by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor, Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:23 PM EDT
WANNA SEE WHAT A OBAMA AUTUMN WOULD LOOK LIKE?
THESE ARE JUST THE AMATEUR WINGER VERSIONS OF OBAMA/WRIGHT ADS, IMAGINE WHAT THE SWIFT BOAT BOYS WILL DO WITH ALL OF THIS.
Folks, he can't win as our nominee in November. That ship has sailed.
But Hillary/Obama still can .
Unity now.
Tags: WRIGHT OBAMA (all tags)
I suppose the Clinton camp will be calling out McCain for Hagee any day now.
I can accept Democrats fighting each other, but when it comes to the "scary" rightwing I think we're all better served by standing together against such "swiftboating" rather than buying in to or buffeting rightwing smears.
Free Republic is a notorious right-wing activist website, denizens known colloquially as 'freepers.' It is truly a scary place if you have ever dared browse there. Like a Kafkaesque nightmare of the blogoshere.
'Man, that sh*t is really awful. Freepers made those. "
Yes, and this is only the beginning, what they could throw together over the weekend. Just wait until the real high dollar outfits get hold of this, I'm certain it will be far more compelling.
I have been afraid that far more than a mere nomination contest could end up at stake here. This is the type of inflammatory garbage that ends up in hate crimes and worse. There are too many people who do not limit their self expression to voting and writing on blogs.
Perhaps we should all chip in and send Gerry Ferraro and Jeremiah on that nice long cruise, far away, where they will both be safe.
You know Gallup showed him trailing Mccain today and Clinton in a tie , I won't be surprised if it hurts him more in a general election head to head matchup than the democratic primary.
Would be interesting to see the polls.
So it was actually true he had his hands at his side during the pledge of allegiance i always thought that was a ruse
NO is true.
I dont believe he meant anything by it, protocol does not require it during the playing of the nat'l anthem, but its true and 3 out of the 4 vids used the photo and the 527s would too.
Yes, but if you bothered to read the link that is exactly the photo which is debunked in the Washington Post. That was at the Harkin Steak Fry, read the article:
To his credit, the NewsBusters blogger does not try to pretend that the photograph had anything to do with the pledge of allegiance. Instead he cites Title 36 or the U.S. Code, which states the following:During a rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart;By that standard, everybody in the picture (Obama, Richardson, Clinton, and Ruth Harkin) was infringing the Code, as they had their backs to the flag. On the other hand, the Code refers specifically to "Patriotic and National Observances." We welcome the opinion of protocol experts, but we are not sure that a steak fry qualifies as a "Patriotic Observance," even in Iowa.
It's wrong. The picture was taken during the national anthem - this is what you get when you start to believe in right-wing propaganda just because it is against the primary candidate you don't support.
is this what the debate over the candidates has come to? did he or did he not have his hands at his side during the pledge of allegiance. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Obama, but this? Really?
I'm asking this seriously. Do you think Obama hates America?
are you new to the USA?
have you never seen one of our fall presidential campaigns?
"I'm asking this seriously. Do you think Obama hates America?" - of course not.
The point is that the swiftboaters are all
ready in action I simply do not remember how
many times I have seen that pic in the past six
months .. oh YES - they will use it no matter what WE know and I will go so far as to say that' most' of them know it's crap ..
Perception is Everything ..
As we saw with Sen. Kerry, the origonal swiftboaters and their progeny don't need a scandel to get riled up. They're going to smear and lie and dissmeble and show clips no matter who we put up or what we do.
If we beleive that Obama doesn't hate America, and certainly if we believe that those who claim he does know that it's crap, then we should fight the swiftboaters, not cave in.
This concern over the perceptions of Obama's unamericanism is crap. And the swiftboaters are going to throw crap our way no matter who the nominee is. Just as it is ridiculous to think the Clintons are behind killing people, it is ridiculous to think that Obama hates America. So, this is not a reason to vote against Obama, anymore than the perception that HRC is behind killing someone (or pick your own HRC smear) a reason not to vote for Clinton.
It's not the Pledge of Allegiance, it's the National Anthem, and, as pointed out below, there's no protocol for covering one's heart during the anthem. Some do, some don't. Most don't. Ever been to a ball game?
