The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I think that the majority of Hillary supporters on here are missing something very critical here, this is not the thing that you want to finish Barak Obama! If Obama loses because he has less democratic delegates-- that's cool African Americans, and the youth vote for the most part will accept that; if he loses ue to superdleegates--that's less cool most African Americans might sit out, and the youth vote is gone; if he loses due to Wright-- its over, the grand coalition dies.

What I mean is that if this is it for Obama, then we're done because there is no way Hillary is going to win after African-Americans declare a "blackout" and that's what's going to happen if the first viable African-American canidate for President is destoyed due to his memebership in a mainstream African American church (and it is mainstream, this is not the NOI, this is the church of Oprah and Tiger and Jordan, this is the church of the most accepted African Americans in this country). It is going to be, forgive my frankness, a slap in the fucking face, a blinking sign saying "Negroes you can vote for us, but you can't lead us!" So go on and cheer my friends, laugh it up as the Democratic party throws its most loyal voters under the bus, assume if you want that they'll still vote for you, and then act totally shocked when Mckinnney breaks 5% in IL, NY, and NJ, act dismayed when we lose WI, MO, and PA: all states where the party is behind until the late returns in the Urban precincts come in-- only this time, this time we'll wait and we'll say "just hold on", and nothing will come.

I can't really think of an analogy, that get's across what Democrats on this site are doing but I have one that is close-- this is like the GOP throwing Bush under the Bus due to his being a born-again christian; its that short-sighted and stupid. I beg you, I beg you my fellow Americans, my fellow Democrats, realize what you're doing, please understand that we are poised at the brink; situated on the edge of a precipice, not unlike where we were in 1964, and that our actions in the following weeks and months could lose us the black vote for a generation (ironiucally, at this point last year it was the FOP that was prepared to become a permanent minority party by writing off Hispanics) only this time there is no corresponding group we gain by doing the right thing, this time we appear ready to choose fear and ignorance and in doing so consign ourselves to the fate of the Whigs, the Jeffersonians, and the Wobblies.

[ As an aside this underlines one of the fundamental failures of the 2 party system-- its reliance on non-homogenous voting coalitions-- in a parlimentary system, AAs, Fundies, the Left, Moderates, Civil Libertarians, Neocons, Feminists, and the Free marketeers would be reperesented by a panalopy of parties, coming together when their shared interests demanded it, as opposed to being grouped in 2 camps where the inherent contradictions are either ignored, or suppressed in order to achieve some vague "goals" that kind of sort make them happy.]

Tags: African-Americans, Blackout, Hillary, obama, Wright (all tags)



Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

The end of Obama = the end of the party?  Very apocalyptic and dramatic.  And people say that the Clintons think they own the party.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-15 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party


If Obama lacks courage of not walking out of such a church even after knowingly spending 20 years with it, then that doesnt mean we all have to show lack of courage.

Will you submit to a group of people on the basis of fear? That is just a ridiculous thing to suggest.

Have some spine, some courage, some character. And remember many AA have that. They arent that bad as you are painting them to be.

by Sandeep 2008-03-15 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

 I will not be held to ransom. I will say I did not leave the party.. the party left me.
by gunner 2008-03-15 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Ah, the line used by Zell Miller...

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party
 No, it was Reagan
by gunner 2008-03-15 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Uh, I don't understand this diary, unless you think commentors on MyDD hold the key to whether African-Americans remain in the Democratic coalition.

If the polls don't move in response to this Wright business then what do you think will happen, Ted Kennedy switching his superdelegate vote because he's so offended?  The primary will continue to play out just as it has been, with Obama remaining the strong favorite.

On the other hand, if Obama were to suddenly drop 20 points in the polls as a result of this (just to take the matter to extremes), well then, I'll feel bad about what that says but the party is obviously not going to nominate a surefire GE loser.

