MyDD :: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus

A Generational Split in the Black Caucus

by Matt Stoller, Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:40:24 PM EST

Apparently, today in the black caucus at the DNC meeting Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones caused a ruckus when he slammed the caucus for murmuring that Barack Obama isn't 'black enough'. The general gist of his comments was 'how long are we going to have to pay back the Clinton's', and it revealed a generational split among black political leaders between the old patronage model and a newer movement model.

It's not a surprise that this conflict happened today, as there's a strong generational split in the Democratic base and the electorate at large. Flashpoints like these are common. We've seen this with Dean, with Kerry, with Lamont, and the 2006 electorate in general. The task of progressives and progressive organizers is to get young people to become registered Democrats, and to get them to vote in primaries in 2008.

It's not clear that it's going to happen, but the tools and platforms are there if we are willing to organize the millenials, or at least, to get out of their way.

Tags: black caucus, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 110 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

"Not black enough?" No offense to anyone, but aren't we past that kind of rhetoric now? I haven't made my choice and I'm frankly a fan of nearly all in the running, but those kind of statements are ridiculous. Jones is not exactly my favorite Democrat here in Illinois, but he's right on this one.

by MinnyBean on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:56:44 PM EST

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

this is a genuine feeling in the black community (not black enough). Check out some of the reporting that Tim Tagaris did for the LA-2 race. (And also Jack and Jill Politics). From their reporting, there was definitely notions of this taking place in that race.

by Ian Campbell on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

That kind of thing is based on trust isn't it?

"Not black enough" generally means "we think they'll betray us to the elites" who because of numerous factors are overwhelmingly white.

by MNPundit on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

The LA-2 race race wasn't about who was "black enough" and who wasn't. It was more about "the devil we know," political positioning for the next election, old fashioned political machines and a host of other things, real or imagined.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

What exactly is Jones right about?

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

That the statement not Black Enough is a messed up ridiculous statement.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I guess Hillary's black enough? I agree and good for Jones.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

If you're going to be picking a candidate based on how black or white he or she is, you shouldn't be in the voting booth in the first place.

by Alikchi on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:02:31 PM EST

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Voting rights for all citizens... except for bigots and mean people.

If people weren't allowed to vote based on their prejudices, then no one would ever get elected.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Everyone should have the right to vote, even the stupid and ignorant. Our job is to try and educate them.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I presume the 'black' or 'white' in this is more about ethos than skin colour.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I cannot understand why the African Americans feel they have to endlessly support the Clintons. Why they think some white woman who is more at home in the rarified air of upper income New York rather than with the average voter, is someone who they want to support and think will give a shit about them after they vote.
bill may have done a good job for them but, Hillary isn't Bill and this couple has spent 20 years traveling in the bubble world to remotely understand the problems anyone who is the average person, black or white.
Doesn't the African American community realize that the Clinton's were yesterday and have moved on and don't care anymore?

by vwcat on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:15:50 PM EST

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

How do you know all black people support Clinton? Because you read it in this diary? Good grief.

As crazy as it may seem, some of us support Clark. Some of us support Edwards. Lord have mercy, there's a few of us who even support Bill Richardson, can you imagine that?!!!! If you go to some spots where black people actually hang out and discuss these matters you might be surprised at what you learn.

All of us don't love Bill Clinton. Or his wife.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I am not black, so I am guessing here. I am a jew and it is not really much of a factor in my voting. I vote for people based on their stance on the issues and based on their voting record, not based on whether we share ethnicity. I don't figure that's too different for black people.

I don't know who I will vote for in the primary yet, but I don't think it will be Clinton. That said, Bill did do a lot on the issues that a lot of black people care about. I can understand if they feel hopefull that Hilary will be likewise inclined. I am curious to see if a sort of feeling out process develops through out the campaigns to see if she will resemble Bill in that way. If she doesn't feel that way to enough black people, perhaps the numbers will begin to change. If she does come accross that way... well that could change the numbers too.

BTW, I find Obama's plan to end the war impressive. That's an issue I can get behind and it's got zero to do with my heritage.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

If you go to some spots where black people actually hang out and discuss these matters you might be surprised at what you learn.

What I would say is that race issues dominate at the political level. It's more about power than anything else. Frankly, I'd say political allegiance to the Clintons by leadership has more to do with with gauging the prospects of a fruitful political alliance more than anything else.

For example, political leadership in Prince George's County, MD (majority black) was awfully slow to endorse Kweisi Mfume (vs Ben Cardin) in the Democratic primary -- some only did so at the very end; lackluster effort, others remained quiet. In short, people were shy about rocking the MD political establishment boat and getting left out in the cold.

Check out the campaign site of Jolene Ivey, wife of PG County state's attorney for the "#1 issue" during her campaign for MD state house:

I met my white mother's father once when I was 15, and I once spent half an hour with two cousins from that side of my genetic family tree. They are from the hills of Tennessee, and I feel no connection to any of them in any way. I don't remember their names or what they looked like, except my mother spent a lot of time after that meeting exclaiming about how much smarter and prettier I was than they. (I do remember thinking that the bar looked like it had been set pretty low.)

She basically had to throw her white birth mother under the bus. Do read the whole thing. But the dynamics really surrounded her status as former press secretary for Ben Cardin, and her husband's position. I won't say how all of the 'talk' started, but while the voters did elect her to office, I'll note that she does not appear to be a member of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, a rarity for an African-American politician in MD.

I could write a book about this, but I'll stop here.

by dblhelix on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

Yes, it's about power for black people. The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, black folks don't believe Obama can be elected president in 2008. However, if by some miracle he wins the democratic nomination, NOBODY will work harder for him than black people, and we will come out in record numbers to vote for him.