Please, Democrats, criticize the candidates on issues all you want, but don't repeat this kind of crap. And CORRECT it every time you encounter it.
By the way clinton supporter's should listen to this speech by Hillary Clinton in Pennslyvania.
She is a fiery populist , worse than John Edwards
http://cbs3.com/local/Hillary.Clinton.Ra lly.2.675230.html
Best speech I have heard in a while.
Surely you mean 'better' than Edwards in this context?
Oh, sorry, I thought you did. Your Freudian slip was showing, I guess.
That was why I didn't support Edwards , I liked edwards of 04 a lot better .
Funny Hillary Clinton is now following in his footstep.
By the way Mark Halperine actually said John Edwards was going to endorse Hillary Clinton before the North Carolina primary.
Just thought i should mention that and see if anyone else heard that
Interestingly enough his delegates seem to be slipping to Obama.
We are all better served if we actually nominate someone who can win. We will never win with Obama, and that's the memo.
Funny, I've been hearing that for over a year and he now has the lead in delegates and popular vote. Are you proposing a coup?
Well, I am for following the rules and the rules are the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. If Hillary Clinton gets enough of them to help her win the nomination, those are the rules. If Obama wins because of the superdelegates, he wins the nomination. There are no rules that say what a superdelegate has to do. The Democrats polled in the SUSA also agree that the superdelegates should vote for whoever they want.
Funny you should mention:
With this Wisconsin iceberg now slamming into the Clinton campaign, I'm reminded of the scene in Cameron's Titanic where the ship's designer rushes to the bridge, unrolls the construction plans, and informs the Captain that despite the small shudder of the impact and the normal feeling on the bridge, the great ship is doomed. They're unrolling the plans tonight in Hillaryland. They'll be vicious infighting about various desperate Hail Mary plans -- like today's foolish trial balloon about trying to steal committed Obama delegates -- and lots of scapegoating top Clinton campaign officials. The former President will go ape, find a microphone, and embarrass himself somewhere in Texas or Ohio. But like water rushing into the Titanic's hull, the forces now flowing hard against the Hillary Clinton campaign are furious and the die is cast.
Richelieu - The End of an Era... The Weekly Standard 20 Feb 08
I'm not worried, I've got to tell you. I kinda' suspect that it may even have been Obama's campaign that precipitated this controversy, or an ally, in the wake of the Ferraro tempest. Have you noticed that the Obama campaign has been tidying up loose ends lately? Rezko, Wright, earmarks, tax returns? Why do you suppose he's doing that, eh? 'Cuz he's trembling in fear? I don't think so.
Superdelegates are still leaking his way, not to mention late results from previous contests. If I were the Hillary campaign I would be getting ready for some incoming on ethics and transparency and getting my story straight on just what foreign policy experience my candidate actually wasn't exaggerating. Obama has just cleared decks for action.
I would be surprised if Obama can still go on the attack on judgement and ethics.
This is the second time he has had a lapse in Judgement Rezo , Wrigth at some point hasn't he lost the judgement card. as well as the ethics one.
Curiously I don't believe that is the case. He has answered the Rezko charges Friday to the satisfaction, at least for now, of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times editorial boards, the gold standard on that issue. The Wright issue is inflammatory but on two points it isn't nearly as significant as Hillary's supporters are hoping, firstly it came in the wake of the Ferraro controversy and is subsumed somewhat in the racial fallout from that, secondly it is a tangential association to Obama, and a religious one, which doesn't directly impact Obama's values or positions. Many Americans would be loathe to be held accountable for their pastor's statements, I'm guessing, although the impact of that is less well understood among secular progressives. Furthermore Obama has distanced himself carefully from Wright since early in the campaign. He saw this coming. I wouldn't be surprised if half the electorate doesn't assume this was another attack from Hillary either, coming on the heels of the Ferraro debacle. Notice the Hillary campaign hasn't touched this. It is radioactive for them, and in a funny way problematic. If just one of their surrogates blunders into this tar-pit she will own this mess too.