I'll say what I said to another diarist last night who was advancing the same theme: make sure you put the blame where it belongs.  You can't blame faceless "Democrats" for failing to stand up and say hey, this is a mainstream black church and we see nothing wrong with it, when Barack Obama himself distanced himself from it with all deliberate speed.  Where are the elected black Democrats, people like Jim Clyburn, on this?  Are they sticking up for the institution of the black church?  If not, you can't put it all on white Democrats for failing to take a stand.   A lot of them simply have no clue what to think either way.

by Steve M 2008-03-15 04:53PM | 0 recs
Forget what alot think..

what do you think? How about starting there?

by Erik 2008-03-15 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget what alot think..

What do I think about what?  Rev. Wright?  The black church?  I have no quarrel with either.  It seems to me that if Rev. Wright truly is echoing the same themes heard in numerous black churches throughout the country, then people probably need to spend less time getting their panties in a twist and more time thinking about the reasons behind the rhetoric.

If people want to claim that Rev. Wright is preaching hateful or anti-American messages, it seems to me they need to think about whether his congregation is engaging in hateful or anti-American activities once they leave the church.  In fact, it seems to me that they're doing what they can, as Christians, to make their community a better place.  It seems to me that their "activism" involves activities no more dangerous than writing letters to their elected representatives.  To me, this is more of a testament to Rev. Wright's true message than any video could convey.  That's what I think.

by Steve M 2008-03-15 06:59PM | 0 recs
If Obama loses, it will be Obama's fault...

not mine.  

Tony Rezko was not my friend for 10+ years (remember:  Obama first said he only did 5 hours of legal work for Rezko....not quite truthful, was he?).

The Rev. Wrong was not my spiritual leader and I did not sit in a pew for 20 years listening to his hate speech.  (remember:  Obama said he is just like an old uncle...and he's retired, so what the heck.  WTF I say!).

So don't lay your pity party on me.  Not my fault!

by Shazone 2008-03-15 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

You do understand that Hillary is the first viable female candidate, and a superbly well-qualified candidate, and that women are the majority of Democratic voters, don't you? What you're saying to women (as well as what Josh and kos have already said to women) is, "we want your votes but we don't want you leading the nation. We'll take any guy - even one with no resume for the job - over a girl".

Over 60% of Clinton supporters are saying that they will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

Women make 53% of the Democratic voting electorate. In some states this primary season, they've turned out to vote for Clinton in numbers reaching 60% of the total electorate.

You can't afford to blow them off just because you don't want a chick in the White House. Obama losing isn't going to hurt the party at all. Obama winning and getting indicted for Rezko, or Jeremiah Wright pulling something, might very well hurt the party badly. But not him losing.

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

It all depends on how they treat each other in these coming weeks and how Hillary handles her loss of the nomination, should that occur.

She can heal the divide.  It's premature to decide what voters will do in November.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

She sure can heal. But I am not so sure about him if he can heal the divide.

by Sandeep 2008-03-15 06:13PM | 0 recs

Over 60% of Clinton voters say they won't vote for Obama?

Where in the Hell do you get your figures from?

And if that's true(which it's not), then there are some Eff'ed up people voting for Clinton that call themselves Democrats.

And your reasoning is.....nuts.

by Dave Dial 2008-03-15 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF??

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF??

Your response here is the type that's driving the antipathy. We have Obama himself assuming he's entitled to Hillary's voters but that Hillary's isn't entitled to his - that right there lost Obama a whole slice of voters because no one wants to be taken for granted by the candidate himself. Then you have diaries like the one above that do not recognize that women are the backbone of the Democratic party electorate and advise us to put our dreams on hold so that another man - and a less qualified one to boot - can be elected. Fuck that.

Clinton supporters don't want to be taken granted, and aren't interested in supporting a candidate who does not understand that her candidacy is even more historic than his, and more important to a bigger group of people.

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

here! here! I could not have said this any better!!!

by nikkid 2008-03-15 09:50PM | 0 recs
Well At Least its not another preemature

obituary diary for Obama

by CardBoard 2008-03-15 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Wooing super delegates is a legitimate part of the nominating process.  If it weren't, the rule would be that the leader in pledged delegates after all the voting would automatically be the nominee.  Both sides have supporters who will be heartbroken and angry, no matter what.  This could have all been avoided if Obama had just waited and gotten more experience in the Senate or as Governor. Hillary sat out 2004 because she knew it was too soon and needed more experience, so don't paint her or her supporters as the party killers here, it's Obama who jumped the gun and threw this race into chaos.

