Judas (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM EST
    Here is the link to the article Carville himself wrote:


    and the exact paragraph would be:

    So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)


    Thanks for the article. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    Carville is very colorful, and I love him for that.  Here is a magnificent graf from the article:

    I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

    Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.

    In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."

    Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

    Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

    Others opined that my remark was "tactless" and "ugly."

    Heck, I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something -- that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks.

    what really annoyed me about Richardson (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:35:15 PM EST
    is that I felt he used Bill Clinton to get attention.  He got Bill to watch the superbowl with him (we're just friend, yeah, right!)  I don't think Bill Clinton would have done that without any assurance that BR wouldn't endorse any of Hillary's opponents.  It's just political common sense.  Then Richardson turned around and endorsed Obama.

    I think Carville knew something there, or just guessed it based on watching stuff in plain sight.


    factcheck, etc. (none / 0) (#52)
    by indiependy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    First off, not only did Carville indeed brand Richardson "Judas", he stood by it and refused to apologize.

    Point is, unfortunate things have been said on both sides. Even within this incident, one side allegedly used the term "Uncle Tom" and the other side accused supporters of "drinking the Kool Aid".

    So whether it be referring to someone as the noted religious symbol of betrayal, a notorious fictional character, or followers of a psychopath that lead the largest mass-suicide in history, there's nastiness in almost all name calling. More importantly though - what does hand-wringing about every one of them accomplish? Other than take away from everything the Democrats are trying to accomplish this week that is.


    "Judas" has nothing to do (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:57:09 PM EST
    with race and I agreed with Carville 100%.

    Richardson counts as a personal betrayal (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    I'd not expect any of Obama's mentors or close followers to have abandoned him as Richardson did his old buddies.

    Well I guess it would be similar if..... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    ...this Clinton delegate was a close personal friend of Obama who promised him that she wouldn't vote for Clinton but then went ahead and pledged her support to Clinton, thus breaking her word. But anyway, that's not what Uncle Tom means and you know it.

    What happened to respecting the RULES... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Check077 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    as Obama supporters always suggested that they were doing. It is within the rules that the pledged delegates should vote for the candidate that they were sent their to support.

    It seems the rules are being disregarded as they would be in the communistic political environments of Russia and China.

    This video is downright appalling that a Clinton delegate would turn coat in this nature:

    Clinton Delegate tells off Clinton Supporter

    In my state, you are registered democrat if you if vote--the state handles the registration process.
    A Democrat-leaning independent is pretty much a democrat especially if there state does not require them to sign up with registering process.


    A lot of that going on. n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by themomcat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    Stockholm: (none / 0) (#76)
    by prittfumes on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    [A] lot of Black voters ... have no idea why they are voting for Obama other than he is Black. Voting on skin color is not good for politics or our country.

    Many (by no means all) blacks believe they are justified in voting for Obama -- come what may -- because "whites have always voted exclusively for white presidential candidates". Heretofore no black candidate was allowed to reach the position Obama has achieved.

    With that in mind, why is it only now that "voting on skin color is not good for politics or our country"?


    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    This is completely circular logic.  Obama would not be the Dems' nominee without a significant number of white votes.

    (or if he were a woman, but that's another comment).


    Circular logic, Eleanor? Absolutely! (none / 0) (#79)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST
    See my reply to Stockholm.

    Stockholm, I apologize for my confusing post. (none / 0) (#80)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:51:38 AM EST
    Please note that I did not say this was my  personal opinion. The comment was offered as information.

    To clarify:

    Many (by no means all) blacks believe they are justified in voting for Obama -- come what may -- because "whites have always voted exclusively for white presidential candidates". THEY COMPLAIN THAT heretofore no black candidate was allowed to reach the position Obama has achieved.

    With that in mind, THEY ASK "Why only now is it wrong to vote based on skin color?"