And the beauty of it, as silly as it seems, is that it puts the Muslim story to bed forever, every Fox clip on Wright further destroys the credibility of that narrative, which was far, far more damaging. Now even the dumbest email recipient knows that people have been lying about Obama all along. Nobody likes being lied to, not even fools or racists. That's an immense plus for Obama and relieves a strong drag. 13% of Americans believed that, how many now?
No, I see this quite differently. In the meantime have you noticed the narratives on Hillary's foreign policy experience being slowly, steadily and effectively eroded in the media? It's been happening every day. And her claims about SCHIP too. That is very dangerous to her as it plays into her two strongest characteristics, ready to lead but do anything to win. Chuck the earmarks, tax returns, Clinton Library and other stonewalled disclosures on the fire and there is the potential for a merry blaze. Did you notice how readily Obama's campaign agreed to these two upcoming debates? Did that make you wonder for a moment by any chance? Put your flak-jacket on, Lori. This is going to get very interesting and soon.
How is he going to make the case on ethics , the clinton camp would throw rezko back at him and they will just attribute everything to his telegraphed assualt in the chicago tribune.
he would be making a mistake.
Telegraphed assault?:
When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.
Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.
[...]
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
Obama's Rezko narrative Chicago Tribue 16 Mar 08
That was an editorial, incidentally. Don't believe everything you read here.
I can't imagine that Obama's campaign wanted this out there. On the other hand, reading some articles that appeared a while ago, I wonder why it took so long? Did the video only become recently available?
I hate this whole depressing issue.
Well, as I said, I wouldn't be shocked if the Obama campaign had done it themselves just to get it out of the way. It was bound to happen and I can't see the Hillary campaign leading the charge on this but who knows. The fact it came out just after Wyoming and Mississippi at the beginning of the longest hiatus of the primary season makes me wonder, don't you think? It ain't so bad. And the TUCC ain't a bad church either, quite the contrary.
if he takes this all the way to the end, I agree, he won't be our vp either.
but if after PA, KY, WV...if he is ready for a unity ticket, I'm for it.
Actually, just an afterthought, if this was a strategic move by Obama's campaign or an ally it specifically does clear the issue for old news in the general election. There is going to be pushback on this, it has already started from the church itself. Don't you relish the Republicans in a good ol' fashioned stoush with a Christian denomination? It kind of has a bit of ironic justice. If you stand back from your sense of moral outrage for a moment you just might see it.
I have been for Hillary/Obama since day one.
the general electorate is not gonna trust him....yet.
He DOES need seasoning...and testing first.
He can't beat Maverick.
McGovern
Mondale
Dukakis
Kerrey
Obama?
John, for the longest time I was for this "Dream Ticket" too. But could Hillary really afford to have another 4-8 years of investigations by the Republicans, going after Veep Obama, and derailing any attempts to bridge the divides within Congress (something she has done well in the last eight years)?
I don't see it. He has too many unknowns.
She wants to move this country forward. An Obama association would hamper that goal.
He needs to go get vetted, get more "centerist",get some experience, and then come back to Americans and do it again down the road.
You know, as weird as this may sound, if Obama had displayed half of the passion Wright does, more Clinton people would have jumped ship to him. I watched these videos and could only really think Wright has such conviction. Hillary may not be as fiery as Wright, but when she talks about Universal Health Care and child poverty and human rights, I feel that from her. I really haven't felt much of that for any issues from Obama. He hits the right cadence and has wonderful words but, I just don't sense the fire in him.
Anyway, yeah bad for the GE!
That Wright and Hillary show PASSION in their words is a result of speaking on TOPICS THEY BELIEVE. Personally, I think Wright is disgusting. Having worked the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, it is even more offensive.
That being my personal editorial, regarding the the policy positions, such as health care, or No Child Left Behind or the Economy, he is UNABLE to speak to with "fire" because they are someone ELSE'S words, and not positions developed after long years of PERSONAL study, understanding and conviction. THIS, in part, IS the "experience" argument.
Despite their obvious differences in what they SAY, Wright and Clinton both BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND their own positions, and in doing so, can express them with knowledge and passion. Obama has no such experience nor understanding of the issues he orates.