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-15 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

There's no rule that one has to wait to get a certain amount of experience.

Truman was mad because JFK didn't wait - and he won.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

So true.  But those who thought JFK wasn't ready were not being racist.

by Steve M 2008-03-15 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I have no clue why are you bringing up racism. I never said that people who thought Obama wasn't ready was racist and I don't think that they are.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Of course I don't think it's racist to point out that Obama has a weakness in the experience department.  But the rumblings about race really started back when Bill Clinton started aggressively challenging Obama's experience, so there you have it.

My point, which I accept may have been a bit elusive, was that I understand some black people may have been offended by Bill Clinton because they've heard that "you're not ready" message in their own lives.  But I still don't think that changes the fact that it's entirely common for up-and-coming politicians to be challenged on the basis of experience.  Obama faces criticism on this score just like JFK and Bill Clinton himself did in their day.

by Steve M 2008-03-15 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Was Truman running against Kennedy?  And there is no rule that says Hillary has to drop out before the convention, either.

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-15 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I never said that Hillary had to drop out. I just said that the claim that Obama should wait his turn was belied by the dynamics of the 1960 nomination fight.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Kennedy had been in Congress for twelve years. Obama has been in Congress for three. The two aren't comparable.

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

No one has to be in Congress for one day.  In the last 40 years, only one president had one day or more of experience in Congress and that had been a long time before.

(His name was George H.W. Bush.)

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

End of Obama=end of the party?

Are you serious?

Dramatic much?


by americanincanada 2008-03-15 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

How would you describe actions that could alienate around 25% of the party, and the 25% that is the most loyal at that?

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-15 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Half the party (those that are supporting HRC) was plenty alienated to begin with... in no small part due to the actions of the Obama campaign/surrogates.

Your "End of Obama= end of party" theory forgets that part.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

What actions by the Obama campaign?

by marcotom 2008-03-15 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama

All the misogyny that obama and his supporters haven't dumped on female Democratic voters - from, 1984 ad that Obama lied about, to the various remarks of his, to the harassment of female caucus goers.

Women make up over half of the Democratic electorate and Obama and his campaign have pissed all over women and the first viable female candidate again and again. Women, as a demographic group, may well not support him in blue states and cost us the election.

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama

What 1984 ad that Obama lied about?

And what harassment of female caucus goers? I was at a caucus and no one was harassed?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama

The 1984 as that his spokesman's roommate created and Obama lied and said he knew nothing about. That one. Dozens and dozens and dozens of reports of older women being harassed by Obama supporters at various caucuses around the nation.

The point is that you cannot demand that we support Obama because we'll lose African Americans if we don't, when pushing people to not vote for Hillary just to keep the AA community happy costs the Democrats an even bigger Demographic - women.

by Little Otter 2008-03-15 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I cannot answer your question without repeating a long litany of examples of slash and burn tactics deployed by Obama, his campaign and his surrogates.

Some examples include Jesse Jackson (she does not cry for black people), the MLK/LBJ flap ("go ask black people what they think"), the fairy tale episode..etc etc.

It is pointless to repeat the whole list, actually!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

The real potential damage may be revealed in the remaining states.  If this controversy erodes his support in NC, IN and PA he will be done in by most standards.

That is my hope.

I just don't see how he can win a general election when once the media turns and once the Republican machine takes over.

by BRockNYC 2008-03-15 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

She always stood a chance to win it. She is a 51-49 kind of candidate.

by Sandeep 2008-03-15 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I can't think of one race that Hillary has won 51/49, and she's won a ton of primaries and two Senate races at this point.  

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-15 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I'm not attempting to threaten anyone, I'm just stating what I view as a fact: if membership in a mainstream African-American church is a disqualifying factor, then there is no reason for African-Americans to remain a part of the Democratic Party. Think about it in some ways it would be like saying that Hillary Clinton's support for feminism means she can't be president.

