He sounds more presidential than all the others combined. An amazing speech. Count me as a new supporter. (Sorry John Edwards.)
Comments are closed.
[…] Obama’s Victory Speech He sounds more presidential than all the others combined. An amazing speech. Count me as a new supporter. (Sorry John Edwards.) […] […]
Magnificent! Absolutely one of the best political speeches I’ve seen in decades. It really is worth the 12 minutes of time it takes to watch all of it. It isn’t just the words: the body language, the cadence, the passion, all show this man is a winner.
He’s got my vote.
He shore talks purty, don’t he?
But if making good speeches was all it took, we would elect an actor as President
This is the Barack Obama of the powerful uplifting 2004 DNC keynote address. This is the speaker who made the hair on my arms stand on end. This is the first African-American president of the United States.
As a 34 year old, I can honestly say that is the best political speech I have ever seen that wasn’t a recording of Ike/FDR/Kennedy.
Even if all the man can do is talk, he would still be about 1000% better than the inarticulate goon who currently inhabits the white house.
Part of the brilliance of the speech was that he made it look presidential by being alone on the dais instead the usual which looks like the candidate is the spokesperson of a mob
Welcome aboard, converts!!!
Gobama, Gobama, Gobama!!!
Looks like somebody’s got a crush on Obama.
Well, okay, I’ll join the party and switch my allegiance from Gravel.
Edwards is still my candidate, but I will get behind whichever of the three Democrats is nominated.
Obama’s strength has been, from the get-go, the ability to articulate Democratic themes, in ways that get them to sink in to your bones. He communicates beautifully. He gets you to listen. Similar to Clinton’s strength, he can “make the sale” for whatever he’s selling.
This is not a knock. I’m not trying to damn with faint praise — it’s an essential skill in a President’s toolbox, and some got it, and some don’t. Obama not only has it, but he has it better than just about anyone else. When he gets in front of the American people to make the case for his policies, or against the Republican approach, he’ll make it.
I still worry that he’ll be too eager to compromise, too slow to realize that it’s a knife fight, too quick to run to the center when the country is really to the left of center right now…..but I’m willing to be convinced, and I’m willing to hope (I’ll refrain from saying I’m willing to have the audacity of hope — I’m not a fanboy yet).
I think Edwards would be the best President, and the toughest fighter — I’m still for him.
But damn…..that Obama speech was really incredible….
The problem is when you ignore his speeches and look at his proposed policies. I have less and less confidence that he has the ability to pull us out of the coming economic recession. He will be Hoover all over again.
I mentioned this on another thread last night, but put aside for a moment how brilliant the speech was and how well it was delivered. Look at how the Obama campaign staged his speech compared to the others. They brought him up with the “First Family” and then left him alone on stage in what was clearly NOT a hotel ballroom.
Shorter: To: Edwards, Clinton campaign: Joo r pwned.
Wow, Fountainhead, I wish I had thought of that.
I think it’s his to lose now. I can live with that. He’s probably my second choice (assuming Dodd never had a chance), and I think he would be a good President. Considering what he would be following, he’ll look like the new FDR.
I’m curious – I can’t watch this speech til I get home (YoutTube blocked at work), but judging from the reactions from the pitch black hearts of Balloon Juiceers, it sounds amazing. Will the Old Media give it airtime? Will the rest of America see this amazing speech, or will it be relegated to the Internets?
The Great Communicator!
As a proud librul, I watched the speech and am probably in the minority in Dem circles but I still don’t “get” Obama. This speech did nothing for me. I still see a cautious candidate saying pretty much nothing time and time again.
Yes, the production values of the speech were very top notch. Getting Michelle and the kids up there was an obvious move–note how Mrs Huckleberry was nowhere to be seen last night. Chuckles Norris was up there but no wife. Interesting.
Again, I’m in the minority I’m sure. Nothing Obama says or even how he says it moves me. Edwards otoh. Sigh, he’ll never make it out of January.
maxbaer (not the original)
It would be nice to have an English-speaking president. Or any language for that matter.
I loved Obama’s speech but am still an Edwards fan. Kos points out below the national implications of last nights results. Net result – Republican immolation come November.
Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
Percentage of total vote
11.4% Huckabee (R)
Our 3rd place finisher would trounce their “winner”. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
I call this Eeyore Syndrome. Some people just like to have the little black rain cloud follow them around.
Sorry, Jay, missed that you’d already touched on that. Hadn’t had my coffee yet…
From a chart in today’s Boston Globe showing past results from Iowa:
Tom Harkin 76%
Paul Tsongas 4%
Bill Clinton 3%
I wouldn’t take last night’s results as final just yet.
Obama sounds great — but he ignores political reality. Its all well and good to talk about bringing America together, but as we’ve seen for the last two years, the GOP has no interest in compromise, and is bent on utter obstruction of the Democratic agenda. And regardless of who the next Democratic president is, the media will be out in full force to destroy their presidency.
So, I’m still an Edwards supporter, because Obama will get rolled by the GOP and “blue dog” Democrats — and Edwards will stand up to him.
Unfortunately, I don’t see Edwards adopting an effective “counter-Obama” strategy. Edwards needs to challenge Obama on his ability to achieve change, rather than just inspire people. (For instance, Edwards should attack GOP obstructionists in Congress, then ask Obama at the next debate to name 10 moderate Republican senators.) But Edwards seems to be trying to knock out Hillary — that’s just dumb, because Hillary isn’t going anywhere.
Yes, Bill Clinton lost both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in ’92, yet still won the nomination. Hillary however is no Bill Clinton.
In fact, if you can compare any campaign to Bill’s ’92 campaign it’s Obama’s.
It may not be that. Some are upset that Obama isn’t partisan enough, or that he doesn’t seem to be out for blood and revenge. I’m not sure if Obama’s “bipartisanship” is just naivate, or if he means something other than cooperating with the opposition party (like appealing to their voting base for support).
I still believe the first African-American POTUS will be a Republican. I don’t think this country is ready for a liberal Black man, and especially not a liberal black woman. The Dems will do what they normally do and fall back on electability. As Clinton becomes more volatile, I see Edwards gaining momentum.
I guess I’m just tired of the constant platitudes and sanctimony–the tired and directionless use of the word “hope” or the vague use of “change”. How about the naive use of the word “unite”? I’m also tired of the personality cult.
I read this elsewhere this morning but it’s stuck with me “Obama is Hillary with different packaging and less baggage.” At one level, he’s awe inspiring but also a bit like Chinese food. Actually, his ability to increase turnout is awe inspiring. Can that be done on a national level?
Now, that being said, I simply want my country back. If it’s Obama who does that, more power to him. I just have the sneaking feeling that he’s gonna turn out to be another Dem bringing a knife to a gun fight should he become president. The only way to deal with the Modern Republican Party is to crush them into irrelevance and nothing Obama says suggests he’s into crushing. No More Mr Nice Guy to quote a sage of our times, Alice Cooper.
If you thought they insulted Kerry with fake purple bandaids, wait to see how many Oreos show up on the campaign trail. Should Osama make it all the way, I think the Rs will do everything short of a burning cross to remind the nation that he’s just A Silly Negro.
Oh, so this is a fun statistic on DKos regarding the total caucus participation:
So in Iowa, at least, Democrats win. Period.
Only if you count what they “normally do” as being what they did in 2004. You’d still have to account for major exceptions like ’92, ’84, and ’88. In fact, you’d need to discount nearly every election in recent history other than 2004.
They’ll do something like that to whoever wins on the Donkey ticket. If the Clagina is the nominee, expect some chunky brunette in a beret and a stained blue dress to appear at all her campaign rallies. If it’s Edwards, expect to see them waving bottles of Breck shampoo.
The GOP invented rat-fucking and push-polling.
It’s what they have instead of ideas.
And not just him. If you read this piece by a guy who worked the ground in WI in 04 for Kerry trying to target independent voters, you’ll get a very different view of things:
Scroll down to “A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists.”
Also, let’s not overlook the fact that basically what Obama’s done in Iowa is get a bunch of Republicans and “independents” to show up at an OPEN Dem caucus by saying things soothing to Republican ears. Can anyone say “Joe Liebermann”?
I don’t doubt that they’ll try, but aside from assuming that the majority of Americans are racist, or tolerant of such open displays of racism, why think it will have much impact?
I think it’s safe to discount those things. This is not the Dem party of the Clinton era.
In other words, your generalization about what Democrats “normally do” is based on one instance, which makes your prediction about how they’ll behave baseless.
No. Even the loopiest of the cheereos at the Republican HQ wouldn’t step into that bear trap. The Sisters of Perpetual Victimhood are far more likely to play the “Why is America Racist Against Old White Republican Nominees?” and drum up the whinefest over how people are being tricked into voting for an inferior politician just because he is black.
They’ll also play up Obama’s extensive Muslim Heritage. Expect a lot of re-airings of The Manchurian Candidate and open speculation among pundits at how some middling state legislature who just happens to have a name that sounds like America’s #1 Enemy managed to become Dem Presidential Nominee. The Obama-Osama connection will be played up ad nauseaum.
But while some of the more thick-witted Republican Ops might break into “Barak the Magic Negro”, the real emphasis will be on the fearmongering of what an inexperienced, madrassa-attending, weak-kneed ultra-liberal will do to homeland security at the height of the most Epic Conflict Of Our Time.
See the Chris Hayes piece I listed above.
I live in a virulently red area of Missouri and sure, the Rethug crackers here are pretty much what you would expect in terms of their view regarding anybody not white. But you get people with no particular political affiliation together at a social function and get the booze flowing and you’ll discover that “crypto-racist isolationists” know no party boundary.
Ugh, I’m starting to sound like an “electability” person. Shoot me now.
Am I supposed to believe they are not also sexist? OR that they would vote for Hillary?
Anybody who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, won’t be voting Dem anyway.
For me, Scott, what Obama brings is class and charisma without the taint of contingency fee lawyering or the Clinton franchise. What this country needs is someone that can transcend a Limbaugh parody, which makes the issues take precedence over dismissive cartoonishness.
When a state that is so white that it makes Edgar Winter look like Miles Davis can get behind a man named Barak HUSSEIN Obama it takes alot wind out of the superficial negativity that most Americans are sick of.
I don’t doubt that they’ll try, but aside from assuming that the majority of Americans are racist, or tolerant of such open displays of racism, why think it will have much impact?
you underestimate the depths to which the far right will go… for instance, just like they have actively encouraged/funded Nader and the Green Party, you can expect to see the emergence of “splinter” groups of black people who will be the ones showing up with the Oreos.
Zifnab’s prediction is probably the more likely scenario, but I don’t think the fact that race-baiting will backfire on Republicans to stop some of them from using it. I expect the nominee and his campaign to refrain from it, but I don’t expect all the rank-and-file in the GOP will be able to hold back their true feelings on the matter, and when the dams finally do burst into the national media, it’s going to hurt them electorally.
Of course you do.
Now, look, loser. It’s awfully nice of you to come and try to play concern troll, and you do a very good job of it. Now, here’s some feedback. If you’re a spoof — which I didn’t suspect before, but now do believe — you’ve descended into mere stupidity, and it’s time to bail. If you’re real, then you need to shut up and do some investigation for a while.
Coming as I do from a family where I’m the only educated member who isn’t racist, I have no illusions about the prevalence of racism among the American electorate. I’m simply leery of overestimating its influence, because I think most of those people wouldn’t vote for a Democratic presidential candidate anyway, and because Obama’s cross-party appeal would be more than enough to offset the small losses suffered from such people defecting.
That little fact is probably gonna get thrown around a lot by Clinton and her supporters the next couple days, but there’s a few things to keep in mind:
1) Harkin was a senator from Iowa
2) Nobody campaigned there because of 1
3) Bill was in a completely different situation coming into Iowa and NH
4) Hillary is not Bill.
No, it’s based on the actions of the party since Bush took office. The party has changed significantly from a proud party of blue collar ethic to one of fear of losing to the modern Republican’s. Fear and paranoia drive this party now. Look at this very comments section. It seems that Dodd is the man of choice for his ability to stand up when no one else has. That appears to be the ideal, yet the three front runners have done no such thing. Edwards and Obama are floating on charisma (which is not an easy task) and there is very little love for HRC in Dem circles.
I didn’t say nor imply that. I’m saying is that you’ll find a lot of people, Dem or independent, who *still* are not ready to vote for a woman or black man to be president. Live a decade plus in a rurl area of Flyover Country and you’ll see what I mean.
That’s true but again, doesn’t go far enough.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the Edgar Winter/Miles Davis analogy in a state like Iowa is correct. But having lived where I’ve lived, I’ve learned never to underestimate the power of closet bigotry in this country. The same fear card that the Rethugs have played since 9/11 will be played again, only this time it’ll be to fear “that black guy over there”. You should hear what these people say when drunk. It’ll send baaaaad shivers down your spine.
Ah what the hell: Gobama.
I’m still holding out hope for Edwards, but if he doesn’t pull off a real surprise in NH he’s probably doomed. Watching Obama’s performances really does give me some cause for optimism–despite the way it looks like he’s going to get mugged by the R’s from the minute he becomes the presumptive nominee, all the way through his presidency.
The resaon I haven’t been onboard the Obama bandwagon is (of course) that meeting the crazy halfway still leaves you, well, crazy. But I think I see a ray of hope; the die hard Limbaugh/Hannity/24%’ers aren’t gonna compromise under any circumstances, but if Obama manages to charm the socks off the mushy middle that fell for the “there are some questions about Kerry’s service”-folks he might just marginalize the batshit insane and actually move this country forward.
My apologies for using so many Obama catch-phrases and feel-goodisms, but if that is his strategy it is at least one worth attempting–and worth accomplishing.
However I wanna see alot of these current GOP bastards do hard time. Go Edwards.
Cassidy, your prediction was that the Democrats would decide their nomination according to electability, they way they “normally do.” The fact that you want to only include presidential elections since 9/11 doesn’t change the fact that your generalization is fallacious. Try reading this, and understand that the point is not simply about your intention to denigrate Democrats, but is also about your poor argumentation.
Not flawless though. The bit towards the end about remaking the world into what you want it to be reminded me of the Project for a New American Century.
The best bit was him saying “I know you didn’t do this for me.” Almost like he realizes people elect politicians because they expect them to do a job for them. That’s either splendidly quaint or a remarkable new idea.
Overall, Iowa seems to have been a success, although I would have preferred to see Dodd get more support. 0.02%? No credit for filibustering the telecom bill? Damn.
The Democrats that I hoped would finish 1-2 finished 2-1 instead, which I can live with, and I can even be happy for Mike Huckabee. I’m going to take the narrative that he won in Iowa for his good points and got creamed later on for his bad ones. Him calling out the Republicans for how they treat evangelicals may have been the turning point of the campaign, even moreso than last night.
They know better than to let the white-sheets and hoods crowd play the race card, it will be much more subtle.
Expect some bought and paid for black “leaders” to be expounding on the “Obama isn’t black enough” meme, or something similar. But whatever the meme is, the race attacks will come from some of the GOP’s “house negroes,” not the Klansmen. The “Swiftboat” attacks on Kerry came from veterans, not chickenhawks.
Expect Trent Lott and his ilk to be saying “race doesn’t matter.”
That’s exactly what most non-blogging Americans – the majority – are sick of, Scott.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma, and I’m still not convinced. What else have you got?
And this is what I spoke about in earlier threads. I’ve attacked no one. I’ve said nothing out of line to anyone. Yet, you can’t seem to argue against me without resorting to some sort of personal attack. So, kindly go fuck yourself. I’ve expressed an opinion and will continue to do so, regardless of your input. If anyone needs to shut up, it’s you and your silly naivete that the common voter will transcend simple sound bites.
And I’m simply leery of underestimating its influence. I doubt we’ll convince each other to think otherwise at this point in time.
Should Obama get the nomination and win the general, I’ll concede the point. But not until then.
Did someone say “I like pie?”
It’s not just one election. It’s also this Primary, where the electability climate is already forming, as well as the smaller elections in between. As I said, it’s the total actions of the party since Bush took office. The party, as in the people doing the voting, are scared of losing. In the end, they will vote for whomever they have to to keep that from happening.
Heaven forbid someone doesn’t jump on the bandwagon here. Nice to see so many new Obama supporters. I guess he’s more electable than your first choice, which appears to be Dodd.
Fire, meet stoker. Move over Gay Marriage, here comes Half n’ Half to take all yer white money and give it to the thugs. Repeat commercial over and over.
Scott, I’ve read through the Chris Hayes piece (at least down to the portion on crypto-racists), and I’m what he’s talking about isn’t black vs. white racism, but more a form of xenophobia. Some of the folks Hayes is describing, ceteris paribus, might vote for Obama because he’s promising to get the US out of Iraq.
Once again, I don’t doubt the racists are out their, but I’m skeptical of their ability to influence a national election.
I’m mangling the English language worse than Bush today.
I think yuo’d find a lot of Southern Democrats are still uncomfortable voting for a woman or a black man. They may do so anyway, but it won’t come natural.
The could affect a close vote in swing states, but only if they would normally vote Democratic.
Also, don’t forget that Harold Ford was one of the few losers in the 2006 Democratic tsunami.
Cassidy, I suspect that the reason many people don’t like you here is that you consistently make arguments based on flimsy reasoning, always at the expense of Democrats. Many people might simply assume that you’re incapable of being reasoned with. I don’t know whether that’s true, but if one assumes that it is, it becomes pointless to do anything other than ignore or ridicule such a person.
I like pie too!
I’m carrying on an email conversation with an old friend who worked on Darth Cheney’s staff several years back and who voted for Kerry in 04:
“I think Obama is playing is smart by not saying anything until he actually has to. The first key is to make Amerikuns comfortable with him and not say anything that can be remotely interpreted as being too “scary”.”
In his view, Obama acknowledges exactly what I see around me every day. In that case, Obama’s approach *is* the wise one. And as he puts it, Clinton has more negative baggage than any black man in America. I can’t disagree with him on that.
But, I remain skeptical. If Obama turns out to be *the* change agent in this country, more power to him. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
Yes, and although I think appeals to racist sentiment played a role in his loss, he also lost in a place that is heavily Republican. He was, in fact, running as a Republican-Lite, which also didn’t help him.
As they’ve done already via Bob Kerry and the repulsive Daniel Pipes. If Clinton goes there, and I’m sure she will, it will defuse the potential effect of a similar tactic in the general.
I live in Dallas, so I’ve heard from a lot of crypto-racists (though, ironically, more of them visiting a blue-collar suburb of Pittsburgh than in Texas), and the most common refrain boils down to “There’s black people, and then there’s n—ers.” They hate people who sound like Al Sharpton; they hate people who look like Oprah. But an immigrant’s son who’s not too dark and speaks in an educated manner? That’s not what they’d call a “n—er” and many of them will bend over backwards to demonstrate that they’re fine with black people as long as they’re the “right kind.”
Scott, what your friend is describing just sounds like good politics. Huckabee has already made the mistake of saying things that most Americans will find to be too scary, and that’s why he’s going to flop in places like New Hampshire.
Demi, while I hammered Cassidy in another threat, this time he’s right about the attack on person instead of subject. To be honest, I lean toward agreeing. I keep reviewing the fact that just about every time a black man (or woman) runs in a predominately white culture the final results are lower than what every poll said they should be – by a statistically significant range.
Yea, it happened to Kerry. But it’s the NORM for non-whites in white dominated areas. It’s also the norm for blacks in hispanic dominated areas. There’s a lot of excitement for Obama, but I’m not sure it’s going to carry all the way through the season.
On the other hand, if he does win the nomination I have absolutely no doubt he’ll be the president. I’m convinced that none of the Republicans can win given the twin anchors of Iraq and the economy, both chained firmly to their ankles by the current administration.
In a rare instance, I’m going to agree completely with Cass. IF they vote for Obizzle, which is a BIG if, they’ll do so holding their nose and admitting to no one that they did. Southern Dems are really just Republican-lite.
By which I meant I hope I’m wrong about my very pessimistic view of how bigotry and race relations impacts how people vote, regardless of party affiliation.
I gives a fuck, to be perfectly honest.
There, got that one fixed. My opinions are based on human behavior, plain and simple. We’re walking, talking monkeys who tend do things in patterns. Group pressure is almost always more likely to succeed than individual thought.
If you can’t have a conversation without resorting to personal attacks, that’s your baggage.
Demi’s attack on Cassidy was unprovoked in this particular thread, but if they have a history, I expect Cassidy’s terrible argument would be disconcerting. It certainly struck me.
Absolutely. The key for the Dem candidates is not the National Election. Kucinich could beat any of the Republicans. It’s making it out of the primaries that is going to be a bitch. And this is where I believe the electability comes in again. A lot of people want to vote for Obama. He’s young. He’s charismatic. He talks about healing and other feel good things (which already has some of you concerned). Yet, in the end, the big question will be: Is America really ready to vote for a black man, or will they choose a safer bet?
First of all, no one claimed you did, but you spend so much time trying to convince people of this that there’s good reason to doubt it’s true.
This isn’t related to the issue that was in dispute, nor most others discussed here, so whether your opinions actually are based upon such is irrelevant. When an issue where the anthropological basis of your opinions becomes relevant, perhaps the accuracy of your assumptions regarding the topic can be discussed.
And another thing: I can’t imagine that not sending yet another Anglo out in the world to represent us wouldn’t have a positive affect on the fence-sitting nations of Africa and Asia.
Oh, and Cassidy, the “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is engaging in group-think” appeal cuts both ways.
Oh for crying out loud…please shut up. I’m done with this particular topic. I am happy to continue discussing the current elections, but I’m not going to sit here and debate with you the “soundness” of my reasoning. I believe what I believe because I’ve been around the block a few times. I’ve observed human behavior for quite a while as well as followed politics since my early teens. That’s one of the great things about the Army, is I get to deal with a cross section of American society quite regularly. So move on, or address something else.
I think the even more encouraging stat is the 115,000 showed up to caucus for R’s and 236,000 showed up to caucus for D’s (36,000 than the Des Moines Register predicted would turn out). The D’s are excited about this election, the R’s are veering from one crank to another among their available choices of mixed nuts.
Obama’s speech was outstanding. 80% of being president (at least) is inspiring people enough to get them to follow you, and Obama keeps showing me that he’s got the skill to do just that. The best policy ideas in the world are worthless without being able to inspire the people to support them. Bush has so degraded the office and it’s function by proclaiming himself the decider and the protector and making “gut decisions”, etc. that we’ve forgotten what a real president does. There are innumerable policy wonks and specialists to sort out the solutions to pressing problems, it is the president’s job to educate the public and get them behind those solutions. It’s what FDR did, it’s what TR did, and it’s what Johnson did (on Great Society and Civil Rights anyway).
I like Edward’s populism more, but I think Obama has the ability to inspire in greater quantity and can use that to make his tenure in office a transformative one.
Then why even bother arguing at all? The fact that you are entirely unconcerned with the quality of your arguments is good reason to doubt your sincerity in engaging in the practice of open discussion. No appeals to experience are going to change that.
Tis better to give than receive.
I don’t think anyone is really questioning electability at this point. Show me a poll that puts one of the Big 3 behind Romney or Huckabee. Obama has massive grassroots support. Hillary can tap all the Washington Insider levers of power. Edwards has populist appeal that will make states like Texas and Oklahoma battlegrounds. No one is seriously questioning the Dem party’s ability to win in ’08.
The big debate now is over policy – specifically health care and Iraq. People want a candidate that has the popular support to sweep more down ticket Senators and Congressmen into Washington. And they want a candidate who, after solidifying large majorities, can capitalize on those gains in the form of actual legislation.
We want to see all those great Energy bills and Out-of-Iraq bills and Transportation Bills and SCHIP Bills that died a tortured death in the Senate or on the President’s Veto Desk get a new lease on life. We don’t want more corporate greed and corruption polluting our system for another 8 years.
So we’re looking for a candidate that can do all of that. Dodd, for all his willful conviction and ironclad integrity, could not muscle together the people power to get his Presidency run off the ground. Richardson, despite his impressive resume and bold environmental/energy vision, didn’t stop talking about tax cuts in an age when people are tax-cut full.
Also, keep in mind the President’s job. He’s not supposed to be writing legislation. That’s Congress’s job. He is supposed to be a coalition builder and an enacter of existing legislation. Many don’t trust Clinton to stand firm against special interests. Obama comes no-strings-attached, which is where he derives so much of his appeal. His ability to speak passionately makes people think he’ll get in the driver’s seat at 1600 Pennsylvania and govern passionately, rather than just sit on his hands while the country goes to hell. Obama the local organizer experience necessary to run an Office that in turn runs the country. He’s the sort of boss people will want to work for, and work well for.
Obama isn’t winning by accident, Cassidy. He’s not winning because he’s “electable”. He’s winning because he’s a damn good pick for President.
The quality of my reasoning is fine. I’m quite happy with it. I’m just not willing to discuss it with you. I’ve made my opinions based on my reasoning and that is that. If you wish to debate my conclusions, by all means do so. You might even manage to change my mind. It’s happened before. I go through a process of self examination every so often anyway. But I’m not going to sit here and debate the source of my conclusions with a stranger who knows nothing about me. So, once again, move on.
So I’ve been thinking about this all morning because frankly, I was in such a good mood last night because of Iowa, it surprised me. I mean, I was shocked to discover how stressed out this election cycle really has me. I think I need less blog in my diet…
….in any case, my thoughts are circling around the Powers that Be in the Democratic party. If you’re the Powers that Be, you have to look at Clinton’s unfavorables and frankly weak performance to effort ratio in Iowa and decide she’s a rough horse to ride. They have to look at Edward’s bank account and loss to Obama, the other change candidate, and figure they couldn’t ride him all the way to the White House, even if they could get him to the convention. And they’d have to look at Obama’s numbers and his war chest and think, “How can we make this guy our lead steed?” Then, I think the Powers that Be take a look at Edwards’ numbers with Southern Democrats and Obama’s numbers with women, the youth vote, and Independents, and they do everything in their Power to land an Obama/Edwards ticket this summer. Taking Obama’s moderate movement and coupling it with Edwards’ “Let’s kill us some Corporate Lobbyists” progressive mantra sounds like a political Blitzkrieg to me.
Am I missing something, or does that look like the best shot the party could put together?
I think the answer is yes. The world is a lot diffrent than 20 years ago, and a lot of the crazier racists are no longer with us. Overt racism is riable in most parts of the country (not to say that more subtle forms of racism aren’t strong).
I don’t think the electorate is going to be to convinced by the “oh noes scary black folk” meme, even if it comes from other African Americans. But of course I have lost bets overestimating the wisdom of the American electorate before.
I’m glad that Obama is not as scared of the Republican or Democratic attack/spin machine as so many folks seem to be.
What we seem to be seeing here is the place where reality and perception divert. Up to this point, the belief has been that Obama has never been in a fight. How anybody could believe that a mixed-heritage black American man with a funny sounding name made his success in the United States with out knowing how to deal with adversity and strife is beyond me.
We have been told that Obama has no executive experience. Yet as his organization showed, this is a man who began his career organizing people at the most grass roots level to enact positive change.
We were told that Obama has no real government experience. Until we see that he has spent 11 years as a legislator, a decade as a law professor, and 4 years as a civil rights attorney.
Now we are told that Obama is unelectable even though he just won a caucus in one of the Whitest states in the union – a state that hasn’t elected a black person to just about anything.
And I say this living in rural Georgia and having heard life long Democrats say that they would be voting for a Republican this time around if Obama is the candidate. I make no illussions about racism or bigotry. My guess is that neither does Obama.
My gripe about Obama is his relative lack of experience, especially at the national level.
But none of the three Democrats with the most experience finished in the top three.
The key to Obama’s success in office (in, not running for) would be who he surrounds himself with, especially his picks for Secretary of State and AG.
Unfortunately for you in this instance, the process of reasoning is not based on solipsistic assumptions or individual feelings of correctness.
I did. Then you gave this spiel on how no one has the right to question your reasoning, which ended up here. This discussion in fact appears to be an attempt by you to avoid such a debate.
The reasonableness of your arguments is independent of how well you or I know one another.
You misread me. I think Obama would make a good POTUS. I think Hillary would be a very effective POTUS. I’m not a big fan of Edwards, but even he has some good sides. Personally, I’ll be voting for Richardson in my primary, but that’s another topic.
I think Obama is winning now because he is what the majority of people want: A Kennedy-esque charisma with Bill’s charm. A young man who speaks like an elder statesman. A centrist who can pull us back from party politics.
I’m not knocking Obama. I just don’t believe that when push comes to shove, the Democratic voters will vote for who they want, but instead vote for who they think will when. The biggest problem with the Dems right now is the fear of losing. We can sit here and talk about how the Dems will when, all day long, but in the back of all of our minds the question being asked is : Are we going to win this one? Are we going to really be able to beat the Conservative noise machine and move on? When those questions are being asked, voters go for the electable candidate.
You are assuming the Powers That Be want a “Let’s kill us some Corporate Lobbyists” guy in office. Or a black guy, for that matter. I think Obama might have been making friendly winks and smiles at the DLCers to goad them into his camp. But Edwards is on his own.
I would cream my pants at an Obama/Edwards ticket. But Edwards just isn’t going to make the cut if enough Powers That Be leak their way into the Obama campaign.
Aw for fucks sake. I wondered how long it would be before some ass hat dragged out the “house negro.” You think it will only be the stupid brown folks who’ve been bamboozled by the mean old GOP who’ll say this? Wake the fuck up.
People who have a problem with Obama’s race will fall into two categories: 1. People who see a brown guy and freak out. 2. People who see a brown guy who has mixed-race parents and freak out. There are a lot of the latter in both parties.
Shit, Anthony Williams (former mayor of DC) had to put up with nonsense about his “blackness” because of the way he spoke and this didn’t come from “house negroes.”
Fountainhead – I agree with all of your points except the ones about Edwards and southern voters. The guy can’t deliver the state he was born in or the state he represented as a Senator.
Edwards did nothing for Kerry in 2004. If I were Obama, I’d be looking for someone that can marginally affect Virginia, Florida and/or Ohio. I still think that Kerry made a huge mistake by not picking Bob Graham of Florida as his running mate in 2004. As Betty Castor’s 1 percentage vote loss to Mel Martinize showed, Florida could have been alot more competitive for Kerry than it was. This is especially true since Obama won’t be running against a candidate who’s brother is a popular governor in the state and there is no Senatorial election this time around.
Quite possibly, namely ego, or ambition and I’m referring to Edwards here. He had good long-term reasons for agreeing to be Kerry’s VP. However, it’s very clear that that experience left a very sour taste in his mouth, specifically pertaining to how the Kerry campaign was run, or in Kerry’s case, crappily run. By being the #2 guy again, Edwards would have to, again, bow to the wishes of the ticket head as to how the campaign should be run. Now, for all I know, Obama’s much more of a collaborative figure in that regard and the two of them might make a much better fit than the always awkward pairing of Kerry/Edwards.
Moreover, why would Edwards want to go thru another general election as second fiddle? Again, you don’t run for President if you don’t have an ego and ambition and thus, one would have to wonder why Edwards would do that again.
Finally, the image? Yunno, the guy who’s “always the Dem VP”? Maybe I’m getting too hung up on that.
I think we can all agree that there are plenty of assholes in both parties who will determine whom they vote for based on completely assholish reasons. In a race where any Democrat other than Hillary appears set to dominate the Republican nominee, those people probably aren’t going to matter.
Try reading comprehension, it’s a life skill. All I said is that GOP race attacks on Obama will come from black “leaders,” not the KKK wing of their party.
I said nothing about the effectiveness of those attacks, who else might make them or who will have problems with Obama’s race.
Learn to read, asshat.
Um… yeah. They already did this. At least, sorta. There was a mild amount of “Is Obama Black Enough?” hazing over the summer. Then Barak stated that he was, in fact, black enough. He got a collective NAACP group hug. And now everyone from Jesse Jackson to Chris Rock is cheering him on.
You’re guilty of the same crime, and you both need to shut the fuck up. You both need to learn to be the Better Man in this fight. That’s always been the mechanism required, so stop whining.
I was saying before that people out here only use ad hominems on other people. Both of you get with it, or you’ll keep on crashing the party we’re all enjoying.
Note that myiq2xu was certifiably apoplectic, probably murderous towards Cassidy that last thread, and now he’s ignoring him.
How come every time that idiot concern troll shows up and starts playing his “zomg pay attention to meeeeeee” game…everyone bites?
It’s a trap. He starts with some reasonable but provocative remark, but as soon as you engage he turns up the whine. From there it’s a very quick trip through a land where every fourth post and half the total bulk is him, and ends with him challenging everyone to drive down to whatever hellhole he lives in for a fight.
Yes, please talk to Cassidy. I want to hear another doctoral dissertation on the precise degree of pussitude embodied by various MOS.
Given how many black leaders were claiming Tiger Woods as one of their own despite his protestations to the contrary, they’d need to have a lot of gall to deny that Obama was, as well. Not that Sharpton or Jackson don’t have a lot of gall, but certainly even they have their limits.
Chris, I did no such thing and I won’t be labeled as such. I came into this with absolutely no personal attacks at all, and just my mere presence, regardless of what I’m saying was a catalyst for a fairly retarded argument.
I am quite happy to stick with the election topic; I’ve already said as much.
Pats are still gonna lose. :)
I’ve never really engaged Cassidy before, so I thought I’d give it a try. I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. To briefly respond to Chris’s comment (and then let the matter drop, if you want), I haven’t personally attacked anyone here, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t accuse me of doing so. If you had someone else in mind, please disregard that last comment.
Expect to see it again, but for a different reason. The issue was raised in the primaries ostensibly concerning who black Democrats should vote for. IOW – did Obama really represent their interests.
In the general election the meme will sound the same, but it will be raised to remind the racists of the color of Obama’s skin. In that context, the NAACP endorsement is not going to help.
The GOP will play the race card, but they’ll get someone else to slip it into the deck.
And once again my profession is brought up by another commenter. Oh well. All it goes to show me is what my party has become.
I hear the MOS London is still the original best, but I’m looking forward to the opening of MOS Shanghai.
Can’t talk, busy eating pie.
The Other Steve
Ok, there seems to be several comments of this vein. So I am going to explain Obama.
Obama is not courting the GOP. He’s courting the voters. Essentially when he is saying “We all need to come together and get things done.”, what he is saying is “It’s time you little fucks got with the program and realize your ideas stink and ours are better, and if you don’t we’re going to beat you like the Steelers at Gillette Stadium.”
But that latter way of phrasing it turns off voters, and we don’t want that. Because to beat the GOP we need voters.
Another difference. Obama talks about liberal policies like FDR did, using centrist language. Liberal policies are rational, reasonable, and it’s what makes sense. That’s what he is saying. In so doing he’s redefining liberalism as being centrist.
This is so different from candidates who yell and scream and shout about fighting. They actually turn people off. Here they are selling essentially center-left policies, but using the rhetoric of Che. They redefine center-left as radical leftist anarchy.
Now I have to admit, that the only reason why Obama can speak like this and have it resonate is because the Republican policies have utterly failed. But still it’s important.
I’ve spoken with so many people, and one difference about Obama, is he doesn’t piss people off. The negative reaction that Clinton and even Kerry generated, isn’t there.
Now that’s not to say the GOP partisans will not go after him. I’m sure they will. But their attacks won’t resonate to the same degree., and as such they’ll look like partisan buffoons.
I know, I know… wishful dreaming. But this is the first candidate I’ve not had to convince myself to like.
Try Gingo Biloba, it’s supposed to improve the memory:
Hmm. African-Americans speaking out against Obama based on his race? According to mixie’s feeble world view they must be bought and paid for because they’d never decide to do these things for the same reason a Caucasian would. Similarly, they must be servants of the GOP and not driven by self-interest, greed, bigotry or anything else that inspires the rest of that crowd.
The Grand Panjandrum
Boo Hoo. Us middle aged white guys–and I am one of them–may not have a President who looks like us. Boo Fucking Hoo.
All three of the top Democrats are electable in the General. Any one of them would get more than 50% of the vote.
Republicans have a lot to worry about. Reverend Huckabee’s win in Iowa has sent the Republican elites into bat shit insane mode. But, Huckabee’s rise is the logical outcome of the Republican’s 27 year courtship of the Christianists. They now have their guy in the thick of things, and if he has a good showing in NH (at least 3rd place) look out. Huckenfreude, indeed.
Your previous sins follow you. It’s a form of deterrent otherwise everyone would be an asshat in every thread. You’re no longer certified to be the holy judge here, so when someone digs into you, take it with a smile.
Admittedly, though, “move on” is better that “you’re a pussy”.
See, now you’re not helping.
That’s the thing about arguments. They all carry equal weight until disproven, so prejudice tends to get taken seriously.
Save the bashing for people not spiritually present on this board, or expect to get hated on.
I agree. But, if we use this little society as a snapshot of Dem voting, the preferred candidate is Dodd, but the winner will be the electable candidate. When it comes down to those three, the same cut will occur.
Is good pie?
You give pie?
I gave you props.
They good props.
You give pie?
When the GOP has their convention, check out the difference between the speech makers and the main crowd. The people on stage in front of the cameras will be ethnically diverse, but the crowd will look like a Pillsbury Doughboy family reunion.
I hinted at this earlier when I said that Obama might not mean “working with the GOP in Congress” when he talks about bipartisanship, but something else. He won’t need to appeal to them if he gets to the people who vote for them, because they’ll take opposition to Obama as opposition to their own agenda.
That’s how it would work in theory, anyway. It might be enough to win an election, but in order for it to work when he’s president, he’ll need to demonstrate genuine attempts to reach across the aisle, and even then the concentrated efforts of the conservative media might lead to such attempts failing to convince the electorate.
Kirk…I answered a post in which he said “the Dems of 2004 aren’t the Dems of 1992”. It had nothing to do with black or white or male or female. It had to do with a transparent attempt to change the subject when someone had been caught making bogus claims and called on it. That person is not engaging in rational discussion, but either a demagogue or a troll.
I used to think that the particular person I attacked was sincere but misguided — a demagogue, but a sincere one. I’ve since decided that I was wrong, and that he’s just having some fun getting responses. In the former case, I’m more than willing to debate fairly (look at my history here if you don’t believe me). In the latter case, though, I don’t believe in playing along. Such people disrupt discussions without contributing much.
Not my problem. I live by a common theme: That was yesterday. Most people here should try it. Think of it as a spiritual lager.
I say what I mean. Arguing over whether my thought processes and observations validate my conclusions is retarded. I’ve come to my conclusions based on my own experiences and nothing said here will change that. Now, to debate my conclusions and show me something I haven’t seen or considered, I’m all for that.
Yeah…really called me on it….did you make a little “L” on your forehead at the same time?
Show us a SINGLE shred of evidence that Hillary or Obama is going to ever get us out of Iraq or dial back K Street. Y’all are really, really projecting onto this guy.
It’s like all the Republicans who loved Reagan and Bush because they were for “small” government. Not only do they not get reality, they don’t get history.
When Darrell was here, it was obvious that it would be fruitless to engage him. Perhaps it’s time to look at someone else’s posts as continual paeans to the greatness of pie (and ponies!).
Hey, myiq, I like pi. But is it hyperbole pi (about 3) or flat, or spherical? And is it homotopic to the unit sphere?
The Other Steve
Looking back at Cassadoodle…
I think Cassidy is trying to psyche you all out. I don’t know quite where he got the idea that everybody really wanted Dodd but were afraid to say so. I’ll say he’s come off well in debates, but he doesn’t really connect.
That’s like pointing to Reagan and saying “Republicans really wanted Bob Dole, but they settled for Reagan.”
Good point. Did anyone get an “I like pie!” script to work with Internet Explorer, or do you need to use Firefox for that?
And this is why he’ll win. You’re right to worry about his commitment to ending the war or curbing corporate influence on national politics. He’s said that he would, however. What reason is there to doubt his word so far?
I’m not suggesting that no one should doubt his word, of couse. I simply want to know if there are some good reasons to do so.
I’m just going off of this thread and past ones. I’ve seen a lot of support for Dodd, in this community (and have qualified my statements as such). Yet, the support for the “ethically sound” candidate, is not strong enough to beat the electable candidates.
Pretty much what Reagan did. Made his agenda seem to be “The Middle” or “Sensible” even though it wasn’t. The big difference is, Obama’s policies ARE the middle and sensible, we’ve just been told for so long they’re not.
Cassidy, *I* didn’t call you on it. I called you a concern troll. dslak called you on the accuracy of your statements.
You are a dishonest concern troll, and you deserve no respect.
I spent a while trying to get I like pie to work on IE’s version of greasemonkey. It’s possible, but since the event models in the DOM are different, it would have entailed having two different scripts.
Since then, I’ve left MS, so there’s no been no reason for me to use IE. I suppose I could pick up the work again if there’s a demand.
The Other Steve
I noticed you didn’t mention Edwards. Why aren’t you mentioning wet willy?
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…..you’ll have to pardon me if my feelings aren’t hurt because you don’t respect me. I’ve earned the respect of better people, so shove off.
He didn’t have the grass roots support. Obama had tens of thousands of people rallying around him. Dodd, not so much. If Obama embraces the Dodd school of politics, or if Dodd is allowed a freer and stronger hand in the Senate with Obama as President, then who cares who’s sitting in the Oval Office?
Obama has the money and the public momentum, so I am happy to support him as long as he continues to support Dodd in policy. I don’t see why this is some kind of weakness within the Dem Party, any more than voting for Bush over McCain was a weakness for conservatives who wanted big tax cuts.
You keep saying this, but this site is not a snapshot of Democratic voters. It’s not even close. So your point is moot before I’ve even finished reading the sentence (for the third time – why do you keep pushing this meme?)
Wow. Newsflash. The vast majority of GOP supporters are Caucasian … And?
That the people on the stage come in variety of hues seems to blow a hole in the idea of house negroes. Especially when everyone on the stage will be looking at the cheering masses and thinking the same thing:
First of all, you can’t use this microchosm as an example of mainstream society or Democrats as a whole. Almost everyone here is a political junkie and pays attention to what is going on in that world on a regular basis, which is in sharp contrast to the average voter.
For people that know more about the candidates than the soundbytes they are fed, Dodd probably
iswas the preferred candidate because he talks the talk and walks the walk. He has since withdrawn, therefore he is no longer a viable candidate.
In the end, the winner will be the one who spends their money the most effectively, which in some capacity translates into dollar volume. I’m not sure if money = electability outright, although there is a correlation there. Dodd is out not because he wasn’t electable, but because he didn’t have enough money to put up a fight.
The Other Steve
12% according to the unscientific BJ poll.
The only real mention of Dodd is that Cole said he liked him. I agree. I like Dodd too. But I like Obama better.
If…a hypothetical scenario…do I think this site is a cross section of Dem’s? In some ways, but not all. I think it is fairly safe to say that the spectrum of Dem voter is fairly well represented here, from my support of Bill Richardson, to SRV saying the only moral candidate is Kucinich. So, for sake of argument, it isn’t a moot point.
I think those votes will more than be made up for by blacks who finally see a viable candidate that’s not a white man and have a reason to show up.
The Other Steve
Aye. The Democratic party is pretty centrist and has been for some time. The Republican party has been radical since the 1980s.
My number one issue in any Presidential election is fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The Republicans have proven they can’t be trusted to manage the checkbook.
If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. That’s a hypothetical scenario, too, but I don’t bandy it about as if it were worthy of discussion.
It’s called a jackalope. It’s a common trolling tactic: when caught in one mistake, change the subject by making an outrageous and bizarre claim, and hope that people chase it, instead of saying, “Oh, that’s nice. Now, back to what you were saying…”
It’s a really nasty tactic, and the best way to handle it is to either call it what it is and redirect the topic.
So did Dean.
I don’t particularly consider it a weakness, at least not with the possible outcomes of this election. All I’m doing is looking at patterns. If candidate A is a charismatic black man, speaking of change and healing and all the other things voters feel in their hearts, and candidate B is a white guy who will most assuredly beat the opposition, the voting public will go for B. Change may be great, but losing sucks.
The Other Steve
Who is this white guy?
Oh, that’s nice. Now back to the topic at hand…
Then how can you base an entire argument off it?
That’s it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I was wrong. You’re either a blatant troll or a blatant idiot. Either way, I like pie.
By the way, Kirk, there’s good reason to believe that the whole race issue is being deliberately overblown.
Yes, nominating Obama cedes the South to the Republicans, and probably costs us up to 9% of the white vote in the rest of the nation. So, let’s see — we have to win without states we’re going to lose anyway and need to look to see what the margins would be in other states to withstand that effect.
Well, let’s look at the oldest, whitest, least minority friendly state in the union. That would be…Iowa? Yeah, wake me up if Obama can win there, OK?
I didn’t. I used it as an example.
The Grand Panjandrum
Well said, to both of you. And that is how to inspire people and win their confidence.
Here’s an interest little tidbit on turnout last night:
Cassidy, I get your point about electability, but this year looks like its shaping up differently. And it boils down to this: We want our country back. The former Cheerleader and his gang of War Criminals have energized this coming–dare I say it?–tsunami.
Advice for the Congressional Democratic Leadership:
Or get the Fuck out of the Way!
I think that about sums it up.
Great point, Demi.
Wow, another reason to feel better about Edwards! Anyhow, I caught some of Edwards’ speech last night, and it was pretty good; I guess I’ll watch them both sometime.
No wonder Kerry lost. I skimmed over that yesterday, and it looked amazingly clueless and elitist. You know who those ‘undecided’ voters really are? People who have other or better things to do than discuss politics, like, say, working to get enough money to pay their rent or feed their family. They aren’t crazy or stupid, they’re busy or jaded, and for good reason.
Great! You have a tonic!
It irritates me hearing you whine. Mainly because you claim to be better, but you won’t act like it.
Bliss in the internets starts with understanding that nobody cares about you. Nobody likes you. We only like ideas here. Stop engaging the people here and just keep talking about the topic. In fact, start by not replying to me defensively, and just start talking about ‘bama.
And stop whining. You don’t sound like a man trained to keep supersonic slugs from puncturing your skull.
Why is the Internet so hard for people?
LOL LOL a/s/l u lik me?
The Other Steve
I hope so. I’d like to be proven wrong, because I think Obama or Richardson would be much better POTUS’s than the two establishment front runners. But I don’t really carry that amount of optimism.
A point to consider here is that, for the time being, the South is going to be Republican, because it’s the only solid base they have left. It doesn’t mean their concerns should be written off, mind you, but maybe not so much emphasis should be put on trying to win them over just yet. Until the GOP’s allegiance to Christianists is finally severed, they’re going to promise Southern evangelicals the world on a platter, and it’s going to work.
I don’t think his race had much to do with that, more of his hawkish, Joe Lieberman-esque/Rahm Emmanuel views.
Obama’s speech bothered me, simply because he didn’t really say anything. But he didn’t say anything in a real nice way, and it made me feel good, even as my brain was going “but he’s not saying anything!” He has the ability to get people excited and optimistic, and we certainly need that after these 7 long horrible years.
Re the racism thing, the hardliners would never vote for him. But anecdotally, an older family member — who doesn’t think of himself as a racist but changed realtors when they sent him a black agent — was very pro-Hillary, felt that a black man couldn’t win, yet about two weeks ago he decided that Obama was The Man. Only one instance, but I’d not be surprised if his actions weren’t being duplicated around the country.
My only real concern with Obama is assassination. Maybe it’s a “tempting fate” thing, or maybe it’s my Baby Boomer heritage, but it worries me. To me, Obama’s VP pick will be really important (not that I’d vote for ANY Repub at this point). If he were assassinated before November, would Darth Cheney suspend the elections? I want his security to be really good.
Fear aside, right now I’m enjoying Obama’s win, Hill’s 3rd place and the Repub freak out over Huck’s win. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
I’m an Edwards supporter, and Obama has some traits I don’t like, but if he can continue bringing out vast numbers of new Dem voters like he did last night, I’ll give him the nomination with pie on top. Because that kind of turn-out would shake this country to its core, giving us a huge Congressional advantage and sinking the Republican party into irrelevance.
self-fix. Unfair to claim you haven’t been talking about Obama, your just keep going back to the extra-curriculars
Edwards has at least stumped on “quick” withdrawal and the “evils” of corporations. Which may not mean anything, but it is shitloads more than Clinton or Obama.
So he’s the only one trying to pander to the “left”, while Obama wakes up every morning trying to triangulate to Hillary’s right. While Hillary figures out how to be right of Lieberman.
Yeah, that’s going to end up well.
Chris, I appreciate your efforts, but really I have no interest in it. What you see as “whining” I see as hypocrisy. So please do me the favor of keeping your etiquette lessons to yourself.
Secondly, I’m not going to share the blame of someone else acting like an asshole. I state again: I gave an opinion and was attacked (again) with no provocation.
TOS, good point about the anger. That’s probably what dooms Edwards.
Cassidy, Richardson loses my vote for two significant reasons. First, I can’t shake the memory of his misadventures as Secretary of Energy under Clinton. (Wen Ho Lee was only one of several “hmmm” incidents.) Second, his personal behavior as governor has been very much of the ‘rules apply to thee but not me’ category. As that’s one of my major peeves with the current administration, it makes Richardson unacceptable. (Specific example. Multiple reports of running stop signs and speeding, getting pulled over, and telling the officer if he wants to keep the job it’d better be a warning instead of a ticket he’s writing.)
I’m willing to believe he’s learned and will hopefully surround himself with people who have as well. His track record as Gov. is pretty good and at least counters this, IMO.
I’ve heard nothing of this (which doesn’t make it untrue) so if you could provide a link, I’d like to read it.
Obama puts the south more in play than Edwards or Clinton, by far.
I prefer hair pi, but it’s getting harder and harder to find these days when waxed linoleum is the rage.
As a sidenote, the GM script I’d like to see is a killfile script like they have for Sadly No! I’m no programmer, but if someone here created such a thing, I’d install it gratefully.
ok Cassie, I give up. I can smell the estrogen from here.
Fail troll is fail. Have at him boys.
Back to the issue at hand:
We still need Obama to give a solid statement on what he’ll do about torture in his stumps. It’s been great watching a steady individual give a thrashing to the status quo, but now its business time.
Oh, I agree — in fact, that was kind of my point.
Obama and Hillary both lose the South, but it’s worth that risk in order to have a realistic shot at an African American or woman president. That means we make the best of playing by those rules. Obama does a better job of recruiting undecideds and independents, so I’m going to back him.
What if candidate A will ALSO most assuredly defeat the opposition? Then you just have another white guy…
Now *that* was funny.
First, want to say that I’m a Southern Democrat, my family is Southern Democrats, my family is so white it’s nearly transparent, and I’ll thank you guys not to generalize about all us the dang time. I do own shoes and my house does not have wheels, either. The day after Barack’s speech in 2004 I got an email from my mother, who doesn’t much follow politics, I believe the subject line was “OBAMA! ! ! ” If she weren’t a little preoccupied at the moment with my dad’s health, as I am as well, I am sure I would have gotten another one this morning. He is smooth, he’s unflappable, he’s smart, and don’t forget clean. When he’s attacked, he is aloof and cool as a cucumber. He looks like Hollywood central casting of a president, to me. And those are not the highest qualifications for office. Experience, plans, issues, make a difference, but the presentation is a lot of it in voters’ minds. (Current argument implodes when faced with the fact that GWB has served 7 terms as president, so take that argument with the strength it deserves.)
I’m not going to pretend there’s no racism here or anywhere else, and I’m not going to pretend a candidate in the mold of, say, Jesse Jackson, would go anywhere, but come on, it’s not 1963 anymore. First of all, Democrats never win in the South anyway, so in the current electoral system it makes exactly jack difference if the South doesn’t vote for Obama, anyway. But just for the record, I think they will. We weren’t exactly fawning over Kerry, in case you haven’t noticed. I predict if Obama is the nominee, he will do better. I will throw away my vote slightly less! In places like Virginia that actually are swing states, the new Democratic face is coming mostly from wealthy/yuppie suburbs and exurbs of D.C., and I’m not real worried about the racist vote there.
Cassidy – this link is just for the speeding (and at that, only mentions the ‘when driven by state patrol officers’ times). I’ll continue to see if the other stuff is still citeable – the links I’ve got are coming up dead at this time.
Yes. And I’d like to hear him talk to constitutional rights, too.
Jen — FDDD and I are also Southern Democrats. We left many years ago, but I know the politics down there, just as you do.
A black man won’t win in the parts of the Confederacy where either of us lived. Just. Not. Happening.
I have to wait a whole month to vote, and I’m gonna be really disappointed if the whole shebang is decidered by then.
That was the whole point of moving up the California primary. Ever since I was old enough to vote both nominations were locked up by June.
I didn’t say he’d win in the South, demi. I don’t think he will. I said I think we’ll vote for him more than we voted for Kerry. I said I’d throw away my vote less, which is a joke. I will throw it away but it won’t fall quite as far to get to the bottom of the trash can, maybe.
The Grand Panjandrum
Demi, I think you may have overstated, just a bit, your point that Iowa is the least minority friendly. My first wife was from Iowa and I always found Iowans to be very decent people. Sure racism exists in Iowa, but I would venture to say it is far less so than in other parts of the country, including places like California. Because a place is the oldest, whitest, … state in the union doesn’t mean it is rife with racists. I am originally from the Midwest and it really is largely populated by decent people.
So I think this whole notion of Iowa being the “whitest” state is somewhat overstated. Yes, factually, it is one of the whitest states in the country, but that does not make it more racist. Again, its the Midwest, not Dixie, or Boston for that matter.
If Obama gets the nomination, I think we will see some very big surprises on November 4th. I have no data to support my gut feeling, but I believe we are turning the page. If a cynical old fucker like me is looking forward to the election something is changing (or entirely bat shit crazy and out of whack, which is quite possible).
Just to clarify one *more* time, so that I’m really obnoxious, in addition to getting my Southern ire up I was trying to point out that saying “Obama can’t win because the racists in the South won’t vote for him”, even if true, changes absolutely nothing that wouldn’t already be true for any other Democrat, hence is not much of an argument. And if you’re talking about the racists in the flyover states that might actually be in play, well I guess I would point to Iowa as Exhibit A.
You know, I kinda like this outcome in that it further segregates (no pun intended) the south from the rest of the country. You can’t fix something that’s unacknowledged. Once it becomes painfully clear to the country/world that the good ol’ south is seriously lagging in societal (again, no pun intended) evolution, we can begin to introduce them to the 21st century (we’ll start there. No need to shock them.) and bring them into the civilized world.
Sorry, TGP, I misstated. I agree; Iowa is not, say, Indiana, and, in fact, the Democratic party there is quite progressive. However, it is a lily-white state, with the most ethnically homogeneous population in the country.
It’s therefore very striking that Obama not only won, but Edwards got the second chance vote, and Clinton got the repeat vote. That means Obama drew in many, many new voters. *That’s* what matters there.
OK – this is kind of a morbid question, but relevant, I think. Do we need to worry about an “RFK” now? I hear people talking already about how, even if Obama won, he’d just be assassinated. I worry about this happening PRE-victory, when he doesn’t have SS protection. (Couldn’t resist using the initials.)
Billy K, I’ll be siccing my coon hounds on you now.
I’m personally hoping Huck will drop the ball on the south somehow; like play one of the dog whistles wrong, and then Obama can use a little black-baptist skill and weaken the base.
It’s the choice between a baptist liberal and a semi-baptist moderate, really. Please support me on this, I’m desperate for some stroking :D
A man can swoon, can he?
Late to the thread, but …. I made a point of listening to The Speech last night, four times.
I must say, with the exception of a few of the Kennedy speeches from 1960, it was the best presidential campaign speech I’ve heard … in at least 47 years. And yes, I remember the 1960 campaign, I was at the convention. And yes, I am that old.
But anyway, as was said here last night, by TimF IIRC, this guy “has the pipes” and …. I haven’t felt this psyched up about a political year in a long, long time.
Bring on your Hucksterbees, your McPains, your Mittneys, or your Rudytooties. If Obama wins the nomination, the GOP is not just toast, it is burned toast. It is a lump of coal.
Some of the comments here remind me of the Peoples Front of Judea bitching at “splitters”.
People support some progressive policies but there is NOT widespread support for a 100% pure doctrinaire progressive whose “plan” consists in uncompromisingly insisting on the more left-wing solutions to every problem.
Sentiments like this remind me of hearing NeoCons talk strategery – their only idea of how to fight is to charge screaming at the enemy in a full-out no-holds-barred frontal assault. That strategy works fine if your opponent plays along, loses his balances, and retreats but it doesn’t work against someone who keeps his balance and moves off line. Then the charging bull hits nothing but air and is easily knocked off his feet as he runs by.
From what I’ve read Obama knows how to execute political jujitsu in the sense that he knows how to stop playing the traditional game and hit his enemies with something they dont expect.
I think that since GWB has managed to escape assassination, then the Secret Service is very, very, good indeed.
I prefer “swallowers” too.
And if the Secret Service is reading Balloon Juice and tracking my IP address right now (you can get the technology from RedState), please note that I have not now, ever, or at any point in the future threatened to assassinate the president, and I have no weapons. I’m reasonably sure I have not even spelled “assassinate” right but it still looks wrong all the other ways too. Thank you.
Sort of. He’s not really that vulnerable. The issue was kicked up by Bhutto’s assassination, but that was an uppity woman telling the Taliban to give her head or get rogered by the government.
(Yes, rogered will now be used frequently, get used to it)
Also, we know what happened to RFK. That’s kind of a hint :)
The big question is, when do the front-runners get a serious secret service detail?
And neither will Hillary. Nor Edwards. Face it- for now, we have to write off the confederacy in terms of winning the next few presidential elections. Any political strategy that requires a democratic presidential nominee winning the deep south is going to be a failure. That’s not to say we don’t try to build for the future and hopefully take a house seat here and a Senate seat there. But the future isn’t here yet, so we have to win without them. The South is going to stay deep red in terms of the electoral college until a time when economic issues overtake racial and religious issues for them (and who knows if and when that will ever be.)
We need a presidential candidate who can take enough states outside the south to win the election. I’m an Edwards fan (though my primary is so late in the season it doesn’t really matter who I like) but I can see the merit of Obama’s ability to cast wide the nets. If that carries him further towards the WH than Edward’s righteous anger and economic populism, I guess I’d be pretty happy for that choice come November.
Obama’s had full protection for some months now, folks. The Secret Service cares about caring for the president, and that man is as safe as anyone on Earth.
But, like everyone here, you really like Dodd, right?
I just don’t believe that. This may be snobbery on my part, but I think the mainstream dems don’t win down there because they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.
You win the south like you win the other guys, by getting involved in their local projects. The south is for two things: Super-jesusy compassion and slow-progression in society. The first is acceptable and the second is unacceptable.
The dems have spent all this time assuming because of the social conservation and the big turn out for republicans that they must be deeply deeply anti-blue. That’s shitty logic, which is about par for the average politician.
Look at Huckabee. This man wants to give the bank away to the poor. He’s far left, and he runs one of their local club houses (“churches”). The average dem could do that, if any of them had an IQ above 110.
Seconded. I don’t think you’d have to look hard to find places in the Deep South that have many more racists per capita than Iowa.
I had a similar experience, but with a very Republican family member. He said he’d vote for Obama over any of the Repub (or other Dem) candidates. To say I was stunned would be putting it mildly.
I think the impact of Obama’s race is being wildly overestimated. Sure, to some people it’s an ironclad reason not to vote for him. Who gives a shit about those knuckledraggers? They’ll be more than offset by moderates and independents who find that Obama looks immensely appealing compared to the baggage of Clinton, faux-folksiness of Edwards, scary Jesus-freakery of Huckabee, and the eel-like ooze of Romney.
By the way, Jen, the technology for this:
is called “a web server”. It’s why companies like Google protect their server logs so aggressively; they’re incredibly sensitive information.
1). Agree that you cant fix a problem until you acknowedlge it.
2) Disagree that the solution is for the rest of the country to see how f-ed up the south is and change it. I think the solution is for the South to see how f-ed up the South is and change itself.
If I recall, any of the nominees can request and will receive protection. To my certain knowledge, they’re protected once their the nominee for the party. Unknown to me is where it goes from optional to certain.
Following on your morbidity with a bit more discussion, I’ll point out that if he’s assassinated prior to the convention it just means the convention will select someone else – presently either Clinton or Edwards, largely depending on who wins Obama’s delegates over to their side of the table.
And an assassination after the elector’s ballots are submitted (call it by mid December) but prior to the seating it’s also pretty cut and dried. The elector’s ballots are still counted, the dead person is announced, and since he’s unable to take the seat the VP becomes the president.
It’s between those two points where the thing becomes interesting – in two different places. Let’s take the ‘easy’ one first. Elections are held, Obama wins, and as he’s making his acceptance speech he’s assassinated. Legally (theoretically) that becomes immaterial. You don’t vote for president, you vote for members of the electoral college. Notionally they are on the ballot as promising the vote to X, so your vote gets transferred. In this case that’s an obviously silly idea, and now they’re free to vote for the candidate of their choice. Which means Clinton and Edwards (or even someone else – like his VP selection if not one of those two) could receive votes, neither with sufficient majority, and the final decision be made by the House of Representatives after they seat in early January but before January 20. Note that the same thing would happen to the VP seat, only this time it’s the Senate that decides.
The really funky issue is: what if the assassination happens between the Convention and the Election? Frankly, there are competing theories and rules, and your guess is probably as good as mine. Basically it boils down to:
a) Dead man runs on ballot. If he wins, see the bit about dying after election but before the Electoral College votes.
b) Substitution. This is the ugly one – who decides the substitute? The basic options are the prospective VP and the candidate(s) who were also-rans at the convention. The odds are it’d wind up in court.
All that said, see the point of a lot of posters above (to include Cassidy and myself) that at this point ANY Dem will beat ANY Republican — only moreso in the backwash of an assassination like that. We’d lose a fine young man. The Republican party would have to disavow the event — and show they meant it, which would hamper them even worse.
Agreed, but exactly how long do we need to wait? This is ridiculous. They clearly need help changing their ways.
All this talk of potential assassination just rubs me the wrong way. I agree it’s always possible, but I don’t see the urgency in it. If anything, I would think Hillary would be in more danger than Obama is.
Sorry, but it concerns me. I don’t like it either. That’s why I asked (this powerful force of wisdom called Balloon Juice), and got a nice answer about SS protection for candidates.
Finally watched the speech, can’t say I’m impressed.
Well, that’s not completely true. Obama is a fantastic public speaker. But the words he’s saying are the same BS platitudes, catchphrases and triumphalism I’ve heard from every aspiring commander-in-chief in a blue suit and neutral-patterned tie since I was old enough to know what an election is. The man is one of the best empty-suit candidates I’ve ever seen, and he’s certainly a better choice than much of the overall field by virtue of having an apparent brain, but he’s still an empty suit.
I suggest Sully’s link to a small excerpt of Obama’s legislative record here
Being a stranger in a strange land here in the south (I’m not from here, and they don’t forget it), I’ve gained a few insights. Actually my wife has done so, and I’ve learned to listen to her. Ignore the racism and the religiosity – they’re symptoms, not the root. At root…
My wife describes them as oriental, highly akin to the Chinese culture. Face and ancestry MATTER.
If you cannot trace at least four generations of your ancestry, you are nothing. If you can do so but most are not from “around here”, you are better than nothing, but that’s about it. On the other hand if you are ‘from around here’, much can be tolerated — though then class comes into play. And class is as much about where you come from as it is about your current situation.
You may never openly display your ‘coarser attitudes’ (anger, disdain, etc.), but must always cloak them in behavior that at least on the surface is the essence of sweetness and civility. Always display at least the appearance of servility to your notional superiors, and expect the same of your subordinates — and your equals should be treated as such. See the above about class and roots and realize that in the south “all men are created equal” makes as much sense as “all wimsy were the borogroves.”
The things others note of the south – the heavy religiosity, the racial prejudice, all the rest – they’re consequences of this cultural history. You want to change the south? Change this culture.
A note on Iowa racism: Iowans aren’t racist against black people because there are no black Iowans to be racist against.
I actually heard something funny from a retard on the radio this morning. He said Obama did so well in the Caucus because Iowans had never seena Black Man before, and many worshipped him as a God. Then they made a joke about a huge black caucus.
And ya’ll called me a bigot…how cute.
Seriously, the South needs no more “fixin'” than California or the East Coast. It’s just different ways of life. And while I did state that Southern Democrats aren’t exactly comfortable voting for a black man or woman, that doesn’t mean they are bigots either.
Yes, yes it does.
Maybe BOTH Obama and Huck will be assassinated :D
I said that if Obama can fend off Hillary he had my support, and so he has. I’d like to see Clinton sniff which way the wind is blowing and use her political savvy to tack left and force Obama to be more progressive. Who can say…
Yeah, how can we trust a man who doesn’t use his victory speech to give long-winded detailed policy proposals?
LOL, that is just the perfect response.
And, for those who are worried about Obama’s protection, if you look right now at the MSNBC banner, the photo they have up of Obama shaking hands, look over his left shoulder.
That’s Secret Service, right on him.
Wow. MSNBC still does news? Who knew?
Yeah, how can we trust a man who doesn’t use his victory speech to give long-winded detailed policy proposals?
Forgive me if I expected something different from “Absolutely one of the best political speeches I’ve seen in decades.”
I did not see any other mention of his service occupation prior to these two posts. Although it’s quite possible I overlooked one it’s also quite possible he doth protest too much.
My apologies for crowding up the “lemming lane” with a Cassidy-related comment. I’m jumping out now to return to my paid work functions.
And you’re wrong. Simple as that.
This strikes me as a classic Cassidy, in a similar vein as ‘gun ownership doesn’t lead to gun violence’.
What motivation could someone have to NOT feel comfortable voting for a black man or a woman other than bigotry? What other possible explanation is there?
This is hyperbole, but not an outright falsehood, at least when I went to U of Iowa (years ago). I knew more people than I care to admit who had never seen a live black person (as opposed to those on TV, movies, etc) before high school, and a few who hadn’t seen any until college.
It doesnt get much more cracker-centric than the state of Iowa.
peach flavored shampoo
What s/he said. The old “I’m not racist, I just hate [email protected]” line. Parts of the South really are still living in 1953.
Demi, you ignorant fuck. Sorry, but you deserve that. “Least minority friendly”?? Are you fucking kidding me? You just made that shit up. Iowans are about the friendliest, more secure folks in the Midwest. Seems like others here know it, too. Please stop talking out of your ass.
Why would anyone care what you expected?
Thanks, Jen. You’ve demonstrated your ignorance, too. So, if Iowa IS rife with racists, as you claim, HOW THE FUCK DID OBAMA WIN???
Nice logic. Most white = most racist. Uh huh. Airtight. So, that makes Mississippi the most moral b/c it has the most Jesus Freaks? Florida the King of Cigars b/c it has the most Cubans? Unfriggin real.
Why would anyone care what you expected?
Because I was talking about the same person as the rest of the rest of the topic and it’s not a members-only chat? I saw a post lauding as revelatory a speech that I found ordinary, and said as much. Fuck you if you don’t want to hear it.
This should be fun. Too bad B-Juice is buggy and slow to load today.
Congratulations and welcome to the club! You obviously will fit in well here.
While your defense of us corn-suckin’ paleskins in the Hinterlands is appreciated, I think you sort of missed Jen’s point.
Punchy, I do know whereof I speak. I went to grad school in Wisconsin (you know, that state to your north? yeah, them.) I held my first post doc in Indiana (you know, that state two to your East. Yeah, them.)
Iowan friendly and welcoming? Yup. You betcha. Agree completely.
Minority friendly? Nope. Sorry. Not true.
To be clear — individual Iowans are wonderful people. Some of my best friends are from Iowa. But, you know, when you put them together with one another, they jump to conclusions about…outsiders.
Ordinary would be a step up for you.
If you spent a week writing and editing a post, and had your most interesting friends help you, assuming you have any interesting friends, you might, in a moment of clarity or slight intoxication, pinch off something as good as ordinary.
With luck, and on a slow day, I think you could momentarily pull off ordinary. That is to say, you could reach up and touch ordinary, only to have it slip from your grasp.
But don’t let me discourage you. Try for it, go for the gusto, and let’s see if you can actually do ordinary. I am saying you can, others here will probably laugh at the idea, and say, it’s folly. But really, I think you can.
Please, the floor, as they say, is yours. Show us that you can produce something as good as ordinary. I, for one, will be rooting for you.
Right, but on this blog if you want your ideas heard or taken seriously then respect here is the currency to be heard on this blog. Even in blogs you have to do some social engineering in any new group you join. You’ll probably find it a lot more rewarding than what you’re currently experiencing.
Too bad B-Juice is buggy and slow to load for the last three years.
Aw, now TZ finds me worthy of abuse! I feel so loved and important.
Anyway, I don’t recall saying I was a particularly good writer, so I’m not sure what all that has to do with my point. It doesn’t take an orator to know boilerplate when you hear it.
That’s exactly what a person accused of Iowa-bigotry would say! It only proves the point more. :)
Please don’t add pathetic whining to your list of non-accomplishments, sir.
Derision, scorn, ridicule, sure. In good measure and deservedly so.
But you’ve not been abused. Don’t be making things up, now.
I will grant you that any nearly homogenious population looks with unease at outsiders; that is normal. You said “minorities”. If a Mexican were to move to a small town and live there for a year, he’d be welcomed as their own. They do not distrust minorities, rather newbies, as does any community. At worst they may be minority indifferent, but surely not unfriendly.
And please dont equate Indiana and Iowa. Indiana is one of the most vile, repulsive, wisky-tango states in the Union.
Well I live in an area where it’s more likely that a white guy would move in and be welcomed after a year. Or two.
So, I guess the charm suggested by your blurb is lost on me.
BTW, let’s take a poll. How many here have ever lived in Iowa?
You’re still on this, so I’ll throw in.
It’s in the very minor details. Use of “we”, preferred to “I” and “you”. Use of broad hope topics. Refusing to make hay over small or moderately-sized details, because they pass in time (supposedly). Not only refusing to smack red-staters, but subsequently bringing them into the fold and introducing you to them warmly.
All of those small things, if noticed and appreciated, lead to giddiness. I’m one of the most emotionally dead people, and I get more giddy than I’m comfortable with listening to him.
His weaknesses in policy doesn’t mean he’s committing folly here. We have all this extra time for the election, and while the other candidates have been building a cult of ideas (especially Paul, Tancredo, Giuliani), Obama is building a large foundation for the campaign. It’s a wise way to spend the extra time, seeing as some have already burnt out their memes.
If you’re not hearing it, you’re just probably not interested in his content. I’d guess you’re on the angry side of the democrats, or you’re anxious to hear about significant policy change.
That’s fair enough. And yeah, I’m both of those things, but mainly the latter.
And if the speech really does have that kind of effect, more power to him, I guess. Still don’t see it myself, but c’est la personal preference.
Er…umm…Punchy? Listen, dude. You know the batteries in your snark detector? Yeah. You might want to check those. I think they’re burned out.
I already corrected myself about the in the nation — I meant in the mid-west. And, I’m sorry, yes, Iowans are, in my experience, hospitable but distrusting towards strangers. Are you telling me that that didn’t work against Obama? Even though he’s from the state next door.
(And how many african american representatives are there from Iowa? What about Indiana?)
You know what’s really amazing?
They only expected 200,000 people to caucus last night.
356,000 (at last report) showed up — and 239,000 was for the Democratic caucuses.
Well, I am guessing that this might be the first election-night speech by a candidate that you have ever heard.
That might explain your reaction. Or, it might not, just saying.
But the purpose of such a speech is to rally the troops, to make them feel good about all the work they just did and get them psyched for the next round, if there is one.
That’s the entire purpose. All of it, 100%. Viewed through that lens, the speech was memorable, eloquent, and damned near perfect.
What you are talking about, I have no fucking idea. But, please keep it up. More, more. Really, I am not kidding, I am never sarcastic.
Yes, that is wonderful. And on DKos this morning, a companion stat:
Of all the total votes cast (R + D), Obama garnered over 25% (the top votegetter).
Hucksterbee got about 11%.
Goddam, that makes me smile.
TZ, my mom’s an Iowegian–does that score me any cred?
But if my mom has a hobby she likes more than bithching about how Republican Minnesota is, it’s bitching about how much more Republican Iowa is! (In her mind these days she attributes all loathesome human qualities to Republicans, and yeah, it can be hard to point out where she is wrong about that) and as I was visiting my P’s last night she was bitterly decrying how Iowans would never go for Obama because of how racist they were.
I haven’t checked in today, but I bet it’s nice to be pleasantly surprised after these last seven ugly years.
So what’s your take? (just out of curiousity)
I’ve seen sixteen years’ worth of election-night speeches, and that one didn’t cover any territory that the others didn’t. Hence, ordinary. Do I have to draw you a map, or what?
A map of what? Your brain?
The speech was fabulous. People all over the country are raving about it.
But, they must all be wrong, I guess, if you are to be believed.
So, yes, I think a map of your brain would be a good place to start. Please show the major features of the shrunken lobes, and label the patches of plaque clearly.
Oh, Jeebus, TZ. He’s a noob. Yeah, he was a jerk; you’ve made your point — but he isn’t me, to realize that you’re mostly posturing.
Actually, I’ve been reading (and infrequently commenting) here since 2005; wouldn’t have written the “fuck you if you don’t want to hear it” part if I wasn’t familiar with the climate already.
Maybe I should pick a more distinctive nickname.
Fuck you, man. I don’t need your approval or permission to post anything to anyone any time I want.
Do I have to ride your sorry behind out of here on a mule again today? WTF is the matter with you? Why can’t you mind your own fucking business? I’m not talking to you …. and I like it that way.
The guy made an idiotic post, and just won’t stop defending it. I’m giving him a little education. For free.
No go away and bother somebody else. Don’t you have an opera to listen to?
Um, I think you meant “less ordinary,” didn’t you?
Sure, you do that.
Hey hey hey.. I resemble that comment! Grew up most of my life in Indiana. It’s generally a pretty decent state, and I speak as a brownskin type. I only had one experience of racism that I can recall. A drive by with people calling me the N-word. A bunch of drunk college students trying to be provocative.
Now of course there are parts of southern Indiana I’ll probably never venture. :-)
I will unless you get the fuck away from me and leave me alone. Unless you want to turn every thread into a flame war between me and you, you will stay the fuck away from me.
Get it? I am not taking any shit from you.
I also say “more attractive” when I mean “less unattractive,” and “words that mean the same thing” when I could say “synonyms.” I know, it’s weird.
Sure, you do that.
I will do it, you can count on it.
Sure, you do that.
Well, what’s weird is that it was a great speech, and then …. well, your post.
But that’s just me. What do I know? I put catsup on avocados.
I’m sure that in time, everyone will see that you’re right. The speech sucked, and everyone will be going around say, “What were we thinking? We should have listened to David? He tried to tell us, and we wouldn’t listen. We were fools …. fools.”
That’s the way it often goes. Ridin’ high in April, shot down in May. But I think we’re going to change that tune, when we’re back on top. In June.
relax a bit, even if only for your blood pressure.
I got Dave’s number: he’s a pure Clintonite. He’s seeing this election entirely in terms of the issues that Bush shat all over.
He’s not that stupid. A little talkative maybe. But in his context, when he hears a speech that’s heavy in coalition and low in policy, he thinks it’s “weak”. That’s because he’s only paying attention to that which is valuable to him.
Obama’s full election involves getting those people to pay attention to the broader picture (I’m assuming you’re an Obama guy). You have to make nice to those Clinton people or Obama won’t do very well in the end.
On another subject, did Demi rape your puppy or something? Lotta hate tonight. It makes me sad.
Punchy, WTF is wrong with you? I was making the opposite argument. I made it several times. I’m not sure how you missed that.
First of all my BP is 110/65. I’m sixty one years old and most of my contemporaries would love to have my BP.
Second, the flickering flame war you are seeing here is at least two years old. Nothing new, and if I were you, I wouldn’t try to figure it out.
This is an odd place, peopled by spoofs, trolls, a psychopath or two, and several disposable personas, of which I am one. I am written by a consortium whose agenda is known only to a few people who live on islands in the Caribbean.
The God of Blog works his wonders in mysterious ways. I simply represent His dominion here on blogearth.
Keep up the good work.
He’s seeing this election entirely in terms of the issues that Bush shat all over.
More like entirely in terms of issues, period, but that’s close enough given that the set of issues I care about and the set of issues Bush shat on are close to unity. In any case, I didn’t call the speech “weak,” just unexceptional – and I did praise the delivery, which is what seems to be getting all the recognition, I just don’t consider it to count for more than the content.
Well, that’s backpedaling, but I have to say, it’s a fine job of it. As good as I can manage when I have to, which is every now and then.
On the basis of style points for backpedaling, and for staying calm under fire, I confer upon you two free carwash coupons and an honorary membership in the Club, which although it doesn’t exist, and was dismissed by you earlier, welcomes you into its membership with open claws.
I also hereby withdraw any actual insults I made to you, except for the really funny ones.
And, no, Chris, I didn’t rape his puppy.
But…well this is the blog from which the term “skull fuck a kitten” arose. I leave it to your imagination to imagine what could have evoked that
Just to show you how magnanimous I can be, I am going to pass on that absolutely fabulous straight line.
As an African American, I don’t want Barrack “Kumbaya” Obama to be the democratic nominee, he still doesn’t understand that he is in a knife fight with the republicans. He will be as effective as Jimmy Carter and will blamed for all the problems (Iraq, Economy, Global Warming, Infrastructure, etc.) that Bush has left the next president. The current batch of republicans do not want to work with democrats, they have proven that time and time again (in majority: steamroll democrats / in minority: obstruct democrats).
Think about it, when you have Andrew “liberals are a 5th column” Sullivan backing you, how much do you think the republicans fear you. I don’t want to be friends with the republicans I want REVENGE on them for the way they’ve treated my constitution and country.
And finally, after the republicans are done with 4 years of Obama trashing it will be another 200 years before a black man is again elected president. (NYC / David Dinkins)
Well, your link points to a reference for the phrase that is a year earlier than the BJ one.
I am not sure that John Cole can take credit for it.
All due respect, I seriously doubt that. I think Obama is too composed and too strong a guy to fall victim to that stuff. He isn’t Jimmy Carter. He doesn’t have a big vulnerable ego, that I can see. And he just doesn’t strike me as a person who will let himself be “trashed.” He strikes me as a guy who expects, and gets, respect.
I grew up in a smallish (20k or thereabouts) town in Indiana, and the racism was everywhere.
Ask another kid to do something and he’d likely inch up his sleeve, point to his exposed (white) forearm, and say “what color is my skin?!”
I knew kids who claimed to be Klansmen. Were they? Doubt it. Point is they thought it was a lie worth telling.
It never occurred to me to wonder how it was that in a town bordering on Gary there wasn’t a single black kid in my school. I got it later when I fell to chatting with a grumpy old man on my paper route who explained to me, with evident pride, how any black family that moved in promptly got driven out. This is where I learned about “white flight” and about how “we got run out of Gary” but “we won’t let it happen here.”
Kids then sounded pretty much like kids today, only replace “fag” with the n-word.
Now, to be fair, this was all 20-30 years ago. I expect Indiana’s made some progress since then.
F, I hear what you’re saying, and I largely agree with you, But I would happily support Obama in the general election. There are a few signs that he has the crafty “don’t be there when the punch lands” style of political combat–and, as a white guy, I must admit to almost giggling at the thought of what having a black man as president would do to some of our country’s bigger douche bags.
We gotta punch that barrier someday, why not now?
Like I said, I did my first Post doc in Indiana, at IU. I understand Cain’s attitude; there were some towns between Bloomington and Indianapolis…
Do you live in the same America I live in?
Expecting and getting anything is not a given, especially in politics (Democrats: John Kerry = War hero / Republicans: John Kerry = traitor) and especially for minorities. I hope Obama would do well and be treated fairly as president, but I don’t have alot of faith that FOX, NY Post and Washington Times are going to be giving alot of respect to any future democratic president.
So, F, which of the Republican candidates would you then recommend for president, so that he can take the blame for all of Bush’s failures? This isn’t an argument against Obama; it’s an argument against voting.
I’m skeptical that “after 4 years of Obama trashing it will be another 200 years before a black man is again elected president”. Do you really believe that?
This is why I hang out here. More frequent occurrences of high-level neural activity. Helps me waste my own neural activity (what little there is)
As I’ve said before, I will support any democratic nominee over the current batch of Repubtards. However, I want somebody mean to be our nominee, someone who has taken names for the past 7 years and is ready to kick ass. As the Dixie Chicks said “I not ready to make nice!”
No, dslak, it isn’t an argument against voting. It’s sensitivity to a particular issue: that the second X president, although less notable than the first, is the first one where “being X” stops mattering.
After four years of having a Southern evangelical who is widely reviled, you’ll never see another Southern evanglical elected president in
No, I live in Phoenix. Heh.
But seriously …. remember, Fox and NYPost and WTimes are going to be after any Dem president. But ….
One, I think they are losing their punch. Their harangue doesn’t appeal to people like it used to. Two, I don’t see Obama has having a Achilles heel that these crap artists can go after. The man is pretty solid. And three, like I said, he just commands respect. His character and strength of will are apparent when he walks into a room, or speaks. I think the idiots will try to mess with him … and fail.
I think he will stand up for himself better than Kerry did, for example. And what’s more, I think others will too. I think there are a lot of people, myself among them, who would stand by the guy if they tried that swiftboat crap on him.
Lastly, I think the moderate press would not stand by and let the right trash Obama the way they let them trash Kerry.
Just my opinion.
Demi, I’m not seeing how the use of variables here turns F’s argument into an argument against nominating Obama, rather than simply an argument against electing a Democrat.
He’s concerned specifically about the second election of a black man or woman. Look at how much damage the right wing noise machine has done to the election of a second Clinton.
Regarding your second point: At this point, it’s difficult to say that Hillary’s fall can be attributed to conservative media. They might have even hoped all the negative attention would make her more popular with the base, and they know she’ll be the easiest candidate for them to challenge in the general.
If that was their strategy, of course, it had some effect, but they didn’t count on Obama drawing in independents and Republicans.
I can tell what his concern is, but of all the possible characteristics one could point to in order to explain why someone’s presidency failed, how likely is it that most people would think it was gender or color? I don’t see anyone blaming Carter’s Baptist faith for his failings as a president, and I think that’s because most people recognize that his religion is irrelevant to such assessment.
And sorry Jen for misreading your intent. Trying to avoid the Cassidy shrapnel, I skimmed too fast and I must have mistook your take. My bad.
I really like pie
Yes I do,
Article 1 of our constitution which was written in the 1700s contains the phrase “All men are created equal” yet it took a war 100 years later to see the end of slavery.
It took riots a 100 years after that to see the end of Jim Crow.
Today, we still have day to day inequities that minorities suffer through and the occasional “Gulliani Time incidents”.
So yes I do believe we have a long way to go before minorities are allowed to be wrong or make a mistake and then are given a second chance.
F, what in the world does any of that have to do with Obama’s color being blamed if his presidency flops?
Do you think that the color of Obama’s skin or the presence of Hillary’s cleavage will be an issue in this election, even if they shouldn’t be? I do. It’s like Catholicism or Judaism…or unbelief, to use Alan Alda’s term…or sexual preference…none of those should matter, but they all do.
F…well, it could be. My attitude is that it’s a risk worth taking. There always has to be a first in any group. Whether it’s Obama or Hillary, we have a chance to make history. I want to see either a black or a female president before I die, and we have the best shot ever in this cycle. I want to grasp the nettle, and take the chance.
It took moral leadership and a policy of non-violence to end Jim Crow, unless you are referring to the attack on peaceful marchers in the South as “police riots.”
I’m not so naive to expect that they won’t, but given her high negatives and the fact that the press seem out to get her, I expect that to pose more a problem for Clinton. Obama is turning into a media darling and garnering the support of independents and disaffected Republicans. If that trend continues, race-based attacks are less likely to be effective.
The argument against electing a black or a woman now seems to be predicated upon the assumption that a minority should only be elected under perfect conditions, when he or she won’t be blamed for everything that goes wrong. But there are no perfect conditions. One of Obama’s strenghts in the current climate is that he’s not someone running to be the first black president, but that he’s a black man running to be president.
Ah, but you see a strict constructionist would have interpreted that phrase to mean exactly what it says – all men. It makes no mention of their skin color.
Now what it fails to mention is that all women are created equal, too. Therefore, the 15th amendment is superfluous, but the 19th amendment was a necessary clarification.
I worried about any democrat being treated fairly by todays press. What we currently call the moderate press has been pulled so far to the right they would be considered right wing a few years ago (60s). I specifically pointed out FOX, NY Post and the Washington Times as the leaders in this, however do any of you believe CBS, NBC, ABC or the cable guys CNN, MSNBC wont participate in the denigration of a democratic president.
Look at these differences
– Their treatment of Bill Clinton vs. their treatment of Bush II
– Their treatment of Bush II vs. their treatment of Al Gore
– Their treatment of Bush II vs. their treatment of John Kerry
– Their treatment of John McCain vs. their treatment of any democrat
Yes, a media darling whom they love to write specious tales about regarding his stint in a madrassa and whether or not he is an Islamofascist sympathizer.
With friends like those…
See: I was right. F is making an argument against voting, especially voting for a Democrat.
Regarding that story, I wasn’t counting Fox News as one of the groups enamored of him. I don’t expect his media appeal to prevent Republican operatives being successful in getting an occasional negative story into the mainstream press, like the Manchurian Candidate bit that made it on the front page of The Washington Post. That didn’t stick, however, and that’s significant.
Nothing, however that won’t stop the inevitable “see a black man can’t be a pitcher, quarterback, coach, manager, president, pick you position of authority” statements/whispers, which will then make it that much harder for the next black man.
I hope everyone understands I don’t have a problem with Obama because of the possibility that he may fail, my problem is that he is too accommodating. Again, I want our nominee to be someone who took names that last 7 years and is ready to kick ass. I too want to see a woman or a black as president in my lifetime.
Well, good luck with that. One of the worst things about the current regime and Rovian politics is the “get even” approach to the thing, and for that matter, to the world.
I think people are tired of that crap. And I think Obama is above it, and way too smart for it.
If electing a black president now might harm the prospects of any blacks being elected president in the future, maybe we’d better just not elect any blacks president. Sounds like a solution!
Maybe the candidate you’re talking about isn’t Obama, but it’s certainly not Hillary. The only names she took were the “centrist” votes she needed to cast and the only asses she kicked were those of people who dared to question the great wisdom of her decisions to give Bush carte blanche on Iraq and helping him posture for war with Iran.
Let’s get this straight: An argument that Obama does not have progressive credentials is not an argument that Hillary does.
The argument I’m making is; in todays political environment don’t count on the “moderate press” or the “honorable opponent” for fair treatment or the giving of respect. The democratic nominee must be willing to fight and fight dirty if necessary, unfortunately that is the way it is in today politics.
That is the person I want to vote for, the person who will do whatever it will takes to win.
Fighting dirty only works if you don’t get caught doing it. Obama’s no angel, but he’s convinced a lot of people he is. That’s one helluva dirty trick.
Obama also has to know that, should he win the Democratic nomination, he’s going to have all the angry partisans on his side by default, and those people will be willing to get their hands dirty for his sake.
Karl Rove is retired. Sorry.
I see you’re being obstinate in not understanding my argument on race in America so I’m done with you.
I agree with you, the current batch of democrats aren’t the most progressive, however to tell you the truth I just want someone mean. I want REVENGE.
Perhaps. Or maybe you’re being obstinate in failing to see the difference between undestanding a position and agreeing with it. I understand plenty of positions with which I disagree, and I count yours among them.
I think the question I need to ask, and to which I don’t have an answer, is whether Obama would be more vulnerable to such an attack than any other dem?
Now that Obama has acheived front-runner status, wait to see how many lurid exposés appear about him in every mainstream media venue. The villagers have all been busy picking on Hillary, but I guarantee they will rip into Obama with equal glee and gusto. In fact, this morning on The Diane Rehm Show, the panel seemed to confirm this, saying that they have been giving Obama a ‘pass’ but that now that he has won Iowa, they will begin taking a more ‘critical’ look at his campaign (which is code for writing whatever sensational shit they can come up with).
Mark my words.
What Muslim heritage? The man never attended a Madrassa and was raised a Christian by his mother. Sure, his dad was a Muslim, but so what? If America buys this nonsense we deserve the shit storm coming our way by voting status quo.
I am an Edwards man, but I can accept Obama as I can’t support NONE of the GOP players. I used to be big on Paul but things about him are starting to dissuade me from him. I love RP’s message about fixing the dying dollar, foreign entanglements, his honest demeanor and sticking to the constitution but I have many other issues with some of his wacky domestic policies that have made me pull back.
Besides, I am getting TOO many emails from loser housing speculators and weird fringe groups pushing the RP Revolution that I have to back off just because I can’t support any of those people.
One day we will get the perfect RP type candidate. I hope to God it won’t be too late.
This is to be expected, whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be. One can still be a media darling while other elements in the media are out to get you, however, although I’m not saying definitively that the press won’t turn once they smell blood.
I don’t think there are any previous data on it.
Kerry, while positioned as unassailable, was so bloodless that he fell like a wet blanket when he came up against competition.
Hillary has already given a good run-through on a good opposing apparatus, so that speaks well to Obama’s momentum.
But against republicans? You never know.
Anyone else know of any previous examples?
On a humorous note, I was just thinking about how the GOP might harness latent racism against Obama, but then I thought: Are there seriously going to be any racists who don’t already know that Obama’s black?
John S is correct, the “moderate press” will be more aggressive (democratic attack mode) in the future.
And as far as is he more vulnerable or will it stick, I think we all remember:
– Obama went to a Madrassa
– Obama is a Muslim
The case they’re building against Obama is that he is a foreigner, maybe even a Muslim. They won’t say it out loud, however as with Al Gore and his “lying”, there will be a lot a little whispers and then it will be accepted as conventional wisdom that he is a Muslim.
I think there is some good progress. The black guys in our high school (and this is West Lafayette a college town, it’s not the norm) were all popular kids who dated and hung out like any other. West Lafayette, is about 25 miles from Delphi which was once the world headquarters of the KKK. (which seems to have a healthy black population from what I remember)
Wow, Republicans are building a case against Obama. I guess we’d better vote for Hillary, then, because they don’t have a case against her.
Demi’s questions was: Is there reason to think that Obama would be more vulnerable to personal attacks, not whether the GOP will manage to think of some. That’s a no-brainer.
You’ve got him now.
That thing about him that scares you? That’s the same thing that gives him the balls to say “fix the dollar”. You’re hoping that there will be a Paul in the future that only sees the problems you’re seeing in the future, and remains tame on the rest.
I’m sure you can tell that’s a rather unreasonable fantasy. If you like just some of Ron Paul’s platform, you should support him now. His ideas are so concentrated that just a little of them will diffuse through the whole wonksphere. He doesn’t even have to be President to be effective.
But even if he makes it to President (yes, unlikely), I would expect to have enough faith in the average non-dickhead that he wouldn’t do what we we’re afraid of until we were ready. I would expect a lot of delayed-effect bills to some out of his leg. affairs office.
Seriously, are you going to let Paul retire and then get stuck with LaRouche? Go for it if you like him.
We are being obstinate aren’t we.
My example showed that he has his vulnerabilities also, his major one so far being his supposed muslimilty (not sure if its a word).
Regaring the “Obama went to a madrassa” and “Obama is a Muslim” memes, those were already floated, sometimes by people involved with Hillary’s campaign. The end result was that Obama still beat out Hillary and did so by bringing in independents and Republicans. That’s good reason to think that strategy won’t work in the future, so the GOP are going to have to think up something novel.
If that were the issue, it might have been relevant. Can you find an instance of anyone on this thread claiming that Obama had no vulnerabilities? Didn’t think so.
Yeah, but they have to do that without being explicit, otherwise the voters that sleep through the election will wake up and feel their intelligence has been insulted. It has to get the “what if??” fear up without alerting the dumbass voter to some scam.
So Clinton has already being testing this for us.
Republicans would have to find a way to be more devious, because Obama’s weathering it quite well. He tacitly admits to the issue without accepting guilt.
That does mean the republicans can’t figure something out, but their work is cut out for them.
CORRECTION: Obama has not admitted to being a Muslim or a Jihadi. I’m talking about other things
Just in case there are dumbasses reading this thread.
(whew. Scared myself for a second there.)
He wouldn’t be much of a Manchurian Candidate if he had, would he?
You are correct, I did not answer demimondian’s queston, which was; whether Obama would be more vulnerable to such an attack than any other dem?
Probably not, just different things to be vulnerable about, with his muslimilty being the one major one so far.
On this, at least, we can both agree.
Sully had a great link that seems relevant to this discussion. It’s a blogger in harlem blogging about what was happening in Harlem when Obama won:
Check it out
Why O why do thou sully thine eyes with a Sully link
Actually it goes directly to the blog not to sully’s website. So you’re eyes are safe, buddy.
Thanks for the link Cain!
Sounds like a working definition of Myth Romney, the phantom candidate who will do anything, say anything, deny anything, pander to anyone, in a craven attempt to become elected president. We can do better than this.
We can do better than falling for the Republicans’ game of defining the Democratic Party candidate based upon what the Republicans MIGHT do. They have their own problems, as the GOP kingmakers (such as the National Review and others) try to fight off the Evangelical outsider hick, Huckabee, who easily threw off Romney’s challenge in Iowa, or the resurgent rebel McCain, who appears to be upsetting their apple cart in New Hampshire.
Obama’s wonderfully inspirational speech was, perhaps, his version of the Henry V “St Crispian’s Day Speech” from the play Henry V. It is directly on target. He makes every person who voted for him in Iowa part of his team, and invites the rest of the nation to get on board, now, because this moment in history belongs to those who are willing to act bravely against all odds. Even against the certainty of GOP attacks. Obama says,
“Years from now, you’ll look back and you’ll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we’ve been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path….
Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire….
Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be….
That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond.
Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.”
Shakespeare’s Henry V says:
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
Hedwig and the Angry 2.54 Centimeters
wrong friggin’ thread…ugh, I hate Micheal D.