And despite his great skill at oratory, the most "fire" I have witnessed from Obama is "we can't wait."
Perhaps we now know why. There is too much coming down the pike and my guess is this will not be the last of this, or of his other 'associations.'
If Democrats backed down every time we knew there were going to be ads smearing us, we might as well never run for office.
This concern stuff is well intentioned, but I don't think we should abandon a candidate because his pastor said some crazy shit and some not so crazy shit.
But a lot of this "concern stuff" isn't well-intentioned.
You're probably right.
I'm really trying--as an obama supporter--to maintain as much civility as I can and give HRC supporters the doubt whenever possible. I mean that without any snark.
LOOK
"latte-sipping Independent",
THIS IS WHAT OBAMA AS OUR NOMINEE WILL LOOK LIKE, I DONT CARE IF IT BOTHERS YOUR GENTILE" SENSIBILITY.
... and wanted to throw up. Those are foul.
Unfortunately, there are issues that should affect an election (whether one candidate, who we'll call Al G., is much smarter and more qualified than another, say, George B.), and issues that do affect elections (who sighs too much during debates).
The issue of Reverend Wright is not the kind of thing that should affect the election, but it very well might. Obama doesn't deserve to have this be his downfall, whether in the primary or general.
Jeremiah Wright in particular seems to be getting a raw deal out of this. While the things in the clips are clearly egregious, the context of his life's work has been removed and he's been portrayed as a caricature. Even the folks who are supporting Obama on TV are distancing Obama from him. While I'm sure he understands that they're doing so for Obama's interests, it still has to hurt to watch your public reputation be hammered like this.
This is taking an interesting turn:
CHICAGO - The church attended by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) fought back Sunday against mounting criticism of its pastor, accusing the media of character assassination and "crucifixion."Otis Moss III, the current pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, used his pulpit to defend his congregation and its past minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., from a wave of controversy stemming from inflammatory statements made by Wright.
"We have listened and watched as the wonderful work of our church has been vilified this week," he told about 3,000 congregants on Palm Sunday morning. "This week should be special for us because I guess we know a little something about crucifixion."
The church also released a statement that began: "Nearly three weeks before the 40th commemorative anniversary of the murder of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."
Trinity, an 8,000-member church on the South Side of Chicago, came under intense scrutiny over the past week for statements made by Wright that harshly criticized American society as racist and blamed U.S. leaders for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Moss delivered a fiery sermon Sunday, defending the African-American church's right to speak out about social issues. He stressed Trinity's work in its still-impoverished community, mentioning the church's scholarship programs, drug counseling, SAT prep classes, and missions to Africa.
"Our very sanity is connected to the church. If it hadn't been for the church we would have lost our minds in the insanity of racism," he said, in a sermon titled, "Why the Black Church Won't Shut Up."
Lisa Lere and Mike Allen - Church accuses media of 'crucifixion' Politico 17 Mar 08
Things aren't always what they seem at first glance.
Raw deal?!
Wright said FDR lied about Pearl Harbor and by choice and actions ALLOWED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN BOYS TO BURN TO DEATH.
ON PURPOSE..
Wright said the US government created the HIV virus in order to purposefully cause a global genocide to kill tens of millions of people of color.
Wright said "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians .. and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
BTW, that chicken line is verbatim of what Malcolm X said about the "justice" of the murder of JFK you know.
The HIV/AIDS narrative is clearly bullshit. Take your pick of the others and I'll argue the position with a disclaimer on the FDR/Pearl Harbor one that it's not factually correct, in my opinion, but arguably persuasive of a broader truth.
While the HIV/AIDS narrative is a stretch, it comes within a broader, older context. Black people in America have been the subjects of unethical medical treatments, including well into the 20th Century. These kind of stories don't die easily, especially when coupled with the many other tragic and disgusting actions taken against this community throughout this country's history.
(See, for instance, the Tuskegee syphilis studies; forced sterilization of men and women).
This doesn't make Wright correct on the matter, of course, but in the broader historical context, the claims aren't actually that far fetched. And it's easy to see why people might believe them.
a stretch!?
context!?
aren't actually that far fetched!?
OH BOY!
Yeah a certain % of people are lunatics.