This will be a good test to see which is really a bigger problem in society today, race or gender-- because there is nothing that Obama has done that is radical, so if being a mainstream African-American makes him a radical unacceptable to moderates, than the implication is that no Black politican is not a radical and thus that no Black pol can be accepted.

Also please note that I pointed out that if Hillary wins due to recieving more votes, than it'll be cool to most Obama supporters, superdelegates, while well within the rules smack of Aristocrats stepping in telling the voters that they're inferior.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-15 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Considering how well Obama did in Iowa today it seems like the party is not abandoning him, certainly not yet.

And on Sunday Speaker Pelosi will repeat on the Sunday shows that the winner of pledged delegates should be the nominee.  That will be a powerful signal to superdelegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

How do you square this with the simple fact that Obama is running away from Wright as fast as he can?

by dhonig 2008-03-15 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Obama's current support is from blacks and upscale whites.  He had to distance himself from Rev. Wright, or he would have distanced himself from upscale whites...

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

I understand that.  My question was why the Party running from Wright would be such a crime, if Obama is running from him?  For example, if a video shows up with Obama in the pews for one of those sermons, and THAT blows up Obama's campaign, how does it tear   up the Party, given that Obama himself has denied it?

by dhonig 2008-03-15 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

It is not a question of logic, or of a rationale!

"The most loyal segment of the democratic party" considers those statements to be mainstream, at least that is what I am reading.

The rest of the party probably thinks otherwise.

You can only satisfy the segment that you ditch, it is a crime.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

BS. It was not about distancing himself from anybody. As you and I and everybody with some kind of brain knows by now, the statements in question of Wright fundamentally disagree with Sen. Obama's worldview. That is what he repeated now and that is what was clear to anybody anyways.

by marcotom 2008-03-15 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

If it was solely about him disageering with Wright, then he would have distanced himself many many moons back!!

I do not believe that he did not know!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 06:46PM | 0 recs
Isn't it great?

I'd love to see the two-party system break into multi(three)-party system if that's the result of this primary fight. The old coalition of democratic party has barely won any presidential election, it is time for a new coaltion. Here's my dream:

1. Old Democratic party: 80% Obama AA supporters(Sharpson/Jackson etc) + white limousine liberals(Kennedy+Kerry).

2. New Centralist party: Other moderate AAs(Powell/Rice/Ford etc) + blue-collar whites + Hispanics + Asians + Jews + moderate/conservative democrats(Lieberman) + Moderate & liberal GOPers(Susan Collin, Lincol Chafee etc)

3. Old Republican party.

That's going to be an exciting relignment. The current coalition of the democratic party is a forced marriage, if it can't win this election, time to break it up for good!!

by prisonbreak 2008-03-15 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it great?

That's a scary concept...

by Check077 2008-03-15 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it great?

Why is this a scary concept? The conflict of each faction within the old coalition is a reflection of their different value system. White blue collar dems voted for Reagan by big numbers; Hispanics and Married women voted for George Bush by big margin 2004, which gave him a percentage of over 50%! The Nader faction abandoned Al Gore, which gave Bush a win.

I'm dreaming to be aligned myself with the centralist party because i can't aligh my value system with party 1) or party 3). If enough liberal Republicans join this new coalition, this centralist party may well become a ruling party in 2012/2016.

The old democratic party has not won many presidential election, time for sth new!

by prisonbreak 2008-03-15 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it great?

The "Old Democrats" would either fall in with the Greens or just not vote.  The system won't be able to sustain three parties for long.

by ejintx 2008-03-15 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it great?

why not? Is it time for the end of two-party system? If you marginlize party 1) and party 3), we may well have a permanent ruling party!

by prisonbreak 2008-03-15 07:06PM | 0 recs
2-party system is inevitable

Because of winner-take-all elections, it's nearly impossible to have more than two national parties that have any chance of assembling a ruling government.

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-15 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it great?

I like that. I feel if Hillary is the nominee, she will pull the point #2 (New Centralist party)votes.

