by Socraticsilence, Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EDT
The purpose of this diary is to facilitate a discusions that's been underpinning of sveral recent entries:
Are we doomed as a party? Basically, my question is that if this Wirght stuff ruins Obama's crossover appeal, adn if the Ferraro dog whistle ruined Hill among African Americans, have we in the last week committed mass suicide?
Or is this all just blog hype, Obama and Hillary both remaining viablility adn the seeming polarization only an online phenomenon?
by Socraticsilence, Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:53:29 PM EDT
The term vettign has been thrown around a lot lately, primarily by supporters of Hillary Clinton, the problem with demanding vetting is that once it starts you can't always control where it goes. This is certainly the case with the recent media attention to Hillary foriegn policy "experience" and given what has turned up in the last few days (see the following), one has to wonder whether Clinton's potemkin resume will even exist by the Pennsylvania primary:
Hillary a "cheerleader" in Irish Peace Talks, says Nobel Winner who actually led them: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht
Hillary's Resume is basically a puff piece:
And this doesn't evn get into the absurdity of claiming a trip to the Balkans as experience when it was basically a photo-op (though it is possible I guess that Hillary intends to nominate Sinbad DCI and place Sheryl Crow of the NSC).
by Socraticsilence, Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:07:41 AM EST
One of my favorite things about coming here is the feeding frenzy the Clinton supporter have when they attempt to smeat Obama, so I thought at this point I'd open it to my fellow Obama supporters, what crazy non-sensical hoax will they cook up next?
by Socraticsilence, Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM EST
Today Clinton Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, called the Obama campaign's request that Hillary Clinton release her tax returns for the post-presidency period (2001-2006) "imitating Ken Starr", this raise the following question: given Wolfson and Clinton's similar request in her 2000 Senate Campaign http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/lo
Are Hillary Clinton and her Campaign just amazingly audacious in their hypocrisy, or do they genuinely hold the Voters of America in Contempt?
This is frankly becoming a pattern with the Hillary Campaign, decry a tactic as unfair or a breach of ethics while engaging in it yourself:
-NAFTA: Where the story now appears to be that after recieving assurances from the Clinton camp that her remarks on NAFTA were just for show the Canadian Government contacted Goolsbee initiating a meeting where he supposedly said that Obama's rhetoric was overblown, but did mention that Obama wanted stronger labor and enviromental protections added to the agreement.
Healthcare Mailers: (one part of the "for shame" moment): Not only did Hillary's camp send out similar memos attacking Obama's healthcare plan, they also sent out deeply mendacious flyers distorting Obama's position on choice in NH.
NAFTA Mailers: (other part of the "for shame" moment): What do you know Hillary's camp sent out NAFTA flyers as well, only instead of actually citing quotes from their opponent praising the Agreement, Hillary's flyers carefully cut and pasted quotes to change the meaning and/or remove missgivings about NAFTA.
Given this I pose the following poll question: What explains the Clinton campaigns apparently massive hypocrisy?
by Socraticsilence, Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
Given Jerome Armstrong's recent post "Pennsylvania Forward", and its stated belief that an Obama lead in pleadged delegates is in effect a technicality. I thought I would present what I and a growing number of Obama supporters feel would be the outcome of overturning an Obama lead in elected delegates-- permanent minority party status. Quite simply, the one bedrock demographic of the modern Democratic Party is the African-American vote, they were the voting bloc that never waivered during Reagan (unlike blue collar dems), that never bought into the Bush fearmongering (unlike Suburban women) that stuck with us through thick and thin voting at with us at 80-90% clip, establishing a effective alternative political machine (the African American Churches) and gave us a bedrock upon which we can work to build a party.
After all this, the thought that we would metaphorically, ask the first viable African American presidential canidate to go to the back of the bus (give up the nomination with a lead in pledged delegates- make no mistake this is how this will be interpeted), is astonishing in its gall and unbelievable in its shortsightedness. I'm not going to mince words, if Barack Obama is seen as being robbed of the nomination, the Democratic Party as we know it will be destroyed-- we will become a permanent minority, as African-American voters either sit out, or quite possibly this year cast protest votes for Mckinney.
This is not hyperbole, this is the simple truth: a major decrease in African American participation would cost us Mizzou, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and quite possibly New York.
by Socraticsilence, Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
As it now appears that Hillary will stay in it until the convention, and there's no way that Barack will not be in the lead in pledged delegates every single day, the following question comes to mind-- did today clinch the election for John McCain?
If HRC had won massively in TX and OH then she could have concievably knocked Obama out with a similar win in PA, and if Obama had won either TX or OH then he could have knocked her out this week-- however since neither of these things occured it appears almost inevitable that Obama will enter Denver with a 100-150 lead in pledged delegates. The question then becomes-- what happens if the Supers swing it to HRC, or seal it for Obama?
Given how things are online (which tend to be a leading edge indicator) I have a very hard time imagining supporters of either canidate flocking to their opponent in the numbers necessary to beat McCain, which leads me back to my opening point, tonight quite possibly swung the election to John McCain.
by Socraticsilence, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:38:22 AM EST
Let us pretend that this primary season hadn't been transformed into an anomaly in modern American Politics (actually, upon further consideration this might not be the truth, the Clinton years may have spoiled us, and then what followed was in effect establishment dominance) and that the political conventions instead followed the normal ebb and flow (nominee long decided, etc.), given all that, and once again accounting for the convention bounce, why is our convention once again before the GOPs?
The DNC is in Denver August 25-28
The RNC is in Minn/St. Paul Sept. 1-4
I ask because, last time we in effect got caught in a trap where what ever we did was countered by the GOP-- Kerry, et al, celebrate the nomination and lay off Bush; the GOP goes full Zell Miller crazy! I guess I just don't get why we are once again having our Convention first (though I can't imagine it ever being as bad as 2004, when the GOP basically, and forgive my crassness but this was one of the few political--as opposed to policy-- things that made me angry enough to want to hit someone, they basically fucked the 9-11 dead for political gain, in a city that if Bloomie hadn't gone Uber-9ui11ani on protestors, might have burned MSG to the ground.)
by Socraticsilence, Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:49:29 PM EST
Given that Hillary's main argument is that she's "vetted" and that people on this site seem convinced that we must be aware of all possible right wing talking points against Obama, I was wondering what HRC supporters suggest should be said about Hillary's defense of a Child-raping Pedophile, and her attack on the monster's 12-year old victim?
Now, I will admit, that since she was court-appointed she has a very good defense here (I do this because unlike some HRC and Obama supporters here, I think that reasonable discourse should be preserved) but I ask you what would she say to those Americans who are obviously going to be disgusted by this?