And it looks like a guy who thinks hes ready to run the planet calls one of them "his mentor'.
He can't win. Learn this.
Are you aware of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments?
http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
Are you aware of the intentional sterilization of African-Americans in this country?
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/?p=41
Rumors and innuendos are not a basis for political progress, but they often play a role nevertheless. When those rumors can be related to similar factual events, they grow in strength.
Black Americans have been subject throughout this country's history to nefarious medical situations. This is proven fact and the black community is well aware of it, even if you are not. So, when a rumor about AIDs starts to spread that isn't fact, it's easy to see why many people might believe it, based on past history. Is that so hard to understand?
I wasn't aware of any of those incidents. Shudder.
Shaun,
don't know if you'll see this, but somebody just put up a good diary on the topic over at dk:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/
105748/585/143/479899
I can just imagine the Republican operatives now fanning out to flea markets and garage sales throughout the Chicago area to complete their set of Wright videos, looking for the pearl: a pan to Obama and family nodding approvingly.
"I can just imagine the Republican operatives now fanning out to flea markets and garage sales throughout the Chicago area to complete their set of Wright videos, looking for the pearl: a pan to Obama and family nodding approvingly."
I am certain someone , somewhere, will have exactly what they need and sell it to them...
What I have never understood, from the very outset of this campaign, is just how badly Obama folk choose to deny reality.
For example, they persistently maintain that Senator Obama has an "insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead," but that is only real if Florida and Michigan voters, as their ballots were first cast, are not counted.
The Obama folk counter: "voters who cast ballots then knew their votes wouldn't be counted."
Really? Some four million Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida went to the polls just for exercise? Or to cast ballots in a meaningless "beauty pageant"?
The Obama folk's solutions to this disenfranchisment are equally hilarious: make them into caucuses (no less representative process exists; it is why Obama's traveling show of minions almost never goes the way of the primary in any given state--to wit, Texas) or split delegations 50/50, making the votes cast in those states insignificant.
Which then brings the rest of us bedrock Democrats to ask: Why, if Obama is the African-American JFK, does he not prevail anywhere in blue state America outside of his native Illinois?
Why, even in JFK's own Massachusetts and its demographically similar Rhode Island, is Obama being rejected by some 60% of that Democratic population? And with a full team of indigenous Kennedys behind him?
And why can't Obama do better than losing 83 of 88 counties in Ohio's Democratic primary--wherein he outspent Clinton by at least four to one, and had the support of every major Ohio newspaper except two?
And why shouldn't he have done better than 33% in Florida? Even if there wasn't a campaign there? All the names were on the ballot. And when Obama was riding high with a big win in South Carolina and the then new endorsements of several Kennedys. And this African-American JFK could still only muster an anemic 33% in Florida?
These results are realities. They aren't based on assumptions from any group of pollsters.
Need we point out another reality: just how badly wrong pollsters have been much of the year?
Consider, as just one example, the Obama-favoring John Zogby and his Wall Street Journal/NBC group, who stated that Obama was a shoe-in in New Hampshire, had surged past Clinton in California and Texas, and was "statistically tied" with her in Ohio--not any of which happened?
And now the Obama folk, ignoring actual primary results, really believe pollsters who tell us that Obama would still win blue state America? And against the social moderate John McCain, far more palatable to swing voters than ever was GWB?
And they ignore this reality: that in most of the major state primaries, from California to Florida and many states in-between, Obama has come in third in actual vote totals, behind both Clinton and McCain.
Someday, rather than bizarre pollsters, many times wrong this year, the Obama folk are going to have to face reality.
He shouldn't really need the support of almost all of the nation's broadcast media and newspapers if he is really the next JFK.
He shouldn't really need to outspend the Clinton campaign by four-to-one just to slice into her "once formidable" leads.
A man as inspiring and extraordinary as Obama has been painted by his suppporters, shouldn't really need to slash-and-burn his way through the Clinton element of the Democratic Party. Large segments of that element should be flocking to Obama, everywhere he goes.
But they are not. Blue State America, save for Illinois, has gone solidly Clinton. The two most important bell-weathers of the past several presidential cycles--Ohio and Florida--have already cast ballots solidly Clinton.
And that leaves the Obama camp where? With a delegate and popular vote lead, largely from the bizarre Howard Dean methodology of assigning proportionate representation to states, which has nothing whatever to do with the Electoral College map of choosing presidents? And where there are no Obama styled caucuses, either?
How is this supposed to work in the fall? If McCain wins any of Obama's Red State and Fringe state primary and caucus victories--even by one vote--McCain wins there. Proportionate representation matters not at all.
Likewise, if McCain actually bests Obama by just one vote in any blue or bell-weather state, McCain wins there also.
So, even before the obviously lethal implications of the Obama-Wright long affiliation, Obama goes to the Democratic Convention having lost all of blue state America, save for his native Illinois, and the two key bell-weathers, Florida and Ohio.
His case for the nomination is based on delegate totals from Red State and Fringe State America, and from proportionate representation elsewhere.
This, even though such an assignment of delegates, has nothing whatever to do with the Electoral College in November.
And the Democrats bypass Hillary Clinton, whose own primary wins, judged by that same Electoral College, would in fact make her the President?
And Party Elders bypass the proven Clinton path to the presidency--blue state America and key bell-weathers, in favor of Howard Dean's "proportionate representation," in Red and Fringe State America, instead?
Thus, the losers club--from Ted Kennedy to Bill Bradley to Howard Dean to John Kerry--are informing the last winners--the Clinton group--how to triumph in the 2008 presidential contest?
And even the obviously explosive implications of the Wright commentaries somehow elude the Obama enthusiasts.
Presumably they believe this because the MSM, ever in the Obama camp from the very outset, goes to bat for them once again and dismisses the implications.
Naturally the MSM now dismisses those implications. They would be destroying their own narrative. Obama is not yet the nominee. He was the tool of the MSM to first kill off the Clintons, then to insure McCain's victory.
But one can argue until one is bluer than normally blue-state America to the Obama folk.
They simply cannot see that reality.
As I have often reported on this blog: I am a lifelong Democrat and a lifelong Ohioan. I knew that Obama would never carry Ohio's primary, and I know he will never carry the state in the fall.
I do not need a pollster to inform me otherwise.
I know that when a candidate loses 83 of 88 counties--most with better than 60% margins--in the Ohio primary itself, that candidate is toast here in the fall.
I know this reality: one cannot carry the mantle of a Democratic nominee if Democratic state America has chosen someone else instead.
Contrary to the Obama enthusiasts, with their legendary band of cross-overs joining them, this is still the Democratic Party, and the candidate should reflect the preponderance of Democrats, not cross-overs and indies.
Aside from his obviously proud fellow African-Americans, Obama is not the choice of bedrock Democrats. That should be obvious by now.
When my northeast Ohio neighbors, a few of whom did vote for Obama, gather together to voice their disgust and fear over remarks by the Reverend Wright and collectively tell me that "if we're to be punished for being White, we'd better be voting for McCain in droves come this fall,"--then I know this reality--THAT STORY HAS LEGS.
THAT STORY HAS AN ARMY OF LEGS. A WHITE ARMY OF LEGS.
I do not need the MSM, always the apologists for Obama, to explain that the Reverend Wright's commentaries do not matter.
As John McCain and Hillary Clinton both acknowledged on primary election night in Ohio, "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation."
It is the state that has correctly selected the winner all but once in one hundred years.
The only Ohio selection exception: JFK, who had LBJ's then solid Democratic South to back him up--and it was still the narrowest of election victories.
And Obama does not have a solid Democratic South. That South was gone, oddly enough, with the Civil Rights Movement fostered by LBJ himself.
So, indeed, bear in mind that sobering reality: as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.
Contrary to pollsters, Obama wasn't going to win Ohio even before the Wright commentaries.
But with neighbors like mine now fearful of being "punished for being White," forget about Obama carrying Ohio in the fall.
And I do believe that as "Ohio goes, so goes the nation."
He is toast. That reality will come soon enough.
Hopefully it sinks in before the Democrats take their party to certain suicide in November.
'A white army of legs?' Is that the pearl of wisdom buried in your lengthy post?