As for Jolene's site, it was kind of interesting that she shared that information but not really necessary. I'm from D.C. and there are MANY black people there who look just like her. My goodness, look at Sharon Pratt Dixon, Rock Newman, etc. DC/MD black folks know the deal, so I find it hard to believe that the question of her blackness was a significant factor in that election. It makes sense that she might try to use it to distract from the other issues you mention as being the real dynamics in the race.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

I agree with this. Black folk are skeptical. They just don't believe that his White support will materialize. They believe that a serious 'Bradley effect' will be in effect.

But, if he makes a serious run of it, and by a miracle, he gets the nomination, the level of support Obama would get would be unprecedented. I don't mean percentages; I mean also turnout.

As for Jolene's site, it was kind of interesting that she shared that information but not really necessary. I'm from D.C. and there are MANY black people there who look just like her.

I have to agree with this too. D.C. has a serious light-skinned elite that looks like Ivey.

by rikyrah on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

He CAN win. The subtext of hope is faith.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Yes, it's about power for black people

Exactly. I worked a campaign for a Hispanic Afro-Caribbean candidate.

There were concerns voiced on where the candidate's allegiances would lie. Competing economic interests are a political issue in the area.

However, county leadership does pursue forging certain allegiances w/ Hispanic candidates to enhance black political leverage statewide. What I mean by 'certain' -- in this specific case, the candidate was running in a majority-white district that had never elected a minority candidate. Several well-known African-American leaders wrote letters on behalf of the candidate. It was a win-win for both.

I 100% agree that Obama's skin color, his Harvard education, Kenyan father etc has nothing to do with how things are shaping up. After all, look at MD's Lt Gov Anthony Brown -- yes, he's Ivy League, not originally from Maryland, with a white Swiss mother and a Jamaican father. None of these things were factors because with Dems as the super-majority force in MD, it was a no-brainer to vote him in! He was very much presented as "Good for PG" (just as a certain IL state senator is promoting Obama).

by dblhelix on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

That was an interesting take from Ms. Ivey. I don't consider it 'throwing her White mother under the bus.'

She was raised in the Black community. Her ' White' family doesn't seem to have reached out to her.

by rikyrah on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

specifically (none / 0)

I'm referring to this:

(I do remember thinking that the bar looked like it had been set pretty low.)

Cold!

by dblhelix on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: specifically (none / 0)

(I do remember thinking that the bar looked like it had been set pretty low.)

Cold!

Ms. Ivey was raised in a family full of Black professionals in Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. is very different than any other place in this country. It's had a strong, stable Black professional class for many years.

Um, it's not surprising to me that she'd be 'looking down' on Tennessee Hill Folk. \

There are certain class issues in play here.

by rikyrah on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:09:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: specifically (none / 0)

Um, it's not surprising to me that she'd be 'looking down' on Tennessee Hill Folk. \

There are certain class issues in play here.

Agree.

I still winced when I read it. And certain parts of the district are far from professional class. But, they're not where the majority of votes come from, either.

by dblhelix on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Hi Sonya,

A couple of questions... I apologize if any are offensive as they are not intended to be. I just am curious.

Are you younger or older? Do you believe that an African-American candidate should be "black enough"? Do you think the "black enough" criteria is more the thought of older African-American voters, younger, more urban, more suburban, or a mix of all?

I welcome your insight.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

I'm over 30. This "black enough" thing is a creation of the white media. And yes, Stanley Crouch and Debra Dickerson are the white media.

Black voters care about whether a candidate will address the issues most relevant to our lives such as education, health care, job opportunities, etc., which are the issues of the working class of all colors. When the majority catches a cold, black folks get pneumonia. Obama addresses the issues of the working man.

Alan Keyes is a black man who only cares about abortion, which is not a priority among black people. Does that mean he's not "black enough?" Do you see how crazy that is?

Maybe some folks would say Clarence Thomas isn't black enough, but we have other, more colorful pejoratives to describe people like him.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

what about the fact that obama's heritage- native african (he attended a madrassa!), is completely removed from the struggles of African Americans, who have been dealing with a whole mess of troubles in the United States for the past 400 years.

Boiled down to one phrase: Obama has no connection to the civil rights movement, and therefore "not black enough," or in other words, not representative of black american culture.

that's how i understood it. Not that I agree w/ it or anything.

by Mark Ristaino on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Well, let's see, this is a portion of a speech Senator Obama gave to the AFSCME National Convention in Chicago last year, what do you think?

In coffee shops and town meetings, in VFW halls and right here in this room, the questions are all the same. Will I be able to leave my children a better world than I was given? Will I be able to save enough to send them to college or plan for a secure retirement? Will my job even be there tomorrow? Who will stand up for me in this new world?

In this time of change and uncertainty, these questions are expected - but I want you to know today they are by no means unique. Throughout our history, they have been asked and then answered by Americans who have stood in your shoes and shared your concerns.

In the middle of the last century, on the restless streets of Memphis, it was a group of AFSCME sanitation workers who took up this charge. For years they had served their city without complaint, picking up other people's trash for little pay and even less respect. Passers-by would call them "walking buzzards," and in the segregated South, most were forced to use separate drinking fountains and bathrooms.

But as the civil rights movement gained steam and they watched the marches and saw the boycotts and heard about the passage of voting rights, the workers in Memphis decided that they'd had enough, and in 1968, over 1,000 went on strike.

Their demands were simple. Recognition of their union. The right to bargain. A few cents more an hour.

But the opposition was fierce. Their vigils were met with handcuffs. Their protests turned back with mace. One march was interrupted by police gunfire and tear gas, and when the smoke cleared, 280 had been arrested, 60 were wounded, and one 16-year old boy lay dead.