That will be a bigger coalition in my opinion though we will have to run a poll to verify that.

by Sandeep 2008-03-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-15 05:31PM | 0 recs
I agree that things do not look good

I agree that a division within the democratic coalition is almost certain.  I do not agree with you that this is due to the Rev. Wright affair.

The division started the day Jesse Jackson Jr. accused HRC of racial preferences in her tears, and the "most loyal segment of the party" (as you put it) cheered that on.  Obama's supporters seemed to have forgotten that HRC also had significant coattails ~ both HRC and Obama were representing nearly equal sized communities within the Democratic party.  The two could have been very effective as allies ~ as enemies, they cannot win..either one of them.

As things stand; Obama cannot win, and he does not deserve to win.  Clinton cannot win, and she does not deserve to win.

Obama cannot win because his supporting coalition consists of blacks and upscale whites, and that was before the upscale whites heard of Rev. Wright (I wonder how much of that he will bleed).  Obama does not deserve to win because he was given several opportunities to expand his coalition ~ a little generosity towards HRC and her supporters would have probably done it; instead his surrogates went on a slash and burn mission: (a) she is a racist, (b) she will stoop to anything, (c) why does she want to destroy the party etc. etc.

Clinton cannot win because her support does not include the "most loyal segment of the democratic party".  Without that, and with a united Republican party, she will not have the numbers.  And she does not deserve to win because ...

well, who can ever deserve to win in this sick affair ?

Perhaps some good will come of it in the long run:  The rest of the country will now start to question black folks about what exactly goes on in their churches every Sunday (if, as you say, Rev. Wright was part of the norm). Maybe that dialog will have been worth all this.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

That's just what we need.  White people questioning black people about what goes on in their churches -- as if they had any moral or constitutional right to do so.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

The US has constitutional protections for what people say and do in church. Personally, I think that's a pretty great part of the constitution.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

There is also the small matter of not misusing your tax exempt status... that is also great!!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

What precisely did Wright say that scared you? Did he say McCain and Obama had passed the commander in chief threshold and Hillary hadn't?

by pitahole 2008-03-15 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

Okay, let us see..

(a) questioning your opponent's qualification is not hate speech

(b) voluntarily attesting to a potential opponent's qualification is not hate speech

(c) US KKK of A, God-damn A, US made the AIDS virus for black people.... those are all examples of hate speech.

But if you did not understand that before, then I doubt you will understand it now

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

Heh, you are questioning my understanding?

a)  Correct. Questioning your opponent's qualification is not hate speech. However as a true democrat, you should be afraid if one dem candidate does it to another dem candidate (whom in all likelihood will be our nominee come Denver) by propping up the Rep candidate at the same time. Just. Not. Done. Period.

b) see "a" above

c) KKK of A probably too extreme. God-damn America - well he's an American who feels slighted by his country. Remember USA dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent people in WWII and we've f*cked up Iraq for it's people for the foreseeable future. So yeah, we dropped the ball so don't poop your pants if someone calls us out on it. Dunno about the AIDS virus for black people thing, where's that from?

Now, let's see whether you can understand something:

Obama has won the most votes, the most states and the most delegates thus far under the rules set by the DNC and agreed to by all candidates at the beginning of this race. Obama will continue to increase his superdelegate gains. Obama will in all likelihood be the dem nominee after the Denver convention. Obama will campaign for President of the USA and will be expecting your vote in November.

by pitahole 2008-03-15 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

I knew there was a good reason I was questioning your understanding...

(a) As a Democrat (true or otherwise), I consider it part of the democratic process when one candidate questions the credentials of another.  Anything else would scare me !

(b) As a Democrat (true or otherwise), I also applaud when one candidate applauds the credentials of a political opponent.  

(c) I do not care for your history lesson.  Everybody has their own beef with history.  And as to the AIDS virus thing..that is from Rev Wright.

Finally, I do not care for your math.  Yes, I can see that he has the "mostest" delegates, the mostest votes and the mostest cash, and the mostest chancee to be the democratic nominee.  So what ??

Under the current set of circumstances, he also has the mostest chance to lose in a landslide, and failing that...the mostest chance to be a disastrous President.