Those arguments? What does 'white army of legs' actually mean? Did you understand it?
"largely from the bizarre Howard Dean methodology of assigning proportionate representation to states"
No, Dean screwed up MI and FL, but this was done previously. I don't know when it was done, maybe from the '72 reform, or maybe from the post-84 or post-88 Jackson demands.
Well, if you're going to make the specious (at best) argument that: Obama is the black JFK; therefore, Obama should somehow be inspiring the masses, like JFK; this should then translate into landslide election victories; but Obama is still just barely ahead; therefore, Obama is not the black JFK, so will lose. At least get your history right. Although the primary system was very different in 1960, Kennedy was dogged throughout the process by claims of youth and inexperience, and many old-line Democrats were against him (some even making the argument that he should be VP first, to gain experience). Although it seemed obvious going into the convention that Kennedy would get the nomination, it wasn't a done deal until the first vote. As you probably know, the GE in the fall was incredibly close, with JFK winning the popular vote by around a million votes (49.7% to Nixon's 49.5%). So I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison.
On to your more specific claims:
For example, they persistently maintain that Senator Obama has an "insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead," but that is only real if Florida and Michigan voters, as their ballots were first cast, are not counted.
If MI and FL are added, and Obama is awarded the uncommitted MI votes, he's still in the lead:
http://tinyurl.com/2e83qq
Which then brings the rest of us bedrock Democrats to ask: Why, if Obama is the African-American JFK, does he not prevail anywhere in blue state America outside of his native Illinois?
um, of states won by Kerry, Obama has won: ME, MN, WI, VT, CT, WA, DE, HI and D.C. You might not count them as blue, but they are and most of them have been for some time.
And why can't Obama do better than losing 83 of 88 counties in Ohio's Democratic primary--wherein he outspent Clinton by at least four to one, and had the support of every major Ohio newspaper except two?
If your argument is about electability in the fall based on the electoral college, what does number of counties won have to do with anything? Hillary won well in Ohio, but both are slightly behind McCain in polls right now, if that matters. I would hope that Ohio Democratic activists would work hard in the fall to support whichever candidate gets the nomination.
And why shouldn't he have done better than 33% in Florida? Even if there wasn't a campaign there?
I think even such a partisan as yourself must be honest in admitting that in every state in which he's actively campaigned, Obama has done an admirable job of closing Clinton's very large leads. The point of campaigning is becoming better known by voters. If the candidates aren't allowed to campaign, why not just go by the popular poll numbers last fall? Give the nom to Clinton and save all that money?
And they ignore this reality: that in most of the major state primaries, from California to Florida and many states in-between, Obama has come in third in actual vote totals, behind both Clinton and McCain.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'major' states, but based on standard Clinton talking points, I'll give it a shot (in millions): CA: Clinton, 2.5, McCain, 2.4, Obama, 2; NY Clinton, 1, Obama, .7, McCain, .3; NJ, Clinton, .6, Obama, .49, McCain, .3; MA, Clinton, .7, Obama, .5, McCain, .2; VA, Obama, .6, Clinton, .35, McCain, .25; OH, Clinton, 1.2, Obama, .9, McCain, .55, TX, Clinton, 1.4, Obama, 1.3, McCain, .7; IL, Obama, 1.3, Clinton, .6, McCain, .4.
I could go on, but basically, in the states Clinton supporters count important, the only one in which McCain beats Obama is CA, where, by the way, Dem votes combined beat Rep votes combined by over 2 million votes, so I have a hard time fathoming any argument that McCain will win there under any circumstances. So on this point, you are completely misstating the facts.
A man as inspiring and extraordinary as Obama has been painted by his suppporters, shouldn't really need to slash-and-burn his way through the Clinton element of the Democratic Party. Large segments of that element should be flocking to Obama, everywhere he goes.
I've already addressed your spurious definition of blue states, but to get to the question of Clinton's supporters flocking to Obama: 1) this is a very hard fought primary with deeply held passions, and at this point, neither of the candidate's core demos are flocking to the other, except, 2) how do you explain Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia?
And even the obviously explosive implications of the Wright commentaries somehow elude the Obama enthusiasts.