And still, the city would not give in.

Now, the workers could have gone home, or they could've gone back to work, or they could've waited for someone else to help them, but they didn't. They kept marching. They drew ministers and high school students and civil rights activists to their cause, and at the beginning of the third straight month, Dr. King himself came down to Memphis.

At this point, the story of the sanitation workers merges with the larger saga of the Civil Rights Movement. On April 3rd, we know that King gave his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" sermon. On April 4th, he was shot and killed by James Earl Ray as he stood on the balcony of the Lorraine hotel. And on April 8th, a day before he was buried, his wife Coretta led the sanitation workers on one final march through the city of Memphis - a march that would culminate in the union contract that the workers had sought for so long.

This is the legacy you inherit today. It's a legacy of courage, a legacy of action, a legacy of achieving the greatest triumphs amidst the greatest odds. It's a story as American as any - that at the edge of despair, in the shadow of hopelessness, ordinary people make the extraordinary decision that if we stand together, we rise together.

Senator Barack Obama, 7 August 2006

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's a very nice quote (none / 0)

You must be a big fan to have it available so readily.

but it doesn't change the fact that Obama isn't a african american movement leader. Kucinich said some very profound things about equality in his speach to the black caucus. That doesn't make him representative of the movement.

Not that I really know what I'm talking about, being a white person. But authenticity, that idea of being "one of us," is meaningful to any constituency who chooses to back a candidate.

by Mark Ristaino on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a very nice quote (none / 0)

Cut his teeth in community organiizing. Black community organizing. After college, before law school.

Then to work as civil rights lawyer. Civil. Rights.

Brown v. Board was won by lawyers.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a very nice quote (none / 0)

Oh.

Well then I have no idea what "not black enough" means. who the hell are we s'posed to run, the GZA?

by Mark Ristaino on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a very nice quote (none / 0)

I am a big fan. And he isn't an African-American Movement leader. And just because you are white doesn't mean you aren't entitled to an opinion and that is the point. No doubt you are Anglo-Scottish or Polish or Slavic or any one of a myriad of things. When was the last time you actually gave it a second thought?

Senator Obama is inclusive, in a way that an African-American Movement leader would not be able to be, if he had self-declared himself as such. But that is not to say that he isn't an 'African-American' in terms of his experience of coming of age in this country. I'll bet he wasn't treated like a white Anglo-Saxon protestant, for example. As far as authenticity is concerned I think Obama has had the same issues of identification that all of us have had. How many people do you know in this country who are an authentic anything, unless they make a career out of it? To me this is the real virtue and strength of the social fabric of the US and every time I see someone pulling at the stiches on this magnificent patchwork I wonder why they bother. We are all in this together.

Admittedly, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans have had an exceptionally rough time. No doubt there are other ethnic and religous groups who can claim the same. Personally, I wonder about the experience of Muslims in the Good ol' USA these days, too.

But this doesn;t seem to be the point of this whole discussion to me. Say what you will, Senator Obama's heritage is a uniquely American one and one way or another we all share it. Read his first book, he talks alot about this.

He is one of us.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Obama was born in the United States as were many black Americans who have immigrant parents. His mother was from Kansas, which is as American as you can get.

How in the world is he removed from the struggles of African Americans in the skin he's in?

Don't you think he had trouble catching a cab in New York when he was a student?

If he had been driving through the wrong (white) neighborhood do you think the fact that his father was from Kenya would have prevented the police from pulling him over?

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and didn't spend much time in the lower 48 until he went to college, according to wikipedia.

He is coming from a different place than, say, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, who are established movement leaders representing black american culture on the political stage nigh unto a quarter century.

I don't think this affects his ability to represent black americans, or his ability to be a good leader. But I suspect this is where the push back from the African American community is coming from.

by Mark Ristaino on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Define pushback (none / 0)

Who are the black people pushing back against him and how are they pushing back? When you throw stuff out there like that, please back it up.

Of course Obama comes from a different place than Jesse and Al. They're both older and have dedicated their lives to being civil rights activists. Obama comes from the same place as Deval Patrick.

Interesting that you skip over the issues of catching a cab and DWB that Obama has had to deal with like every other black man in America.

by Sonya on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Define pushback (none / 0)

Who are the black people pushing back against him and how are they pushing back? When you throw stuff out there like that, please back it up.

from the first line in this blog:

Apparently, today in the black caucus at the DNC meeting Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones caused a ruckus when he slammed the caucus for murmuring that Barack Obama isn't 'black enough'.

As for this:

Interesting that you skip over the issues of catching a cab and DWB that Obama has had to deal with like every other black man in America.

When I said obama is removed from the struggles of African Americans,
I was making a distinction between african american culture, and african culture

Pls correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my perception (perhaps a false one) that Obama's roots are more strongly african than african american.

Am I out of line making this distinction?

by Mark Ristaino on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Define pushback (none / 0)

Not out of line, frankly, just wrong.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:08:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Define pushback (none / 0)

Who murmured that he wasn't black enough? I want to hear some names. Otherwise, it sounds like the "some people say" tactic is being employed in the furtherance of another agenda at the meeting.

What has been done to push back at Obama?

How are Obama's roots more strongly African when he was raised by his American mother and never lived in Kenya?

These alleged distinctions are only important to white people. As far as black folks are concerned, he's one of us.

by Sonya on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Define pushback (none / 0)

These alleged distinctions are only important to white people. As far as black folks are concerned, he's one of us.

Nailed it there. And I think that's the central issue... this is a white perception of Obama, and from a cynics point of view, it may be a central reason why he's received so much support from the white community.

from this point of view, Biden's slip earlier this week (articulate and bright and clean ) is even more loaded. From a white perception, obama's heretage (or perceived heretage) makes him clean of the struggle of racism in america, and in some way bypasses this history. In other words, Obama doesn;t remind white people of the 400 years of social injustice blacks have lived through in america, and might somehow nullify white guilt.

Who murmured that he wasn't black enough? I want to hear some names.

You'll have to ask Matt on this one. I'm wanking on the assumption that this is true. If it isn't, this debate isn't really terribly substantive.

But alas! it's friday night and i must go drink beer. I enjoyed this discussion though! Sorry if I stumbled over my words a bit.

I like discussing race and race relations. The first step towards true equality is dialogue :)

thanks for indulging me. I will check back tomorrow for your response.

mark

by Mark Ristaino on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

It just might be. We'll see how things go as we get closer to the primaries. I reckon he is going to surprise alot of people.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

You are spitting talking points from the Media and you are not stating fatc.This ios the second time you have attempted to deceive Sonya.

1) Obama was never in a Madrassa

2) Obama is a Legislator Not A Civil Rights Activist

Not all Black Americans have to be Civil Rights Activist or be raised by the Black Panthers to be a Black Leader.

by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Obama was never in a Madrassa

someone obviously doesn;t watch the daily show! Sorry, I work for a blog site that brings progressive politics to young people. I can usually drop a daily show reference and people will get it there. I should get it into my head that this is a different community.

Anyways, here's the clip:

(about halfway through)

This ios the second time you have attempted to deceive Sonya.

I'm not sure what you're referencing here. Can you pls clarify?

Will check back tomorrow.

mark

by Mark Ristaino on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:07:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I forgive you, LOL. Watched it twice.

Conversation with America on Iraq:

HRC: America, let's pull over and ask for directions.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

He did not attend a madrasa, he attended a multiethnic school that included muslims, buddhists, christians and those less inclined to identify a single spiritual arbiter. Don't reinforce faux news drivel by repition. I don't see the joke.

Political tennis, sometimes you serve, sometimes volley. That black americans are suspicious of political promises and heros means they have lived through the last 400 years, and three and two hundred and the last fifty years. Promises have been kept, others haven't. Hey freinds suspicious is a part of trust, suspicion isn't part of fighting- it has no place in fighting, suspicion is only found in trust. Suspicious is good, there is an old aphorism, "Trust in above, but tie up your horse."

Spit in your palm and shake some hands, we have to start building trust. Make promises to each other, promises so hard to keep you're going to have to work really hard to keep your word.

We've all been disappointed, the field behind us is littered in disappointments, but also victories.

by inexile on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Re: ((("obama's heritage- native African (he attended a madrassa!), is completely removed from the struggles of African Americans"))

No only is it far removed from the struggles of Black Americans, it's also far removed from a little something called the TRUTH and REALITY. I know Sonya was caught in the moment and didnt notice this slip by, but I did.

Obama was never raised in a Madrassa. That is a lie and the fact that his father was African is of no conern to me. I'm a Black Native American and like Sonya, I support Barack Obama. BTW, All of our Heritage is of Native "African". It's where Life as we know it began.

by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (3.00 / 1)

I welcome your insight.

I'm an African-American, and I'd like to answer too.

I'm 35. I'm supporting Obama, because he's just as qualified as anyone else.

My mother (79) is supporting Hillary Clinton.

Her brother, my uncle (83), is for Obama. (My Uncle's a Black Nationalist Conservative)

My sisters (ages 49 & 53) are supporting Obama. My 49 year old sister's biggest Obama worry is about assasination.

My closest cousins (late 40's-50's), are just skeptical. They ask, 'Isn't this still America? How likely really is it that a Black Man could be nominated?' - yet, even with this skepticism, they're going to vote for Obama.

I personally don't believe in the 'Black enough' mess. I believe that it's a devisive 'plot' by the 'White Media' to try and separate Barack Obama from the Black community.

Black enough doesn't have anything to do with genetics. The entire argument doesn't make any sense to me as a Black woman, who has the entire rainbow of colors in her family. Black people understand that a lot of White people feel that Obama is ' different' because he has a White mother - we know that's why he's so 'acceptable'.

But, he's definitely played it right. He's always been respectful of his mother. He's made it quite clear that she was the guiding force in his life. Yet, even though his father abandoned him (like so many Black men have done their children, unfortunately), he's not spoken ill of his father. He hasn't dogged out his father, even though he has the 'right' to be. That his mother raised him, on her own, is something that many a Black single mother can relate to.

Don't underestimate his marital choice, which helps him immensely with the Black community. And, his choice of church helped too. All signals that he is anchored to the Black community.

Obama being a community organizer also helps.

Black people don't dislike Black Republicans, because they're not 'Black enough'. They dislike them, because they believe Black Republicans don't like them. Black Republicans who go around talking ABOUT Black people TO White Audiences is foul.

If Black Republicans would demand that their White patrons actually sponsor PROGRAMS OF ACTION IN THE COMMUNITY - then maybe they'd get credibility. If you honestly believe in these ideals that you spout about, then be willing to work on them, on the grass roots level. Use the grass roots as an actual laboratory.

Those that do (the Robert Woodsons of the world), I respect. Those that spend their time going before White audiences to talk about Black people, or go and be parrots on Fox News to bash Black people, they get no respect.

The jury is still out on Cory Booker of New Jersey. He's got way more suspicious benefactors, and he must PROVE that he really is for 'the community'. If he does right by 'the people', then I hope he's re-elected. But, he has far too many people that originally backed him that are considered HOSTILE to the Black community.

Being from Illinois, I know about Senator Obama, and he long ago proved that he was ' Black enough'.