    As I have stated before, Obama played the race card against the Clintons to lock up the black vote. Many in the black community were primed and ready for ANY reason (logical or not) to vote for "their guy". Axelrod/Obama gave it to them.


    Well Clarence Thomas is rolling over in his... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    yatch. I hope Emil didn't REALLY call the HRC supporter an "Uncle Tom", however I don't see how "Doubting Thomas" could be misconstrued as "Uncle Tom" unless we are discussing "Clarence Thomas" who many prominent (albeit entertainers not politicians) African Americans called an "Uncle Tom". Terrible! I never called CT that because all my UNCLES are great and I'd not disgrace them as such. Well this is so ridiculous. And my goodness what is this about people making one mistaken comment suddenly being ostracized and forced into obscurity? These people need more boots with straps so they can pull themselves up higher and rise above this trashy hooha.

    This whole election has been the weirdest theater I've ever seen and I have seen many experimental plays... I sat through an entire RON ATHEY performance once. ha ha...

    This is "silly season"! And more race baiting?

    Is there any open thread? (none / 0) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    I'm watching this convention thing (live?) on C-Span, because I couldn't bear hearing from any of the network talking heads.

    There's a musical segment that's been going on for at least 15 minutes with absolute unknowns doing cover versions of everybody from Alicia Keys to Aretha Franklin. IMO, the audience and the whole sorry spectacle looks more pathetic and joyless than usual.

    But, maybe it always looks dismal on C-Span.

    I'm not sure how far anyone here will get (none / 0) (#35)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:00:00 PM EST
    in the matter of regulating how black folk talk about or to one another. And people whose answer to so much is drinking the kool-aid or cds need to be a bit more discreet.

    Say what? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:02:06 PM EST
    My white opinion is that it was completely inappropriate.

    If you have anything to say, say it. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    OOOh and the foot shooting just keeps (none / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    on and on and on...Back to obama running on his judgment...Emil Jones, another one of his mentor's steps in it.  Please obama do America a favor...you know the right thing to do.

    You were once Donald from Chicago? (none / 0) (#47)
    by catfish on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    how do you know?

    Next up, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:09:26 PM EST

    Are you talking about the wound comment? (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    Or the baseball analogy?

    JJ, Jr. criticizing Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
    for tearing up in NH but not over Katrina.  

    what? (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:35:50 PM EST
    I must have missed both of those JJ jr winners.  What?

    So let me get this straight (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    There is CDS, which is only anti-Clinton, and there is only ODS, which is pro-Obama?

    Nonsense.  There is CDS that is irrationally anti-Clinton, and CDS that is irrationally Clinton worshipping.  Ther is ODS that is irrationally anti-Obama, and ODS that is irrationally Obama worshipping.

    I love that everyone's argument still boils down to our sh*t smells like roses, while theirs smells like sh*t.

    Whatever.  Wake me when this stroke-fest is over.

    You could probably have a lot more fun tonight (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    ...if you spent it somewhere else. Unless you are a masochist.

    You equivalency argument is a load of crap (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    You're not gonna get this.  It's going to make no sense to you.  You're gonna have to think about it a long time before you get it, and even then you're not really gonna get it.

    But follow these two statements very closely.

    Clinton would not have had to worry about losing votes if she picked Obama to be VP.

    Obama had to worry about losing votes if he picked Clinton to be his VP.

    If it took you less than 30 minutes to respond to this comment, that means you didn't think about those two statements long enough.

    let me give you a hint:  Some of obama's supporters are so filled with irrational hate for Clinton they would stop supporting Obama if he chose Clinton.

    Doesn't quite work in reverse now, does it?

    so put your snarky half-baked equivalencies in a box, wrap them up nice and neat with a bow, and surprise yourself for christmas this year.

    you'll be glad you did.


    One thing that can be said for Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    campaign, is that he teaches them well; whatever cr*p you're pulling, quick!  accuse the other side of doing the same!

    Nothing new (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    Move on