This has been addressed at greater length elsewhere, but a few thoughts. I'm willing to concede that this may turn out to be a bigger issue than many Obama supporters now believe, but I don't think this is going to fly in the general because of McCain's many connections to much more objectionable religious leaders. I think most of Obama's current crop of supporters see this for what it really is--a few nasty statements in a 20-year career that say little about Obama himself--and are unlikely to change their support. Additionally, when the general rolls around, many of the Dems who find Wright's comments completely offensive are going to see that they are not Obama's comments, and that Obama is a much better candidate than McCain. McCain is running on Bush's legacy and Bush is at 30% right now. There is no way he's going to make that up, even with all the conservative Dems and swing voters who might be put off by Wright's remarks and unable to see that they aren't Obama's remarks.
Contrary to pollsters, Obama wasn't going to win Ohio even before the Wright commentaries.
The wide circulation of Wright's remarks came after Ohio.
But with neighbors like mine now fearful of being "punished for being White," forget about Obama carrying Ohio in the fall.
I don't know what you're getting at here or where you're coming from but electing a black president is no more going to punish white Americans than electing a white will punish blacks or electing a woman will punish a man. Come on, and you say you're a Democrat?
And I do believe that as "Ohio goes, so goes the nation."
Sorry, I'm a Mainer. That's ours, and this time around it rings true once again.
peace
We're screwed if Obama gets the nomination.
4 more wars.
:(
This is the first thing that I've found in your diaries and comments that I disagree with:
"Folks, he can't win as our nominee in November. That ship has sailed.
But Hillary/Obama still can ."
This shit is bad, and it's going to get worse. I think that before this is over, Obama would sink the Democrats chances, no matter where he is on the ticket.
And if Obama thinks the GOP won't blanket the airwaves with this type of ad (or worse), he's living in a dreamworld.
Obama certainly knows what would greet him were he to get the nod, but he figures either: a) he can lose but he'll still have made history as the first black nominee, or b) he'll find a way to win somehow despite the odds (like, say a scandal or death ends McCain's candidacy and his VP is unviable). I think it's the epitome of arrogance. There's not one thought there as to the future of the Democratic Party, the AA community, minorities or the poor and working people in general, who would all be better off if Hillary is nominated and allowed to take the Presidency as polls are increasingly indicating she would.
Obama certainly knows what would greet him were he to get the nod, but he figures either: a) he can lose but he'll still have made history as the first black nominee, or b) he'll find a way to win somehow despite the odds (like, say a scandal or death ends McCain's candidacy and his VP is unviable). I think it's the epitome of arrogance. There's not one thought there as to the future of the Democratic Party, the AA community, minorities or the poor and working people in general, who would all be better off if Hillary is nominated and allowed to take the Presidency as polls are increasingly indicating she would.
That there's nothing at all that the right wing could make about Clinton that would make conservatives dislike her.
Oh wait, they wouldn't even have to do the work; the conservatives already hate her.
I swear some of you guys have the moral strength of wet newspaper. Oh no! They might be able to put out an ad mocking us! What will we ever do?
No wonder the Congress never shows any spine.
Wait until they get the photos of Bill Cllinton and Wright hugging or Bill giving Wright an award. I am sure they are out there, than they will put both Obama and the Clintons with Wright, but I also believe that there is a photo of Bush and Wright out there. That would really be funny. What would the repugs do then? It would be really funny if there was a photo of Bush giving Wright an award. If Wright is good enough for Bush??
Conservatives already dislike Clinton because she is the most aggressive in countering their entrenched interests (oil, war, gifts to Haliburton and other cronies, bigPharm, etc.). She won't be reaching too much across the aisle to cut deals, compromises and sell-outs with these interests when it goes against the interests of working people.
So Clinton is not that interested in trying to win over conservatives. Obama is, apparently, because he is trying to get Republicans and Indies to register Democrat-for-a-Day in PA, in a desperate effort to win at least one big state besides IL.
There is no end to what the wingnuts will do. This one is the most most hateful one I have seen yet.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mz83Oj9FXsw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mz83Oj9FXsw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
104 Comments