JMO.

by rikyrah on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

Well, there you have it. That makes three Black women over the age of 30 who support Barack Obama. Do you think it's because we did not grow up with the whole Civil Rights and Women's Rights crowd so we don't vote our race or gender but rather the issues that matter most? That's what I think.

by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I'd like to see the the comments in context. Which black person(s) in the caucus said Obama's not black enough? The only black people I've heard question Obama's "blackness" have been Stanley Crouch and Debra Dickerson, two individuals who have little to no influence in the black community. The only other people I've heard say it have been white pundits.

I resent any implication -- be it from blacks or whites -- that black people should automatically line up behind Obama right this minute because he's black. Many of us have been committed to other candidates since 2004, and Obama will have to make his case to win our support just like the rest of them. And I'm not in the Clinton camp.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:41:27 PM EST

although (none / 0)

Hillary is hoping women vote for her because she is a woman

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: although (none / 0)

Women are voting for her because she's perceived as a strong, intelligent, dynamic woman capable of effective leadership. That proportional representation is addressed is a bonus that makes voting for her 'value-added'. They would not be voting for her if she were perceived as incompetent, for the most part (there are always exceptions).

A couple of days ago, I was talking to a woman who works at an Army lab in the area. While she & most in her office are registered Democrats (the state is highly Dem), they voted GWB in '04 -- pocketbook/employment concerns. She stated that they will be voting Clinton in '08 if they have the opportunity, and GOP otherwise. The only Dem they'll vote for is Clinton. She's seen as a tough-as-nails, and that she's a woman is a bonus.

That's what I call transformative -- having the attributes that compel people to look past pocketbook issues.

Go back to Galston's (PPI-DLC/UMD) early playbooks on how to optimize electoral strategies for '08, and you'll see that the voter described above is who they are trying to capture.

My advice for those who are interested in rallying support around a candidate who is not named Clinton -- consider your blog comments in the context of canvassing door-to-door. How do you think "blacks vote for Clinton" and "women vote for Clinton" would be perceived? I will cosign w/ Sonya: condescending. Play up the positives around the other candidates instead -- you'll get a much better response.

by dblhelix on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

discussed on Hardball tonight (none / 0)

rewatch the iowa town hall.

the questions were hand selected the first one was being a woman.

the joke about bill being a bad man, was in front of an all female crowd.

I'm not saying all woman should vote for clinton, the opposite,

I'm saying that subtext is probably the most effective one they'll have.

and your army pals are probably the exception rather than the rule. I have more anectodal that woman liked Laura Bush more than Teresa Heinz kerry and voted on that.

also, we haven't had the "joy" of reliving (yet) some of Hillary's comments that are somewhat offensive to stay at home moms.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: although (none / 0)

If they all voted for Smirk in '04, after the invasion of Iraq, and they will only vote for HRC, and no other Democrat, in '08 under any circumstances it rather makes the point that she has positioned herself as, at best, a centrist, and at worst, a what?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

she has positioned herself as, at best, a centrist, and at worst, a what?

My comments come from significant voter interaction in the past year in a variety of communities and across all age groups. HRC as a prospective presidential candidate comes up often.

In this context, it is difficult to answer your question, because I have yet to meet a Democratic voter who wants to talk about centrists, the DLC, and so on.

In reality, people vote for candidates that empower them somehow: pocketbook, status, regionalism, proportional representation, personal identification, sense of patriotism, single-issues, and so on. It's a broad mix, and certainly gender & race are positive attributes for many voters -- but not the only ones (See Cardin vs Steele, for the most obvious example).

On issues like Iraq, note that Obama is quick to emphasize that he is not inherently anti-war. Of course -- people generally expect a sensible, competent hawk for president. Bush is viewed as incompetent. Had he executed a 3-day 'shock & awe', (Bill) Clinton-style, this would not even be a major issue & his approval numbers would be somewhat higher. The reasons for initiating a bombing spree would still be wrong, but realistically, it would be a non-issue for the Democratic contenders.

So for the voters above, I would say that what they see is a (i) competent hawk (ii) good on social issues (iii) good on economic issues overall (iv) a certain comfort because she's well-known and (iv) bam, a woman as president, value-added. So, if you're trying to swing this voter to another candidate, who happens not to be a woman, the value-added needs to come from somewhere else. Implying that the vote is preferentially gender-based is likely to result in a "JFO, it's my vote." (and even firmer HRC support).

Those who hate her are going to continue to hate her. Fanboys/girls are likely to remain so. For female leaners, I'd leave the gender issue alone & pretty work on the key differentiers of my preferred candidate, which is pretty much the point I was trying to make originally. In particular, millenials, since the 'Clinton comfort factor' is not as strong.

by dblhelix on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:11:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes (none / 0)

Never suggested anything regarding gender. Non-issue to me.

I guess the at worst I was suggesting was exactly what you claimed HRC to already be, a sensible, competent hawk although 'sensible hawk' reverberates for me as an oxymoron like 'military intelligence' or 'plausible deniabilty'.

If you think that the US can endure another presidential term of aggressive, polemic posturing we are not on the same page.

The world is facing a crisis of dimensions which make the geopolitical machinations of a single government, albeit the most, or at least formerly the most, powerful and wealthy in the world almost irrelevant.

Try this, imagine that tomorrow we discovered that an asteroid was headed directly for this planet that would potentially wipe out a significant portion of the species that inhabit it. This isn't a huge stretch as it has happened twice in the past.

Now think about what you would expect the people of this planet to do in regards to co-operating to avoid this calamity or at least mitigate the disaster and then just apply the same logic to the situation we are in now.