But, you don't really care for that part, do you ?  All you want to see is for your guy to win !!

PS:  As to whether he can expect my support in November... I do not offer my support to people on a whim and a fancy.  I make them earn it...and so far, your guy has not done so!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

LOL, suit yourself.

by pitahole 2008-03-15 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

I did not say "white"...I said "rest of America".  I am not white myself, btw.

And yes, if you tell me that the hate language of Rev. Wright is within the norms (and that is indeed, what many peopel are saying), then YES, I do have a  moral right to question what happens in the black churches.

And yes, I do have a constitutional right as well...there is an obscure federal agency called the IRS, which gets upset when a tax-exempt status is misused.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree that things do not look good

Good for you!!

In my opinion, the function of a church is to postulate theories on the origin of life, the universe and everything, and to decide on the appropriate value of Pi.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

This premise and diary are beyond belief stupidly wrong. The end of the party would be to ignore Obama's negatives, nominate him, and have him lose the election. The right thing is for the SDs to go to Hillary so she becomes the nominee so she can go on to win the election which she certainly will do.

The raison d'être for the SDs is to ensure the party has a viable candidate. It's quite clear Obama has too many negatives to be seen as a viable candidate so if the SDs play by the rules, Hillary will be our nominee. Fail to do that and the party will be a shambles.

Black Christians in this country by and large do not identify with Black Liberation Theology (see James H. Cone on since the precepts embodied therein are horribly racist and anti-American.

Yes, fellow Dems, Obama is done. He never should have been a candidate. If anyone in the media had bothered to do any vetting, he never would have been. It's sad that they are only just now getting to it but they've only scratched the surface. Obama has no chance, never had any chance, but not because he's black or black/white. Race and color should be irrelevant by now. As Bill Clinton said recently, I'd love to be able to vote for a black candidate but as MLK said, a man should be judged by his character and not by the color of his skin.

What we need to do is get behind Hillary and do all we can to help her win in November. Black Democrats will need to get over their disappointment with losing a chance to vote for a black man for president. They need to know they'd be far better off with Hillary than they will with John McCain. Truth be known, they'd be better off with Hillary than with Obama anyway.

by Nobama 2008-03-15 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Your premise is wrong, in that Hillary Clinton's negatives are higher than both Obama's and McCain's.

There are some charts showing that here

by politicsmatters 2008-03-15 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

LOL! The "charts" don't reflect any of Obama's recently discovered negatives. Give it a rest. He's done.

by Nobama 2008-03-15 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

Um, wow the "majority of black people" I'm going to need to see some proof of that, also I really want to here your magic theory on how Clinton wins when she's hated by republicans, lothed by artound 60-70% of Indies and probably would make 20-30% of dems sit this one out?

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-15 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The end of Obama= the end of the Party

"Black Democrats will need to get over their disappointment with losing a chance to vote for a black man for president. They need to know they'd be far better off with Hillary than they will with John McCain"

And if Obama wins I take you'll suck it up and do the same and vote for him?

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-15 09:04PM | 0 recs
So what are you looking for?

Are you expecting the HRC campaign to send out surrogates to all of the Sunday morning talk shows to defend Wright and the outrageous statements he made? Even Obama wouldn't do that. Here's a newsflash for ya. If you think that the end of Obama is the end of the Democratic party, and you're looking for someone to blame for that, look in the mirror. Obama himself obviously knew how controversial Reverend Wright would be if some of his incendiary sermons were made public. He obviously knew there were more to his Rezko dealings that were going to become public. A lot of people who weren't particularly partisan were pretty much beaten down and drummed off of some of the blogs for expressing concern that there might be things about Obama that we didn't know, and they might hurt the whole party if/when they came out. Those comments from Wright are probably going to have their greatest influence on moderate, middle of the road voters, who are going to take a step back and reassess their opinion of Obama. So if the party is destroyed, don't blame those of us who tried to ask honest questions, and got flamed into oblivion for it. You can lay the blame at the feet of Obama, and a small band of his supporters who have gone out of their way to squelch any question or criticism that might have mitigated this disaster to some extent.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-16 06:12AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads