Are the Clintons playing me like a fiddle- this comment makes a lot of sense:
The Clintons aren’t racists, and that’s not the point. But the Clintons have done the math and they know they aren’t going to get the black vote this time. They need something else, and that something else is to make this black v. white in the most innocent ways they can.
Has anyone stopped to ask themselves what bamboozling scum like Johnson is doing over in the Clinton camp in the first place?
Who is Johnson, exactly. Also from the comments, this link, which was very enlightening.
Putting aside the vapid and gushing nonsense from Obama supporters, which will irritate me until the end of the second Obama term, am I being played as a fool by the Clinton camp?
*** Update ***
More here from Matt Bai.
*** Update ***
And then you have this from the comments:
Clinton? Really? Clinton is dragging down the dialogue? This is the shit that the modern day MSM will do to politics in general. Hillary Clinton – on the eve of the NH primaries – sits down at a town hall meeting and wonks the fuck out. People applaud her to a first place finish, and she just barely scrapes by Golden Boy Obama.
So now, as the media scratches its head wondering how Hillary could have won, the only conclusion they can come to is “OMFG! BRADLEY EFFECT! EVERYONE’S A RACIST!” And the only thing that gets reported on for the next week is tan lines.
Hey, fuckwads, perhaps Hillary Clinton won on her Health Care Plan™. You remember the Health Care Plan™, right? The central platform of the Democratic Party in ‘08? The only thing more potent than their Not Being In Iraq For A Century platform? The issue that touches the core of the party’s Big Responsible Government message?
Hillary’s got a comprehensive strategy. Obama – bless his heart, I love him – doesn’t. So what do we talk about between NH and Michigan? Negrophobia and who’s got it.
And that’s Clinton’s fault. Because she just sat right down and twisted Chris Matthew’s arm on this. And Karl Rove – saint that he is – couldn’t resist the desire to talk less about important policy issues and more about baiting bullshit.
Anyone who buys into this “Who’s the real racist?” bullshit is a tool, I’m sorry. We’ve got Bush itching to push the Go button on nuking Iran because someone’s jetski moistened an American Sailor. McCain/Lie-berman have begun the “Mission Accomplished—For Real This Time” drum beat. Newt Gingrich continues to get air time talking about government reform. And here we are talking about how racist the Democrats are.
Congratulations folks. Conservative Media just PWN’D you again. Enjoy your wetsuit.
Carnacki
Considering their history with the Sister Souljah stuff of lore, I’d say they’re trying to play us – but we’re only fools if we let them.
ThymeZone
Hard to tell, re: the Clintons playing us for fools.
Without hard evidence, I won’t convict. But circumstantial evidence makes it look suspicious.
And, my take is, they’re losing this game, whether they wanted it or not. They are spending a lot of time defending their attacks on Obama, and Obama is looking above the fray. I think that hurts Clinton.
But hey, I thought Larry Craig was just trying out a new pair of tap shoes, so what the hell do I know?
Billy K
Ask this man.
(Look! I made a proper linking!)
bdr
The Clintons can’t be both racists AND megalomaniacs.
If power is everything, everything else is negotiable. Racists can’t be negotiated with.
Whether the use of racism by a non-racist in pursuit of power is better or worse than overt racism is another issue.
LarryB
I’m instinctively anti-conspiracy theory (who needs Machiavelli when dumb-ass stupidity explains it just fine) but the commenters over at Talking Points Memo would seem to agree with you:
Scotty
They’re dancing around the pools edge, but they won’t jump in. As long as they’re dancing they can say anything they want as long as they can provide an alternative meaning to what they say. (ex. Bob Johnson, Shaheen , Penn)
See… Clinton’s dry.
Jake
Johnson is yet another guy who has a lot of money but couldn’t run a business anywhere but into the ground.
Rick Taylor
It seems far fetched to me. I don’t see how it helps them.
Gus
Billy K, I hope that was a joke. Sully absolutely froths at the mouth when the topic of the Clintons comes up. He actually said that Hillary has cooties. I actually kind of enjoy his blog, but I find myself going there less and less because I find myself wanting to defend the Clintons. And I can’t stand them.
Scotty
But does it hurt them if they can get away with it?
Punchy
Isn’t Johnson the BET guy? and he’s shilling for the cracker in the race when there’s a quality A-squared in the hiz? I call shenanigans. Somethan’s afoot with the Clagenis fam. They sneeky.
John Cole
That is how I have felt the last two weeks.
demimondian
Of course you are, John. Here’s the truth: any of the three major candidates will make a great President (seriously). I’m glad that Kookspinach (TM, PsycheOut) poses no threat of getting the nomination, but, other than that — the Dems really can’t lose. We’re just arguing about what color to paint the bike shed. Really.
This is the season of false differentiation. Obama is slightly right of Clinton on domestic issues, and Clinton is slightly to the right of Obama on international issues. Since I’m slightly to the left of Obama on domestic issues, and rather to the right of Clinton on international issues, I’m more comfortable with Clinton, but…trust me, I’ll be thrilled by Obama, too, and will put my back into pushing for him if he gets the nod.
akaoni
Yes
LiberalTarian
Ockham’s razor suggests inadvertence on the Clinton’s part. The black vote is not a block vote, and Obama’s team jumping on this shows more of an attempt to keep the Clinton’s from getting the black vote than it does the Clinton’s trying to get the people who hate blacks to vote for them. Frankly, the racists aren’t going to vote Democrat anyway, so there is little reward in going that route.
HRC has been beat up regularly by the other side for the last 15 years. She hasn’t been planning this whole fracas since she was in kindergarten, that is some pretty wingnutty territory. I think it is unfortunate that she and Obama both want to be president in the same election.
People are dumb. Exhibit A: President GW Bush for two (apparently) complete terms. Exhibit B: theories that the Clinton’s planned to stir up a racial hornets’ nest. If they were that crafty, Bill Clinton would not have been impeached for a blow job.
Wilfred
Clintons win what? What kind of white, Democratic voter is put off by ‘black anger and militancy(?)’?
Conservatively Liberal
I am not a conspiracy nut, but there have been too many instances of ‘baiting’ of a sort by those associated (tightly or loosely) with the Clinton gang. If Barack stands up to this, he may get tagged as the ‘angry black guy’, and if he does not then the smear stands.
Either way, it is a win-win for Clinton. What better way to bring up race than to bait the other side into it? That way your hands are clean and you get to rake in the benefits of it.
Hillary will never get my vote. Never. But I am not a democrat either. I am just another one of many who got fed up with the party and registered as an independent as my way of protesting the party direction. Seems like I am not the only one who feels that way, and now both parties are distilling themselves down to the core. What is left on either side flat out sucks, and there is a growing middle who refuse to join in on the crap both sides dish out. A person like Obama will bring in those on the outside, but Hillary will never be able to do the same.
Hillary knows what she has to do to win, and she will do it. No matter what has to happen, she will make it happen. The 50%+1 way of winning via divide and conquer is just fine with her. All that matters is that she wins.
Problem is, I can’t see that happening for her. She is viscerally hated on the right, and that flat out eliminates any support for her from that half of the nation. So she has to divide and conquer in her own party to pull out a primary win, then hope that the POS who the right nominates will be so disliked that she gets a win for the office.
Obama supporters may be tiresome, but I will take tiresome over outright mean and nasty any day.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I would like to nominate the argument of:
“Of course they’re not racists, they’re just educated, smart people that know what they want. They want the White House.
However the average Smart Person is stunningly simple and reactive in comparison to the global stage. They are throwing anything that looks like it has weight at him. It doesn’t mean that they’re racists. It doesn’t mean they’ve poll-tested it (although they may have).
They’re isolated, in-control, and white. They are Absolutely Tone-Deaf when it comes to racism. They don’t know what it sounds like, how it plays, who it hits.
They’re not playing you for fools. They are fools; aren’t we all?”
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Read the Chait article. Very revealing.
Tsulagi
I’d go with that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and all that. And while Monica L. may be mistaken for one, she is not a humidor.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Quoted to support my argument. (h/t Tsulagi)
crayz
Yes, you are. There’s just no way it’s a coincidence that these racially tinged attacks have shown up just as Obama started to pose a serious threat to Hillary
Tsulagi
Yeah, John Kerry will back you up on that one.
Kynn
There are huge numbers of white so-called liberals who will vote for a “polite, articulate” black man, or an angry white man (like, say, John Edwards), but no way in hell are they gonna vote for an angry black man.
TheFountainHead
Uhmmm, not saying they ARE, but how can you say those things are mutually exclusive??
Re: The Fool:
I don’t think it’s necessarily Hillary that’s trying to make you the fool John, but I don’t put it past Mark Penn to make you look the fool. I put nothing past that snake. If it’s not race-baiting, I don’t know what to call it other than monumentally fucking stupid.
Shorter: If Hillary is too stupid to win a campaign without flubbing the racial issues in America, how the hell is she going to get treaties and trade agreements past other cultures, let alone our Congress?
Chris
The old kind. The “Reagan Democrat” kind.
LiberalTarian
Depends on what he is angry about. Part of my frustration with Obama is that he is not angry enough about the GW Bush and gang crime spree. Your point is still well taken.
Horselover Fat
So let’s say, for the sake of argument, we have a series (interpreted as a “pattern”) of racially insensitive statements that serve as provocations to Blacks. If permitted to just sit there and fester, so what results, other than a lot of angered Blacks who are more likely to turn out to vote for Obama? Nobody else is even much aware of this stuff.
So if someone, whether the media, Obama supporters, or the Obama campaign or SOP (Some Other Party) chooses to publicize this stuff, blowing it up into a big brouhaha, what then?
1) Obama does better in South Carolina.
2) The nominee, whether Obama or Clinton, does much worse in the November election because a key support group is antagonized.
Conclusion: whoever decided to publicize this stuff hasn’t done the Democratic Party any favors.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Yeah, because its not enough that liberals like the idea of equality, its that they’re not sabotaging enough of the natural order to give blacks equality
… which won’t mean shit after the entire social order, good and bad together, is on its ass out in the cold because another minority thought life was unfair.
Minorities exist, will always exist. Blacks aren’t the first, won’t be the last. We’ll work to heal the rift efficiently, and get Blacks the middle class, and then another minority will show up somehow. Black Mormons, or Hmong Minnesotans. There’s always something.
And an angry black man as President will work just dandy. Riiiiiiight.
Stephen
Yes.
There are varying degrees of nastiness among politicians. I have no doubt that the Obamessiah, when he is not shitting hot fudge sundaes, falls within the bell curve.
The Clintons are outliers on the nasty side, IMHO.
Conservatively Liberal
In a way, this reminds me of the problem the right is having with the theocons. It was fine and dandy for the right to suck up to these people for a win, but the idea that they would have the audacity to stand up and support one of their own was unimaginable to them. So now we are laughing at the mess they made for themselves, and now we are seeing the division of the once solid right.
The democrats have been more than happy to suck up to minorities, and having a few blacks run for the presidency (who never stood a chance of winning, e.g. Sharpton) made for great window dressing. But now that there is a black man who stands a chance of actually winning, they are pulling out all of the stops to shoot him down.
We are not laughing at this, or at least I am not. What we are witnessing this election cycle is the maturing of the minor voices in either party, and I believe that the political landscape will be much different after this election. Good or bad, we will see. But the old party structures are fracturing under the load. What comes out the other side is going to change the political scene for years to come.
D-Chance.
akaoni nailed the most obvious answer to the question.
The Clintons aren’t OVERT racists; but they know how to play the racism game. The understand politics better than most any other group out there. Those code words they keep leaking out aren’t done as “oops! Did I say that? I didn’t mean…”. They put it out there knowing full well what they’re doing. And they’re now shifting the subset of surrogates, this latest episode using an African-American to throw the code out there for your consumption… after all, who would call a fellow African-American ‘racist’?
This campaign, thanks to the Clintons, is fast reaching sub-Atwater levels. Expect it to sink even deeper.
STEVEinSC
Well as they say “Its good to be a little paranoid…” Hillary Clinton is the Village choice viz., the gemuetlichkeit she now enjoys with the health insurance industry while she’s also a bubelah for AIPAC. She and Bill learned middle of his first term, it’s better to “go along to get along.” In other words she’d sell her soul for one night in the WH. Johnson is the natural child of all the struggles of the downtrodden and their liberal allies. Liberals sow the seeds of their own destruction. Prosperity breeds Republicans. I’m not saying she (and he) are not competent, they are just the epitome of ambition. They really have no souls. If you guys think “go along to get along” is the antidote to the anti-Christ in the WH, well, she’s your gal.
Pooh
This is simply the Greater Bitch Slap Theory in action. React angrily, and he’s playing the race card, JUST LIKE AL SHARPTON, OH NOES! Let it pass and people are all “I like Obama, but he’s kinda a pussy.”
Jake
This doesn’t make any sense. You’re conflating Democrats with the Clinton campaign.
That the Clinton is going all out to shoot him down is politics as usual.
To say ALL Democrats are pulling out all the stops is inaccurate because … he’s not breathing down HRC’s neck because he doesn’t have support from Dems.
Horselover Fat
So how do you know Obama is less an epitome of ambition than the Clintons? Or has any more soul? All you see of any politician is the public persona.
I see Obama as a blank slate onto which people project what they want to see. Nothing more.
sparky
Yes.
Here are some points to consider:
None of this stuff showed up until Iowa; i.e., until BHO was a serious threat.
As mentioned above, those comments made by Clinton people (jive, drug use, LBJ not MLK) are not inadvertent; they are carefully crafted comments designed to be provocative but leave no Clinton fingerprints. Straight out of the Rove book, BTW.
Those are facts. Here is a supposition: what Obama has that Clinton doesn’t is charisma. But that is a fragile thing, easily destroyed. If Clinton can provoke Obama into being “angry” a great deal of his aura will be diminished. Some of that diminishment is probably racist, but some of it will simply be the “oh he’s human and can’t take it” variety. All of this would redound to the benefit of the “experienced” candidate. In other words, of course we’re being played. IMO, Obama has already demonstrated that he’s smarter than the Clintons because he hasn’t fallen for it.
Cuzco
No comment. Just got good chuckle out o that.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
For the sake of truth (or at least the appearance of it), the Cuomo quote was pretty far away from the context of Obama when he said it.
Not a good phrase to use, nonetheless.
F
LiberalTarian @ 5:55 has it right.
Every black person has a co-worker/friend/acquaintance like this (or maybe they are the one);
When I was stationed at Ft. Sill I had a platoon Sgt. who because I was a black officer thought he would point out to me all the “racist” comments/actions by the white people in our platoon/company. Being a butter bar I listened and began to react to his words with a – me against the white man – attitude. Luckily for me I had a 1st Sgt. (also black – don’t you just love the military for its equality) who noticed my attitude took me aside and told me “Lt. don’t get caught up with Sgt. “X” he is one of those brothers whose always looking for racism in everything and as we know there is enough racism out there without you needing to go look for it.”
John is correct on one thing though, the Obama camp is playing a very subtle game in their pointing out the Clinton’s so-called racism, however they are alienating a certain number of us who know there is enough racism out there without need to go look for it (particularly in people we consider our friends).
As far as Bob Johnson is concerned; he is a greedy fool who made a ton of money by creating a network around booty videos and preacher shows (liquor stores and churches). He then sold out to Viacom by telling them BET was the voice of the black community, they got rooked.
F
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
(from here, h/t sully):
That would be a damn good response from Obama. Good answer for the spat we were having before re: what should Obama do to get out of this.
LiberalTarian
I’d be careful of that “You’re just trying to keep the black man down” rhetoric. Yousef Bey, founder of your Muslim Black Bakery in Oakland, used that as his defense when he was being investigated for various wrongdoing at his establishment. Pretty off-putting. Racist victimization as shield. It didn’t work, but it did confuse people in his circle.
Yet, in this case, you are right. Hillary Clinton is trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination OVER Barack Obama. Yes, she is literally trying to keep him down. But, her reasons are not nefarious. One of them will win the nomination, and like they love to say brutally on Project Runway, the other one will be out.
Conservatively Liberal
Yes Jake, ‘they’ in this sense is the Clinton gang, not the democratic party in general. But the party leaders are going to go where they see the power, and Clinton has been pulling that chain for a long time now. I think Clinton sees the party leaders like a bunch of sharks circling; put some blood in the water and then stand back and watch the frenzy.
Whoever the ‘leader’ is, the party will congeal around them. Clinton is seen as the more formidable opponent, and the party is pretty much lining up behind her. Look at the superdelegate count for confirmation of this.
Hillary was inevitable until Iowa. At that point, she saw the writing on the wall and has decided on a course of action. NH was never in doubt (for Hillary) in my mind, but it was played up (by her own people) that Obama may win. And it was played up BIG. So he ‘loses’ in NH, and Hillary looks ‘revived’. Nice way to manipulate the perception of the outcome; make the superwoman the underdog and make the underdog the superman. The outcome is the same, but the perception is that something completely different happened.
Smoke and mirrors. But it will fool most people, but IMO most people are fools already.
sab
I really hate seeing all this gender v. race division in the Democratic campaigns, but it’s going to take a whole lot more than MSM pundits and Obama surrogates’ campaign spin to convince me that either Clinton has even a whiff of racism in their makeup. I don’t agree with many of Hillary’s positions, but this is one dog that absolutely won’t hunt as far as I’m concerned.
Zifnab
Clinton? Really? Clinton is dragging down the dialogue? This is the shit that the modern day MSM will do to politics in general. Hillary Clinton – on the eve of the NH primaries – sits down at a town hall meeting and wonks the fuck out. People applaud her to a first place finish, and she just barely scrapes by Golden Boy Obama.
So now, as the media scratches its head wondering how Hillary could have won, the only conclusion they can come to is “OMFG! BRADLEY EFFECT! EVERYONE’S A RACIST!” And the only thing that gets reported on for the next week is tan lines.
Hey, fuckwads, perhaps Hillary Clinton won on her Health Care Plan(tm). You remember the Health Care Plan(tm), right? The central platform of the Democratic Party in ’08? The only thing more potent than their Not Being In Iraq For A Century platform? The issue that touches the core of the party’s Big Responsible Government message?
Hillary’s got a comprehensive strategy. Obama – bless his heart, I love him – doesn’t. So what do we talk about between NH and Michigan? Negrophobia and who’s got it.
And that’s Clinton’s fault. Because she just sat right down and twisted Chris Matthew’s arm on this. And Karl Rove – saint that he is – couldn’t resist the desire to talk less about important policy issues and more about baiting bullshit.
Anyone who buys into this “Who’s the real racist?” bullshit is a tool, I’m sorry. We’ve got Bush itching to push the Go button on nuking Iran because someone’s jetski moistened an American Sailor. McCain/Lie-berman have begun the “Mission Accomplished — For Real This Time” drum beat. Newt Gingrich continues to get air time talking about government reform. And here we are talking about how racist the Democrats are.
Congratulations folks. Conservative Media just PWN’D you again. Enjoy your wetsuit.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
My favorite “preacher video” is the one of the grey haired white guy saying “Are you massively in debt? If you give
meJesus $1000 now, Jesus will magically remove all your debt.” (I can’t remember his name)I think the thing that kept me from absolute fury was that the “witnesses” from that were all dumb, white, and in their 40s. That left me enough room to sit entranced in horror.
Bob In Pacifica
Why do commenters feel the need to deny being conspiracy theorists, especially when we are talking about politics in the 21st Century. Or any century, for that matter.
By the way, I am a conspiracy theorist.
JC
Good post here.
I’d only like to add, the lawsuit in NV. It isn’t a coincidence that a suit is filed, a couple of days after Obama picks up the Culinary Union endorsement.
It’s clearly dirty pool, and throwing up *just* enough (is it or isn’t it?) mud, to confuse the picture, and have the conversation shift from “change” to the controversy.
Two points:
a. It is actually a good thing to see if Obama can deal with these type of hardball tactics, in a way that stay true to his message, and that he still can win.
Because this is a pale imitation of what will be coming down the pike this summer, if Obama picks up the nomination. If Obama doesn’t hasn’t gamed out a successful plan to deal with this type of bulls**t, that will be coming 24-7 from the Rethugs, I don’t want him to have the nomination, no matter how much I love the “promise of Obama” (And I do, quite a lot.)
How do you peform POLITICALLY SUCCESSFUL judo, on, as Josh Marshall says, the “bitchslap” theory of politics? It’s a hard conundrum, because if Obama comes back too hard, he’s the ‘angry black man’. If he doesn’t come back at all, he’s weak.
And people simply won’t vote for the weak guy. Politics ain’t beanbag (another title to a recent Josh Marshall post.)
Any thoughts on this?
b. 2nd point. All this type of thing by Clinton does, is turn off people to her campaign. I certainly feel less likely to vote for her. So there is a real and present danger of the alienation of some percentage of liberals, which she will need that vote, in GREAT AMOUNTS, if say she goes up against McCain.
JC
Ah, I see Pooh said it before me – what I get, for not reading the comments.
Wilfred
Oh for fuck’s own sake. Bey was trying to get off on a murder charge. And how does this figure in with white people not wanting to vote for an ‘angry black man’. How about an angry white man, or woman, or gay man? Is it the angry or just the black part – if it’s the latter, then that’s racist. When Huckabee threatens to send Iranians to the gates of hell – is he an angry white man?
Race baiting doesn’t make someone a racist – just an opportunistic scumbag.
ThymeZone
We know Bob. Governor Arnold is sending a mudslide after you right now.
j/k
(or am I?)
Robert Johnston
Obama and the Obamabots have already convinced me that I can’t vote for him in good conscience in the primary or actually support him in the general election; there’s considerable evidence that Clinton is trying to do the same. I’m not there yet, because I really don’t want to cast a meaningless protest vote or just not vote at all Feb 5., but I’m getting closer. I’d really hoped that I’d be able to actually support the Democratic nominee this year rather than just view the Democrat as a lesser evil. Alas, that appears more unlikely by the day to end up being the case and I’ll almost certainly once again be voting antiRepublican in November if I can bring myself to bother voting at all. Fuck you, Democratic party.
LiberalTarian
Bey the elder, not Bey the younger. You could read the articles if you wanted to Google News them. I’m pretty sure I said, “founder of Your Muslim Black Bakery.” The man accused of the murder is Bey the son. For fuck’s sake.
laneman
HAH – I read the update quote that John added, and said that’s Zinfab, then I checked.
w00t, I officially pat myself on the head.
laneman
ok, I can’t type, Zifnab
F
JC,
Why do you and others say All this type of thing by Clinton does, is turn off people to her campaign.
How do you know its the Clinton’s saying this? I know it sounds a little naive, but how do you know its the Clinton’s saying and doing these actions?
I mean, you do know your receiving this information from a press corp that has a proven
hatreddislike for the Clintons. This same press corp is being fed their information by Obama and his supporters and any random Republican who would like to roil up the democratic party (blacks vs. women).I would ask you and others before you assign blame and become hostile at a canidate (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc.) please take a moment and consider the source (opposition/Republican) and the means of distribution (the press) and their current and past motives and actions.
Harley
Sorry, but the idea that HIllary won in New Hampshire due to her ‘comprehensive health plan’ has got to be spam or a joke. Or both.
Thinwit.
Harley
And another thing! Hillary’s camp is working to suppress the vote (lawsuit in Nevada), drawing her opponent into a victimization debate (and yes, Obama errs in letting himself get pulled into this), and allowing surrogates to smear her opponent.
In other words, she’s running as the Republican. Which is worth noting.
Conservatively Liberal
I had to laugh at that too. Derisively. So it had to be a joke.
That, or the insane reasoning of a Clintonista. ;)
Ok, maybe drugs.
JC
F,
I don’t “know”. But two things.
a. The lawsuit in NV “just happened” to be file, after Obama got the Culinary vote? And not filed the six months before?
b. These “too cute” references, just happened to start coming, when Obama started forging ahead in the polls in IA?
I’m actually much more upset by A, rather than B. I don’t think that Clinton & Co. are racist, I think it’s more just some political shots, that skate the edge. Plausible deniablity helps here, yes? This is the 3rd benefit of is it/isn’t it? mud, that you can claim innocence, and reflect back on the attacker their “error in judgment”/whining crybabyness, for protesting.
But A – the vote suppression in NV – that’s a real problem.
Hypatia
The Clintons, individually and collectively, have been accused over the years, of murder, rape, and helping to run a cocaine ring out of Mena airport, among other foul crimes too numerous to mention here. I suppose they can handle ‘racist’ being thrown on top of the pile.
There are perfectly good reasons not to support HRC, but this whole business has been blown wildly out of proportion and the Obama people bear their share of responsibility for that.Plainly, they don’t mind a bit of ‘polarization’ after all. However, far be it from me to criticize Barack, the source of all things good and pure, all things to all men, the Hope of the Nation, etc.
(I still don’t understand why liberals are so hopped up over Obama. He’s not especially liberal especially on domestic issues, and in some ways he’s more of a status quo candidate than HRC, and he seems to have a history of ducking the hard issues. But you can’t talk to the Obamaniacs, I’ve found.
JC
Hypatia,
the vote suppression in NV – that’s a real problem.
John Cole
WHY DO YOU TRASH TALK THE OBAMESSIAH!ONEELEVEN!
Don’t you know he has transcended race, politics, ideological divisions, and once we elect him we will all move to the promised land?
Jesus, Hypatia. What the hell is wrong with you?
libarbarian
I can understand much of the annoyance with the kind of lame Obama supporters who treat him like he’s the new Jesus and gush about how much shit he “transcends”.
I’d like to point out, however, that there is always a selection bias towards fanboys because they prosteletize while non-fanboys don’t. I support Obama not because he will “transcend” partisanship but simply because he is not a slave to it while Hillary, frankly, is.
I’d also like to say that I think it’s a mistake, sometimes a big one, to judge either a candidate or an idea based on dislike of some of the the supporters of said candidate or idea. Obviously there are exceptions, and I’m going to be more skeptical of something supported by Nazis precisely because it is supported by Nazis, but nothing we are talking about is that extreme at all.
I have thought a lot about how and why I got fooled (let myself get fooled) into supporting the invasion of Iraq. One of the bigger reasons is precisely that I let myself get fooled into “opposing” the most visible and annoying fringe of the anti-war movement rather than judging the positions on their merits irrespective of how annoying and lame some supporters of those positions (and associated politicians) were. I let myself make the mistake of seeing it as a choice between supporting Bush or supporting (for example) A.N.S.W.E.R. instead of seeing it as a choice between going to war and not going to war with a particular enemy in a particular location at a particular time.
Anyways, Prof. Cole, support who you want but just remember that the choice is between the candidates and their respective plans/agendas/records and not the political fanboys who are overly represented amongst the volunteers and activists out there.
John S.
Honestly, have we learned nothing from Bush?
What the candidates have done or said means absolutley nothing when it comes time to get sworn into office. Bush the candidate from 2000 doesn’t even bear a passing resemblance to the disaster that inhabits the oval office today. And while the fact that Clinton, Edwards and Obama were all legislators with records to stand on (or hide from), it is highly questionable as to whether that translates into the way they will act as an executive.
Pooh
I hereby outsource all my future commenting on this issue to Yglesias:
cleek
things won’t be as funny when it’s Hillary v Johnny “100 Years” McCain.
libarbarian
By this I mean that the fanboys are disproportionately visible because they rush to tell you what they think and how you should like totally agree with them or they will “pwn ur noob a55” and make a video of themselves crying and screaming into a webcam while hiding under a sheet.
The more rational supporters, who dont act like Jehovahs Witnesses on Saturday morning, might outnumber the fanboys 10 to 1 but you wouldn’t know because they are quiet and don’t debase themselves.
Seriously, there is something wrong with someone who can be that enamored with a person they have never actually met and, frankly, I think I speak for most supporters of Obama when I ask them to stop putting people off with the Chris Crocker routine.
I think I also speak for most when I ask the potential supporters to make their decision based on him and not on the behavior of the fanboy faction.
Jorge
A question for Hillary supporters.
What has she accomplished? But I have one caveat for your answers- I need things with her name on it. Or even things that either she or Bill named in their books.
So, this new story about her brokering peace in Ireland doesn’t wash. We had not heard about this before December 2007. Her being the architect of SCHIP – that was Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. She didn’t write the bill, lobby congress on the bill, vote on the bill or sign the bill. At best, she discussed it with Bill and helped to convince him to sign it. At best.
Hillary supporters – please explain to me what it is in HER past that shows me she can get big things done in Washington. Things that were documented before this campaign began and which have her name on it.
I’ll return the favor and tell you the things in Obama’s record that impressed me in another post. To clarify – things Barack accomplished. Not things Michelle accomplished but discussed with Barrack over the breakfast table.
Conservatively Liberal
I am with libarbarian when it comes to Obama. I don’t see him as the best thing since ice cream, but I believe that he is not as beholden to the powers that be (corporate, banking, industrial, manufacturing and so on) as the other major candidates (of both sides) with the exception of Edwards. That is enough to induce me to consider voting for him. It is up to him to make the rest of the sale.
Being detached from the noise and fury of the primary wars allows one to come to their own conclusions on who is doing what to whom. When you are not hanging your hat on a candidate or party, you see the reality of the whole situation.
In the end though, I will not vote for the candidate that sucks less (I accidentally typed ‘sucks’ as ‘shucks’…lol!). If I do not like either candidate, I will vote for Snoopy.
He never gets the Red Baron, but he doggedly tries. ;)
OxyCon
Oh goodie! Does it come with matching dildo and ligature?
Harley
John, at some point you’ve got to retire the Obamessiah joke– and thanks for sharing it in its many permutations — and make some modest attempt at addressing the differences between the two candidates, not to mention their actions and the actions of their campaigns, rather than focusing on what you perceive as the overreaction of the followers of one.
Obama’s economic plan was to be rolled out and discussed this week. But it got buried in bullshit. And that includes thinking up fun ways to deride those who have made the unforgivable mistake of not marinating their political beliefs in blogworthy cynicism.
Cool kids rule, I know that. But at some point it becomes counterproductive.
rawdawgbuffalo
i think it is disingenious and feculent for a man (Johnson) to say he has a problem with a person history of drug use who made billions of of videos of young black men talkin about kiling and drug dealing…just another factor I believe that is leading to the fall of America…. poor mr or mrs next president
Harley
Oh, okay. Turns out I may have misspoken about the Cool Kids.
My bad.
F
JC,
NV Voter Suppression – The Clinton camp denies being involved.
Racial References – It has been proven that the Obama camp is disseminating this information in order to carry the black vote in SC.
—–
So, we have two incidents of shady tactics; one is denied (whether plausible or not), the other is acknowledged, yet you decide Clinton is the problem. Again, I suggest you consider your sources of information and think about whether you are being a little bias.
F
Jorge
1. Introduced, negotiated, and passed a law that required videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases in Illinois. Anyone who knows the history of the death penalty in Illinois should know how important a piece of legislation this is. And after 7 years of torture and renditions, this is a major issue for the entire country.
2. He co-authored ethics reform in Washington. And while it is easy to joke that the bill just makes folks stand-up to eat their food, a serious look at the entirity of the bill reveals it to be the most serious ethics reform in Washington since Watergate. And for Democrats slamming on this bill to gain short-sighted points for Hillary this week, keep in mind that this is going to be one of the few legislative successes that Democrats will have to run-on in the fall.
3. Healthcare – Obama actually sponsored and passed a healthcare bill that provided insurance for 150,000 men, women and children in Illinois. Again, this wasn’t a bill that Michelle signed and that was authored and voted on by others folks, but an actual bill with his name on it.
So, Obama has one major legislative success in healthcare, ethics reform, and civil rights. He also has smaller successes passing bills that expanded early chidlhood education.
So while I know the narrative is that Obama is all talk and Hillary is all experience, the record doesn’t seem to bear out. What Hillary should really be scared of is that it is quite possible that Obama will be MLK and LBJ all rolled up into one (hyperbole alert – just making a point)
libarbarian
When two people are playing somewhat dirty I will go with the one who doesn’t insult my intelligence by lying about her involvement.
Stephen
Look people ….
NO ONE disagree with John on his “I can haz unity pony. Obama transcends all aspects the space time continuum” thingie.
It just pisses him off. How many “You can too run over a dog with a tank!!!!” posts did you all suffer through?
Repeat after me, “Yes, John, Obama is a brainless, vapid, empty-suit, unity-pony shyster.”
F
libarbarian,
Excuse me for being naive, but how do you know Clinton is lying? Please supply facts and links.
Thank you
F
Jake
Au contraire:
Bush 2000 – Smirking, shifty eyed fuckwit with the Sidam Touch.
Bush 2008 – Smirking, shifty eyed dumbfuck with the Sidam Touch.
myiq2xu
Let’s see, one argument goes something like this:
The Clintonista hatch a clever plot to provoke the Obamaniacs into calling them racists, so they can win the white vote by making Obama seem like a scary black man (angry) or an overly sensitive minority member (pussy.) They are totally conceding the black vote to Obama.
In order to accomplish this diabolical plot, they, directly and through their evil henchmen, make a series of remarks, some of which are racially tinged, some that aren’t, and some that only appear objectionable when edited by the media that hates HRC.
Oh yeah, that makes lots of sense.
/end snark
LiberalTarian
Yikes. This thread sucks. Badly.
Harley
F,
Here’s some background on the Vegas scam.
JC
F,
Do I believe what Clinton is saying, or do I believe my lying eyes? It’s all right out in the open there.
Seriously, it does insult the intelligence, re: NV.
Again, I’m not the one fighting the racial stuff – think Obama came out with a good response today. But really, at this point, it’s a matter of perception.
Jen
Yglesias kicks mucho culo on that one. Thanks, pooh.
Jen
Changing the subject, does anyone have a link to a good summary and/or analysis of this
Gulf of TonkinHormuz stuff? I am finally getting around to trying to follow that. I read an LA Times article with a picture of one of the Iranian boats. My dad has a bigger boat than that. I need to try to figure out what the fuss is about.Ted
Actually, he’s transcended corporeal existence. He’s Dave Bowman in 2001.
Incertus (Brian)
All this back and forth between the two camps just reinforces my desire to vote for Edwards at the end of the month.
cmoreNC
George Wallace. Gosh that was easy to refute!
Jake
And:
Ah-HA! (charade you are) That’s it, that’s what’s happening! EDWARDS, aided and abetted by his secret mistress Ann Coulter, is behind all of this!
Ooo, he’s a sly one.
F
Where is the proof? and I’m not talking about an article from the WPost, which prints nothing but innuendos when it comes to the Clintons.
Show me the fingerprints:
– Where is the memo from the Clinton camp asking the Teachers Union to file suit?
– Give me a “Deep Throat”, someone who will expose the Clinton plot.
Give me anything, anything that is verifiable.
—–
My eyes may be lying to me, however after 16 years of seeing the lies that have been said about the Clintons (Drugs to Murder and everything in between) I’m bending over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt.
F
Incertus (Brian)
If he’s that good, screw the presidency. He needs to be Emperor of Time and Space.
Adam
rofl
I think the Obamamania stuff is a little overdone here — seriously, spend some time dealing with the Ron Paul freaks — but that made me laugh
rcman
This whole “controversy” is the news equivalent of junk food. Just because BO is black doesn’t make every criticism of him racist. I don’t see how pointing out that MLK needed political help from a sympathetic president is anything but a fact. As far as mentioning the drug use, even if it is the Clinton camp, that’s not racism, its par for the course. How is it different from mentioning GWB’s drunk driving ? He did it, it was illegal, it’s in the past. People will think it’s important or not. I don’t see how making vague references to it is such potent political tactic that it would be worth the Clinton’s alienating the black vote. Just doesn’t make much political sense. If there’s something the Clinton’s have it’s political sense.
C’mon can’t we have some veggies instead of this constant empty calorie crap ?
HyperIon
Somewhat OT. I saw Shelby Steele on Bill Moyers on Friday and he said some very interesting things. I had read his writings but never seen him interviewed.
I had never heard anyone use the terms bargainer and challenger wrt perceptions of blacks by whites. (Someone upthread was mentioning that an angry black candidate was unelectable and that reminded me of the Shelby interview.)
Shelby assumes that black folks assume all whites are racist. And that Obama as a bargainer conveys that he doesn’t think that, which makes whites feel comfortable. As a white person I have observed many times how distressed some white people get by even the thought of encountering an “angry person of color”. So that part makes sense. But this stuff about assuming all whites are racist….that just doesn’t jibe with my experience. Most of my black friends and students seemed quite content to reach a conclusion about me/my beliefs based on how i treated them or acted.
Anyway it was an interesting discussion and, although I did not agree with everything he said, I ended up sort of liking Steele’s manner.
here is what he went on to say….
Conservatively Liberal
Actually, Bush, Cheney and Rove put their heads together to figure out how to keep the repubs in control of the presidency. It was decided that they would secretly help Ron Paul build a candidacy. Then they decided to drag Huckabee in on it to really mess things up. Then they got hold of Rupert Murdoch and told him to support Hillary. Murdoch helped to create this battle of race between Hillary and Obama as he figured that Edwards would be the one to hang the whole conspiracy on.
Hillary wins the primary, McCain wins the general.
See? It all makes sense! ;)
Seriously, I don’t think the world will end if Hillary were to be elected. But I still would not vote for her based just on her record and those she surrounds herself with. But I do believe that if she gets the nod, democratic turnout will suffer, and republican turnout will surge.
Like it or not, the right wants Hillary to win, IMO.
Harley
F,
Well, okay. If it’s fingerprints you need, I can’t help you. Tho’ it’s worth noting that your demand for absolute proof (in the face of rather convincing circumstantial evidence) sounds very familiar — and sounded much the same when the Bush campaign utilized it in both presidential elections.
And I’m loathe to drag Bush comparisons into the middle of this, but given that voter suppression is usually a GOP trick? It sorta fits.
Chuck Butcher
Hillary wants to win, Obama wants to win, and there isn’t spit difference between them, except possibly which one is less bellicose in foreign policy. What they have to do is snipe each other on other topics, but only snipe.
I don’t like the status quo so I’ll go with Edwards. Since OR is May 5th it may only be a protest vote, but I’ll do that, too.
F
I asked for proof, not absolute proof, you provided none, so I am a GOP hack.
nahh, nahh, boo, boo, you smell like doo, doo!
I guess that is that what we’ve come to now, name calling.
——
Once again give me ANYTHING that is verifiable and I will shut up, however if all you have is
circumstantial evidenceinnuendos, I’ve decided to believe Hillary Clinton.F
P.S.
Over 3,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands Iraqis have died since the last time this country believed circumstantial evidence, I didn’t that time and I’m not going to now.
I’m sorry I need proof.
F
libarbarian
Excuse me for being naive, but how do you know Clinton is lying? Please supply facts and links.
I dont know but I don’t believe her at all.
Its my opinion, and I could be wrong, that is based on the sum total of what I know about her and her past behavior. I’m not committed to this, the longer time goes by without the appearance of evidence, I will find the “unintentional” thesis more probable, but under the current circumstances I find the hypothesis that she did it more credible than the hypothesis that she didn’t.
1. This shit is so new that not all the facts have had time to come out – especially since, if this was an intentional strategy, the people involved would be actively trying to keep them from coming out – so it would be kind of disingenuous to ask for them as if their current absence strongly implies her innocence. The longer goes by without the appearance of such evidence, the more open I will be to the idea that it was accidental.
2. It would also be disingenuous to imply that anyone is under any ethical imperative to view her as innocent until proven guilty. We ALL, including you, forms judgments about people based on what we know of them. This kind of sideways attack is perfectly in keeping with Hillary’s “no holds barred” yet media-savvy approach to politics and, frankly, she has a history of dishonestly long enough that I don’t believe I am under ANY obligations to take her word at face value even without proof to the contrary.
incontrolados
Hyperlon, you forgot to include the fact that Shelby Stelle basically endorsed John Edwards!
(Shelby Steele is a conservative, but I, too, found some of what he said relevant and informative. I’ve experienced a wide range of reactions from the African-Americans I have known in my life through friendship or work. I’ve never had a problem with proving the doubtful wrong, nor have I met many doubters.
I haven’t formulated what I think about this with as much clarity as most of the posters here, except that I don’t understand why it’s happening. On the News Hour tonight, the report about Dems was this. And oh my, it turned out that the two sides didn’t want to fight. The report about the Repugs was how all the candidates had misconstrued the Michigan economy. The story about the current prez was trying so hard to be relevant.
I’m listening to Mark Levine (however you spell his name) and I want more of that in the MSM — more repugs claiming Huck and McCain aren’t real republicans. MORE PLEASE. Why not have more reports on how Hugh Hewitt has Mitt on his show and repeats it ad nauseum for HOURS. More about how someone asked McCain a pointed question about immigration and McCain told that person that he wasn’t going to deport the mother of someone serving in Iraq.
MORE discussion of that crap please.
MORE discussion of the various plans and programs the Dems are offering. PLEASE.
empty
Here is a chart of the amount of money various powers that be have given to the various candidates. Except for one group (lobbyists) it sure looks like the she-devil and Saint Obama are equally beholden to the powers that be.
F
libarbarian,
Thank you,
Finally you said it, you don’t know, that is what I’ve been driving towards. You heard the word Clinton and you immediately assumed the worst without considering the source and the people disseminating the story. Too many people and disappointingly a great many democrats hear the word Clinton and the automatically assume the worst, why?
Man, the combination of the republicans and the MSM really did a job on the psyche of this country and our party; they took a politician from a second tier state and his wife – I’ll say it again, his wife – and made them the devil incarnate. To the point that almost 8 years after he left office he is still used to scare republicans and DINOs. Again, why the
hatreddislike?I can understand disagreeing with their policies, yet this automatic assumption of wrongdoing and the glee which with people anticipate their failures is surprising and disappointing, particularly when it cames from democrats.
F
P.S.
I said I was giving her the benefit of the doubt based upon the past treatment of her and her husband by the media and the republicans. I never asked you to take her at her word, I asked you to take a break from your accusations and consider the sources of those accusations.
Also, please give a short list of her history of dishonesty, from what I know she is no more or less dishonest than every other politician out there (including Barrack “Kumbya” Obama).
F
Jon H
Put me down as predicting that, if she wins in November, Hillary’s health care plan will be like abortion for the GOP – she’ll be running on it in 2012, too, but never quite passing anything.
(Needless to say, she’ll also be promising to get out of Iraq, and whatever other Middle Eastern countries she has started wars with, Real Soon Now).
Jon H
“Here is a chart of the amount of money various powers that be have given to the various candidates. Except for one group (lobbyists) it sure looks like the she-devil and Saint Obama are equally beholden to the powers that be.”
I’d like to see figures on AIPAC-linked donations, and donations from people like billionaire Israel hawk Haim “Power Rangers” Saban, who pays the salaries of dumb-as-stones pro-war Iraq “experts” Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon (O’Hanlon was one of Hillary’s advisors until she swept him under the rug. He’ll surely be back after inauguration.)
The Grand Panjandrum
John go read Hitch’s latest in Slate on Mrs Clinton and her husband.
Mrs. Clinton continues to mischaracterize Obama’s position on the Iraq war and conflate her support for the original vote for the AUMF with that of Chuck Hagel’s is, at best, disgraceful.
After 27 years of Bush/Clinton’s in the Executive Branch its time for them to go home and find a hobby. New York can keep Mrs Clinton, they have that right.
Jon H
F says “Racial References – It has been proven that the Obama camp is disseminating this information in order to carry the black vote in SC.”
There’d be nothing to disseminate if the Clintons hadn’t been running a slime operation since before Iowa.
Obama didn’t force the Clinton camp to say these things. The Clinton camp is just upset at being caught.
bdr
Upon reflection, if this turns out to be a shot-across-the-bow swerve by Obama, that illuminates him entirely differently.
Bob In Pacifica
Gee, Thymezone, no criminal conspiracies that haven’t been addressed by the authorities that you’ve been curious about? Do you believe that people act in concert to do devious things and that they don’t announce it to the world?
I’m not sure what constitutes a conspiracy theorist but it’s not a terrible leap that, say, Clinton’s team might try to inject race into the campaign. Maybe there are conspiracy theories that you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe. How about the government reading all our emails? Is that paranoid? How about the President lying to get us into a war? Since the mainstream press and Congress can’t seem to admit it, is it a conspiracy theory or not. Fix elections? Conspiracy theory or not?
Just saying.
Harley
F,
This sort of willful naivete is a species of dishonesty. Politically convenient, it’s true. But no less so.
And you’re not a hack. Just necessary to the success of any politician who seeks advantage via surrogates. Hear, speak, and see no evil. Well done!
Not that it matters. Having chummed the water, Hillary is now calling for peace.
Jorge
You know – this is like the 10th time in 10 different boards that I’ve challenged someone to show me anything Clinton has accomplished that actually has her name on it or that can substantiated by the historical record and not one Clinton supporter has risen to the challenge.
And the thing is, as anyone who has ever argued on the net knows, I’ve set myself up for failure. Because someone can come along and just point out just one time that she’s accomplished something major I’m stuck because of the absolute nature of my challenge.
But the thing is – the vast majority of Clinton supporters have no substantive record of HRC as a unique entity apart from her husband. Which shouldn’t be surprising because her entire political persona is based on confusing the line between where he ends and she begins.
Hillary Clinton on her own has an entirely unimpressive record as a legislator or front person for policies. She has basically been good at getting earmarks for New York and that’s about it. Her voting record shows a serious lack of foresight (Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Early version of the bankruptcy bill, Iraq Authorization, Kyl-Lieberman,) and the one major policy inititative that we actually know she headed up during her husband’s presidency was a complete and total failure.
So again – someone please tell me what this great record of achievement entails?
Chuck Butcher
If you like Hillary or Obama, how can you honestly not like the other in that equation? This has to be the best demonstration of Democratic stupidity I’ve seen in quite a few years…well months anyhow. Why I didn’t see these two as the top candidates must be a statement as to my ability to underestimate Democtratic antithesis to progressivism. It has finally become the Reagandemoctaticparty.
F
As a New Yorker, I think I’ll pass on to the media my reasoning as to why Gullianeee (its pronounced with a “long e” in certain NY neighborhoods) did so well in NY. The stories I could tell about him and his ability to negotiate with unions, particularly the waste management and dock workers unions; “he knew people”. /snark>
I don’t see it, I don’t see this racist card that some of you are saying is being played. I’m not saying Obama should ignore racist comments, however if a “questionable” comment is made by someone who is a “supporter” of the Clintons, why is Obama’s camp automatically assuming that it has racist connotations. John’s example of the “Kid” word in an earlier thread is a prime example, however I will tell you if that same comment was made by Rove, or Imus or someone of that ilk I would believe it was racist; history matters.
The Clintons do not have a history of racism, sometimes we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who’ve proven themselves in the past. In my opinion the Obama camp demeans themselves and their candidate by running around and collecting every “questionable” comment and then presenting it to the media with a “see the Clintons are racists” attitude.
Finally, any
assholepundit can make a statement supposedly on behalf of their canidate, but most times their talking for their own selfish reasons (Bob Johnson).F
Jon H
“If you like Hillary or Obama, how can you honestly not like the other in that equation?”
I’ll hold my nose and vote for her, in the general, if I have to, but I won’t like it.
The woman has consistently shown poor judgement in her votes. She votes GOP-friendly or business-friendly most of the time. She’s just Joe Lieberman with tits.
Her record shows a lack of achievement. Half the things usually cited are things where her involvement wasn’t due to having competed on her merits, but because her husband was the governor or president. We’re expected to believe that she was learning from her husband’s experience, but there’s no evidence.
One item on her resume that is often raised is her participation in the impeachment investigation of Nixon. If that gave her any valuable, relevant experience, it wasn’t evident in her husband’s impeachment, nor has she put it to use against Bush and Cheney, who actually deserve it. But then, how could she impeach Bush and Cheney when she has practically supported them every step of the way with their executive office powergrabs?
She’s the democrat most likely to expand the Middle East mess by launching action against yet another country.
incontrolados
Jon H, you didn’t really answer the question you quoted.
Jon H
“Jon H, you didn’t really answer the question you quoted.”
Sure I did. I just forgot to mention that I like Obama. I gave plenty of reasons to not like Clinton.
empty
You seem to think that it’s only Clinton supporters that have a problem with the holier-than-thou bs coming out of the Obama campaign. It’s not.
Incertus (Brian)
John go read Hitch’s latest in Slate on Mrs Clinton and her husband.
Hitchens? Really? The guy who hates the Clintons as much as Chris Matthews does? I’m no Clinton fan, but come on.
Cain
So, with the upcoming NBC Democratic debates coming up, I think it would be nice to have Kucinich on there to at least challenge the ideas of both Obama, Clinton and Edwards. It’s a fucking shame that media companies think they can just leave out anybody they wish because they aren’t interested in a candidate. Especially if the debate is going to be over public airwaves, we have a right to hear everyone.
Kucinich ended up filing against NBC in court and was given a judgement forcing NBC to include Kucinich in the debate. But rather than letting him on, they’re going to actually appeal the decision making them look more like asses.
Maybe mr. Unity Pony should get himself and hte rest of the candidates off the debate, certainly I think the Democratic party should back Kucinich up (after all the Republicand did for Ron Paul in the last debate).
God the media drives me crazy.
cain
myiq2xu
I’m not a Clinton fan and I’ve said I would not vote for her in the primary, but would support her in the general election.
But what I’ve heard from the Obamaniacs in the last couple of weeks has caused me to move her into a tie in my mind with St. Barack.
It’s not that my opinion of her has improved, my opinion of him has gone down. He can thank his adoring worshippers for that.
Dennis - SGMM
So, with the upcoming NBC Democratic debates coming up, I think it would be nice to have Kucinich on there to at least challenge the ideas of both Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
A Nevada judge ruled tonight, in response to a Kucinch lawsuit, that either Kucincich is included in the debate or the judge will shut it down.
Conservatively Liberal
Thanks for the stats empty, but they are basically worthless (empty?) stats without any relevant supporting data. All I see is a bunch of summary numbers, so I guess I am supposed to take it in faith that whoever compiled this is telling me the truth. Not gonna happen.
One other thing I notice is that with Hillary the narrative is “I”, and with Obama it is “We”. Which one sounds more inclusive? Also, Obama may not have a long track record but at least he is not conflating it into the 35+ years that Hillary has been touting.
35 years of accomplishments and experience? What exactly has she accomplished? AUMF? Bankruptcy bill? Patriot act? Are any one of those something she has been touting as one of her accomplishments? Nope, she is trying to put as much distance between herself and those decisions as possible. As far as I can, tell the only things she has really ever accomplished in the public arena has been since she took public office. Was that 35 years ago already? Wow, time flies!
As far as I can see, Hillary is trying to make something out of nothing, or not much to begin with. It is interesting that this is something that her and her supporters have been accusing everyone else of doing regarding her.
Hmmmm, I have heard something about this somewhere before. Something about some ‘playbook’… Hmmmmmm…
Oh, right! Take your weakness and turn it to your advantage by going after your opponent with it! ;)
Darkness
Yes, you are being played for a fool, but what you do about that is a trickier question.
I’m not particularly fond of Hillary’s record (saying she wants a flag burning amendment to the constitution, and supporting Loserman leap to mind). But if she wins I dearly hope she is as conniving and underhanded as some fear. I dearly hope she steps into that effed up unitary executive suite complete with instant wire-tap headset and morning fbi reports about political opponents that Bush has carefully constructed. I hope she wiretaps every gun dealer and tracks their calls to street gangs in new york. I hope she listens in on every oil executive’s golf outing from cia installed bugs in their golf carts. I hope she sends the secret service out to track every sleazy righteous televangist thief and blackmails the crap out of them and uses the money to throw a freakin’ party for her hollywood friends.
I hope she does it all, because f*** it all the Right f***ing deserves it for cheering as all that shit was set up in the first place.
LiberalTarian
I’d like someone to ask them in the debates, Clinton and Obama, if it is worth it to them to win the nomination and yet hurt the party. If they really care so much about changing what has been happening, they will say party first (based on the platform, not the GOP version of party first, a get out of jail free card for every crooked Republican). Neither one of them can get crap done if they don’t have a clear Congressional majority.
This bullshit is hurting the party. That, I can say uncategorically, truly pisses me off.
Pooh
This is an extremely non-trivial distinction. The fact that Obama (and Edwards) will be far less gung ho about blowing shit up up because we sort of can is a pretty big plus point…
Cuzco
There’s actually quite a bit of stuff if you bother to look for it. Here’s one link to get you started. She chaired child and education commissions in Arkansas but the detailed outlines of what they accomplished don’t appear to be online.
There’s also her role in SCHIP where she was along with Ted Kennedy “the major force behind the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.” (According to Wikipedia)
Lots of other stuff too. I don’t think you can dismiss an extensive history of public service just because it isn’t legislation. I think it’s fair to say that because these chairmanships were for the entire state of Arkansas, (and the entire country with SCHIP) they easily equal or best some of Obama’s bullet points. Particularly the education standards and SCHIP stuff easily affect many times more people than Obama’s community service and videotaping interrogation legislation.
Obama’s accomplishments are admirable but so are Hillary’s. They are kind of apples to oranges though when you try to compare their purpose and scope.
Mark
When I was a kid I used to play a game to amuse myself. I’d pass a beachball back and forth with a friend by the pool. But that wasn’t the game. The game was to see if I could get my friend to fall into the pool. I had to be real subtle, slowly working the friend closer to the edge of the pool until the moment was there where I could hit the ball just right, just at the correct spot so they would go for the ball and slip in. I only got this to work a few times, but no one ever noticed I tried it on purpose.
This is what the Clintons have been doing with their race bating. Some of the comments, like the fairytale comment, aren’t racist; some like the shuck-and-jive are. But they are all right their at the pool’s edge. Get Obama to respond and all of a sudden he is “playing the race card,” totally invalidating the whole “transcendent” message of his campaign.
Obama’s team fell for it, at least at first. But Obama wised up and slammed back correctly with is press conference today, regaining the higher ground.
If Obama will be as good a candidate and president as I think he will, he will be able to keep the high ground in most all these debates, not just race but every issue. I guess we’ll see over the coming weeks.
Pb
Scotty and TheFountainHead nailed it–it’s Mark Penn running the show, this is the crap he does, the Clintons are thrilled with that, and that’s all you need to know.
dslak
And that would be fine, but it was Hillary’s campaign who came out saying that Obama had no experience.
Napoleon
Huh? He wasn’t included because the voters are not interested in him. His poll numbers are in the low single digits, which is no surprise since that is exactly the type of support he got in his last vanity campaign.
cleek
are his supporters on the ballot anywhere ?
empty
Sorry, I didn’t realize you didn’t have access to Google. Here is a link to opensecrets.org which is the website of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Here is a summary of their methodology from their website:
Anything else I can do for you?
4tehlulz
Slightly OT:
Mark PennRichard Cohen plays the “black guy is anti-Semitic” card.magisterludi
Obama had that nutjob homophobic black evangelist Donny McClerkin on tour with him. Clinton gives that nutjob Johnson the stage. Equal opportunity pandering in my eyes, regardless of spin.
BHO and HRC are politicians first. To think that both don’t have dirty hands is naive.
Jorge
That isn’t what I think or even what my challenge was about, but I’ll be glad to clarify. I am challenging Hillary supporters who love to talk about her “experience” If you aren’t a Hillary supporter, then by definition my challenge doesn’t apply to you. And this isn’t a challenge I make in just this thread today, I make it in different threads all the time (from Huff Post to TPM)
I’m doing this because this conversation about campaigns and politicing is about as useful to picking a POTUS as bike is to a fish. Picking the guy who campaigned better and who worked the media better hasn’t worked out so well the past two elections. And really, 99% of the time, the candidates are all having susbtantive discussions on the issues with voters. It is the MSM coverage of the race that only brings us this crap.
And for full disclosure, I worked as a producer for a successful 24 hours news channel for years. While the main mission is to bring folks news, you have to do it in a profitable way or you can’t pay the power bill. So, while I rail on the MSM coverage, it is the audiences who decide to run to their screens and drive the meters whenever some insignificant “controversy” hits the news that are driving the beast.
ThymeZone
Oh, god.
diana
John: It’s insane to think that the Clintons are playing some kind of fancy reverse triple fake and are writing off the black vote in favor of Latinos. A Democrat will need the black vote to win elections. If they stay home, she’s sunk.
Please think logically. Obama is picking a race fight because somehow he thinks it will help him win the nomination. Maybe it will. But it won’t help his party. What does that say about his character & judgement?
Original Lee
Numbers to crunch:
Sponsored and co-sponsored bills and amendments for 2007 only:
Clinton: 146 total (89 bills)
Obama: 113 total (55 bills)
Clinton has 3 bills out of committee, none passed.
Obama has 1 bill out of committee, none passed.
If they both had the same seniority, this would look like a significant difference, but I think that it comes up about equal when you consider that you get to put your name on more things the longer you’re in the Senate.