There, do you still want a sensible, competent hawk to be president?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes (none / 0)

sensible, competent hawk:

- favors all diplomatic routes until exhausted.

recognizes that the US is still a superpower, and at present the only one, which comes with a special role and special responsibilities.
not afraid to defend the US and legitimate US interests.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who are not willing to cede superpower status to China & India (although my personal opinion is that equalization is inevitable).

by dblhelix on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes (none / 0)

Well, that is a different kettle of fish. I think you will find that hawk has a different connotation for people who lived through the Vietnam era, when the adjective, to my knowledge, was coined in politics.

Honestly, which candidate do you think wouldn't fall within that frame of reference in respect to the place, especially economically which is what really counts, of the US in the world?

Having said that the 'superpower' construct may be getting a bit long in the tooth. And you shouldn't neglect to consider a United Europe as an emergent power with similar qualities.

In any case, hope you enjoy voting for HRC. I have twice and it wasn't nearly as satisfying as I had hoped it would be.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes (none / 0)

United Europe as an emergent power with similar qualities

economically yes, military -- no.

Honestly, which candidate do you think wouldn't fall within that frame of reference in respect to the place, especially economically which is what really counts, of the US in the world?

The difference between me & many posters is that I think the three are essentially in the same place.

Vietnam was before my time, as you suspected -- but -- is it not true that Congress cutting off funding funding in Vietnam launched the 'Democrats weak on defense' meme?

Two candidates -- Clinton & Obama -- had the opportunity to vote 'Aye' on Kerry-Feingold last year. Of course they did not -- and both Kerry/Feingold ultimately dropped out of the presidential race. Despite being 'against the war from the beginning', Obama was not willing to vote for redeployment. Despite tut-tutting the war's progress, Clinton was not willing to set a timeline.

Now the two of them are inching forward, getting a bit braver. Clinton files a bill to cap the troop level, and right afterwards, Obama one-ups her with a bill to cap the troop level and redeploy. Of course, as long as the Senate has trouble even organizing 60 votes for a non-binding resolution, the bills represent mere posturing by the candidates.

Now Feingold is on the move again.

I do not believe that either Clinton/Obama will substantially pressure for a cutoff on troop funding unless it's politically safe to do so. One route to political safety would be at least getting all Democratic senators in agreement on this. Not going to happen -- the Democrats are thirsting for the victory in '08, irrespective of candidate.

So, I watched Edwards yesterday, speech to the DNC. I have not had an opportunity to view Clinton/Obama.

With respect to Iraq, the theme was 'Silence is Betrayal' -- he invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was clearly admonishing the Democratic Senate:

"Bush is counting on a Democratic Party that won't oppose", "We don't have the backbone", "Can't be satisfied with a non-binding resolution."

He stated: "Betrayal is not to speak out. Will you stand up for America?"

Well, he has a point. The Constitution does prescribe for the people's right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

While he was a senator, he voted for IWR. He has apologized. Now he is no longer a senator, so he can't effectively lead the charge to organize the Democrats. Who is leading the march on Washington, say 500,000 strong, for redress -- the alternative route to political safety? It's not Edwards (was he even at the rally last Saturday?) or any of the other candidates, irrespective of their current job occupation. He quotes a leader, but it ends there.

So, if you'd like to construct a scale where,

Obama > Edwards > Clinton

on Iraq, fine, but it's a game of inches. All three agree, however, that they have excellent plans to end this once they become President. All three most assuredly are not proponents of growing the deficit via military spending to push the economy. All three have a greater commitment to spending for public infrastructure.

In any case, hope you enjoy voting for HRC.

I haven't decided yet. However, I'm not on the "anybody but" train, which should be obvious. I am leaning Clinton/Obama, but not due to bold leadership on the war issue.

by dblhelix on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes (none / 0)

No problem with any of this but suggest that legislative initiatives in the 109th Congress were truly futile. I think the Obama bill has more substance than HRC's but, as you say may be moot if the bills go nowhere. But Obama's actually answers the Bushie 'putup or shut up' taunt in response to criticism of their latest way forward and I wonder why it is such an obstacle to get any of the anti-war bills on to the floor for debate.

I personally feel that a funding cut is risky and applaud Obama's bill for providing a comprehensive response without attacking funding, merely capping troop numbers seems a stop-gap intitative but, of course, everything helps.

I guess it is obvious that I think Senator Obama is a cut above the other two and obviously place more emphasise on Iraq as an issue than you do. But that is why we are blogging here, isn't it, to thrash out our views and preferences.

Seems to me the 'weak on defense' meme as an accussation of neglect is more of a Carter era invention at the time of the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, of all places, and wasn't framed in it's current context until after the demise of the Soviet Union; this was a banner of the Reagan and Bush(41) years carried by subsequent administrations.

IMHO the McGovern-Hatfield amendments were outright legislative assaults on the Nixon administration and were perceived more as part of the anti-war movement when the country had already lost the stomach for the war. The dove thing wouldn't fly very well today, would it? Imagine Democrats campaigning with white dove logos on their bumper stickers these days, eh?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comments are very astute. (none / 0)

My only issue is that the "weak on defense" meme is much older and more significant than specific arguments about the Vietnam war. Those fights about getting out of Vietnam were manipulated to help build the perception of Republicans as "strong men who will defend us". Remember, most of the Democratic Party supported the war from beginning to near the end, and Nixon was the loser who was forced by failure to win the war and by popular sentiment to withdraw. The parallels and pitfalls with the present situation are obvious.

"Weak on Defense vs Strong Leadership" is about feeding a psychology of insecurity and authoritarianism, which is certainly a Conservative framing of the issue, if not a more fundamental appeal to the tribal nature of our species.

I also agree that any "serious" Democratic candidate at the presidential level has no choice but to keep options open wrt use of US force and the projection/protection of American interests, i.e. they have to be very careful about how they oppose the Republican disaster in Iraq. People do want security, even if Americans are are also farily isolationist.

So, the "strong-defender of our civilization" plays very well. Maybe, a counter meme could be: "strong-defender against those who abuse of our trust in an unwarranted war", or "someone who won't run around hitting hornets nests".

There's more of us than there is of them.

by MetaData on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: although (none / 0)

Sure... but I would say some of the chattering that "women will go for hillary" (c.f. joe klein, tweety, etc) is just as patronizing as the notion that Obama will automagically score the black vote.

It's a pretty safe bet that both have advantages in appealing to voters who look like they do, but the notion that voters, and in particular primary voters, would make decisions based on that kind of prejudice is incorrect I think.

I think this dynamic -- voting for or against someone based on simple demographics -- increases in power as the rate of voter informed-ness decreases. It's probably most influential in the general, and it could go either way. Hillary could pull out a whole lot of women, or get slammed by misogynist backlash. Obama could become a brand which excites a generation, or fall beneath a series of crypto-racist attacks.

Yadda yadda yadda. It's primary season. They'll be hard fought, and more or less on the issues. The time for speculative handicapping is drawing to a close. We're about to start seeing the proof inside the pudding.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

by Josh Koenig on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It may not be PC but its reality (none / 0)

Sonya,

When this campaign is over in 2008, I will bet you everything I have that Obama will get the ovewhelming majority of Black voters. Its only a question of whether its 65%, 75% or 80%+.

Same with Richardson. If Richarson decides to run, he will get a huge number of the Hispanic votes. The only question is whether is 50%,60% or 70% of Hispanics.

Same with Hillary Clinton. When this is all said & done, HRC will get more women votes than men votes. In fact, polling this early are already showing that Hillary is doing at least 10%-15% better among women voters than men.

Now that's reality! We can all be PC & pretend it does not exist. Of course there will be Blacks supporting Clark, supporting Edwards, supporting the Clintons. But we are talking about the majority of the Black electorate come election day.

Just like I predict most Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson Sr. Jesse Jackson Jr., Mfume, NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus members, Gov. Deval Patrick will all eventually rally around Obama.

Just like I expect the Hispanic Congressional Caucus members will unite behind Richardson.

This is reality. This is how the world works. There is nothing wrong with that. As a member of a minority, there will be an automatic affinity towards pride & making history.

This is No Different than the Majority of Connecticut Jews who ended up supporting Joe Lieberman in the tight election against Lamont.

That's expected & that's a personal choice by individuals. We can pretend it does not exist or its offensive- but that's reality !

by livyoga on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you missed the point (3.00 / 1)

My response above was to the arrogance of that poster in his assumption that all black people support Clinton and his condescending lecture as to how black people should wake up and realize that Clinton has moved on and doesn't care about us. Give me a f*cking break! He pretty much called black people stupid and monolithic.

My point below was regarding the false meme that black people don't think Obama is black enough, which is being spread by white people for the most part. It's a sentiment that is not held by the majority of black folks regardless of how many times the mainstream media, clueless pundits and liberal bloggers repeat it.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but your comment isn't really responsive to what I'm talking about. Please believe me when I tell you that I don't need anyone to school me on the realities of race and politics in America.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's too timid for me (none / 0)

I don't really care about his skin tone..
and I really don't want to get along with everyone to build bridges..

I want single payer health care and college for everyone.

no one should vote for anyone just because of their appearance or even assume their political positioins based on appearance.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's too timid for me (none / 0)

Are you in college currently?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0)

I actually vote in primaries (snark - sorry couldn't resist)

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's too timid for me (none / 0)

When Edwards actually says he is for single payer you will let us know.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there is college for everyone as a pilot in NC (none / 0)

so we're halfway there.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's too timid for me (none / 0)

As I've said, I haven't decided who gets my primary vote yet. I am not an Obama cheerleader, but I think that his plan to end the war is the boldest move I've seen from any of the candidates yet. I don't think timid is a fair description.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

will it come to the floor? (none / 0)

will Obama sign onto the levin amendment which feingold opposes?

serious questions...

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: will it come to the floor? (none / 0)

If he signs on that's great. It's a slap in Bush's face that'll accomplish little more than an unintelligable retort from W as he goes about doing what he wants anyway.

If he doesn't, great. He's already proposed a well designed plan to do more than register displeasure with el presidente. And he has taken away the GOP's ability to say democrats haave no plan when refering to him. Additionally, he will force the other candidates to get much more specific in their stance on Iraq.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you missed the point (none / 0)

Well, I am glad to hear your opinion on both points. There is a high noise to signal ratio in the blogosphere sometimes.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Generational Split in the Black Caucus (none / 0)

I'm more surprised you'd be committed to a candidate for 2 plus years instead of keeping an open mind going into the primaries. I mean I am big Obama supporter but there are things he could do to lose my support and things others could do to gain my support. I just can't see not keeping an open mind even having a candidate I support. But that's cool... just me. I agree though, no one should line up or be expected to line up behind a candidate JUST because they share the same color, sex or religion.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh, come on (3.00 / 1)

You mischaracterized what I said which was:

"Many of us have been committed to other candidates since 2004, and Obama will have to make his case to win our support just like the rest of them."

How is that not keeping an open mind? If Obama, or Clinton, or Edwards says or does something that shows me I should support him/her, I will.

by Sonya on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Generational Split? (none / 0)

I think this generational split theme is counter productive and probably just wrong. A large part of the group at DailyKos are boomers (I'm 59) and they don't seem to be very monolithic or generation conscious. I have come across a lot of boomer commenters who seem to be real fans of Kos, Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. If there is a split in the base, it's due more to mindset and perceptions than age. I could be wrong, but those are the impressions I'm getting. I don't mingle much with professional politicians or the party leaders so I have no opinion about why or if they're split.

by MarvToler on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:45:06 PM EST

Re: Generational Split? (none / 0)

I don't have statistics for this obviously, but I would guess for every boomer on dailykos and mydd there are 10 college age readers.

by blueryan on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Generational Split? (none / 0)

You'd be wrong. 90% of Daily Kos is 25+.

by scaryice on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Generational Split? (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/21 /72053/238

by scaryice on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Generational Split? (none / 0)

hmm that's interesting. Like I said I was just going off of an assumption, but I was obviously wrong.

by blueryan on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

holy moly (none / 0)

more people over 60 on dKos than under 24

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Generational Split? (none / 0)

I agree. We are all over the shop. I rarely make a generational, racial or gender assumption about other posters and the anonymity thing makes for a very egalitarian context.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lamont- Interesting note: Obama supported Joe (3.00 / 2)

Barack Obama pitched for DLC Joe during Joe's last election. Ned Lamont who?* Interesting events like this I guess bring Obama's political aspirations into question for some.

Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report, Executive Editor) published an article over at CounterPunch.org titled, Barack Obama: The Mania and the Mirage.

here's a slice of what Ford thinks,

Barack Obama is a lawyer by training, but could easily have made a career on Madison Avenue, where "impressions" are the holy grail. The most effective commercials are those that provoke consumers to provide their own impressions of the product, through word and image association. Obama's special genius is to elicit self-generated positive impressions from a wide range of consumers/observers - most dramatically, from consumers across the color line - while saying nothing of substance.

Corporate media, an extension of Madison Avenue, eat this crap up

here's the link,
mirage

and for the mix on the DLC and Joe and Barack:
Joe Lieberman(DLC) (Barack called Joe his "mentor"?!)

and then cockburn mentions more here, freepress

best of luck.

*Sort of contradicting all his vocal support for Joe during 2006, at the eleventh hour, days before the Nov 7th elections, Obama sent an email to Obama's CT supporters making a call to support Ned Lamont (Oct 26, 2006). Very odd. To coin Cockburn's phrase, is this an example of "trimming to the wind"? If so, perhaps many in the African-American community, and the American progressive community in general, do have reason to give pause when considering Obama.

by Rob Price on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:08:57 PM EST

Re: Lamont- Interesting note: Obama supported Joe (none / 0)

Please get your facts straight.

Obama pitched for Joe during the primaries. I do not believe there was a sitting senator who campaigned for Lemont during the primaries.

After that Obama and most others stayed out of the race... my guess is at the request of Reid and party leadership including Schumer. But Obama was NOT campaigning for Lieberman during the general. I agree he didn't campaign for Lemont with the exception of the email you site... BUT HE WAS NOT CAMPAIGNING FOR LIEBERMAN IN THE GENERAL AS YOUR POST SUGGESTS!

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama didn't campaign for Joe in the general (3.00 / 0)

Gee, I'm inspired by his courage..... NOT!!!

But hey, Obama did campaign for Cook County Board President Todd Stroger -- a man about as equipped for that job as George W. Bush is for his. And Obama just endorsed Mayor Daley, multiple corruption probes and scandals notwithstanding (and while the city is actually fighting the federal court's anti-patronage ruling).

Meanwhile at the DNC Winter Meeting, Obama had the chutzpah to say he wanted to take the cynicism out of today's politics. (No, really!)

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama didn't campaign for Joe in the general (none / 0)

If you are looking for the perfect politician, then I would suggest you stop paying attention to politics Jim, since you will drive yourself crazy.

Looks like you are as inspired by Obama's actions in the CT primary as I am by Edward's courageous move to apologize for his war vote ONLY after the majority of the country was against the war. Courageous timing there.

Yes I am aware of Stroger and of Daley... Stroger was a poor candidate, I'll grant you. I assumed he owed the old man a favor.

As for Daley.. Yes he has some baggage, but he has also done a lot of good for the city. Now of course, that is my opinion, you may disagree... I would probably vote against Daley in a primary; but I can understand why he would endorse him... 1) He feels that the good outweighs the bad with Daley (and to say there is no good is ridiculous) and 2) I am assuming he is helping Daley because Daley can raise a lot of money... this is politics after all and ALL POLITICIANS have to play the game.

But your post really had nothing to do with mine... whether you think it is right or wrong that Obama campaigns for Lemont is irrelevant... My post was to say that the OPs comments were misleading and inaccurate. When writing that post, I really don't give two shits if you are inspired or not. Save it for a relevant post.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can suggest all you like (none / 0)

I'm still going to pay attention to politics and I'm still going to hold politicians accountable for their actions. ESPECIALLY ones as brilliant and compelling as Obama.

To paraphrase Joe Biden: Obama is an unusually "clean and articulate" former President of the Harvard Law Review. He really doesn't need to act like just another Party hack and I'm going to continue to call him out when he does.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama didn't campaign for Joe in the general (none / 0)

While I'm sympathetic to the critical gaze you cast toward Obama, I don't think his endorsement of Todd Stroger is much on point when his opponent was a rightwing machine Republican. Or maybe you're referring to Forrest Claypool in the primary, who ran against his father before his father's stroke. Claypool is another one of these blow-dried "progressives" the media loves to fawn over and who have no agenda other than surrender to the business community.

If you want to talk local issues here, though, the real mark against Sen. Obama is "where the hell has be been over the gutting of Cook County Hospital and health care for the poor in general". He might at least try to give the impression of doing something in the Senate to try to find some funds to keep some clinics open or something.

by sTiVo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]