• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The willow is too close to the house.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

The lights are all blinking red.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

I really should read my own blog.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Giving up is unforgivable.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Elections / Election 2008 / Uppity Negro Alert

Uppity Negro Alert

by John Cole|  March 17, 20082:22 pm| 269 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Media, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Ron Fournier:

Arrogance is a common vice in presidential politics. A person must be more than a little self-important to wake up one day and say, “I belong in the Oval Office.”

But there’s a line smart politicians don’t cross — somewhere between “I’m qualified to be president” and “I’m born to be president.” Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

He’s bordering on arrogance.

Again, I am not sure if it is the narcotics that are clouding my memory, or if Fournier is simply talking out his ass, but the last damned thing I think of when I think of Obama is arrogant. The man comes off to me as exceedingly humble, thoughtful to a fault, and his speech is considered, reasoned, and deliberate. At times he appears too cautious to me. But arrogant?

That isn’t a word I would use to describe Obama.

The portrait of arrogance.

*** Update ***

More here from Too Sense.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « It’s Called Rathering
Next Post: Monday Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

269Comments

  1. 1.

    Wilfred

    March 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Wow, just wow. They are really starting to panic, aren’t they?

  2. 2.

    4tehlulz

    March 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Shorter Fournier: Know your place, boy.

  3. 3.

    Ivan Ivanovich Renko

    March 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    “Uppity Negro Alert.”

    Errrr…. duh, John.

    That’s Obama’s worst crime; being qualified for the Presidency, having a legitimate shot at the Presidency, and being a god-damned n****r.

  4. 4.

    Punchy

    March 17, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    The media wants McCane so bad to be some bad-ass prez thats going to start wars, and–most importantly–give them 24 hours/day of WE’RE ALL GUNNA FUCKING DIE Coverage that boosts their viewership.

    Rational, polite, scandal-free Presidents do not a network make rich.

  5. 5.

    paradox

    March 17, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Jesus, Obama has been too timid, too un-arrogant.

    If he’d go after the war, emissions, or Bush law-breaking with everything he had they wouldn’t be talking about his preacher, Jesus skip to my Lou Christ.

  6. 6.

    Gus

    March 17, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Yep, you hit it on the head with the title of your post. However, I don’t want to be one of those people who thinks “periodically” is intended to be sexist, so I’ll give this asshat the benefit of the doubt

  7. 7.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Good googly moogly, he compared him to Bush. If anyone knows this ass clown, please punch him in the nose for me, just for that. I’ll let you decide what to do with “it’s okay that Hillary is also arrogant because that’s part of the package” and “he’d better not forget he’s not perfect” and “it’s arrogant to say opposing the war took courage”…ok, actually, go easy on him.

  8. 8.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    No question, it’s a hit-piece on Obama. It’s unfair and it obviously was written to make Obama look bad. But dammit, I’m getting a little sick of everything being twisted into a racist attack here.

    When they made fun of Gore for being stiff and boring, when they played Dean’s scream over and over again to make him look like a wacko, it wasn’t because they were white, it was because they represented positions that didn’t play into the medias’ campaign script.

    Any criticism, fair or not, can be twisted into a racial attack if you want to do so…say he’s not telling the truth about something, you obviously are playing on the lying ni**er stereotype. Say he didn’t show up for votes or didn’t work hard enough in the Senate, you’re trying to reinforce the idea that blacks are lazy and shiftless.

    Everything doesn’t have to be about race unless you want it to be and sometimes I get the impression that that has become the case here at Balloon Juice.

  9. 9.

    zmulls

    March 17, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Oh, it’s starting already. Talk radio in Philly had blue-collar white callers discussing the Wright affair, saying things like “I was thinking of voting for him, but he *scares* me now….”

    It’s not going to be a year for the weak-stomached…

  10. 10.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    That’s Obama’s worst crime; being qualified for the Presidency, having a legitimate shot at the Presidency, and being a god-damned n****r Democrat.

    Fixed.

    If the Republicans ran Condi Rice or Collin Powell for office, Dems wouldn’t be able to open their mouths without inviting “WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE!?!” cries of horror from the right.

    While sections of the base are certainly not above Neanderthalic racism, the powers at be know that a Michael Steele is just as valuable to them as a Mitt Romney if he’s running on the platforms of money-for-rich-people and fuck-everyone-else.

  11. 11.

    Shygetz

    March 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Wow orogeny, it seems like black people have a very large number of hideous stereotypes against them, doesn’t it? How many should we ignore? What is the official racist stereotype of 2008?

    I saw the piece before I read John’s post, and the first thing I thought was “uppity Negro better remember his place.” So it wasn’t just John.

  12. 12.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    The man comes off to me as exceedingly humble, thoughtful to a fault, and his speech is considered, reasoned, and deliberate. At times he appears too cautious to me. But arrogant?

    Arrogant? Running for President when you haven’t even finished half of your first Senate term?

    My favorite part of the article:

    But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

    “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics,” his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.

    I guess he has bigger plans than the Presidency after this.

  13. 13.

    Delia

    March 17, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Who is this Ron Fournier anyhow? Is he angling for a position on FoxNoise or WaPo if McSame wins the election. I’m trying to understand why this is masquerading as a news story by any stretch of the imagination. I see no actual news in it. More like something Colbert would make up, only his would be funny.

  14. 14.

    zzyzx

    March 17, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    This is good. It means that the Wright thing is failing and they need a new attack.

  15. 15.

    Billy K

    March 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Well, can’t let THEM get to thinkin’ too big. If one of THEM becomes President, what’s next!? Could be something actually IMPORTANT!

  16. 16.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    I can’t block quote for shit today.

    That’s what I get for starting my St. Paddy’s day celebration last week.

  17. 17.

    John Cole

    March 17, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Look, I am as pasty white as they get (especially this time of year, when I could probably be most accurately described as “fish-belly white”), and I hate it when people make charges of racism and sexism when it is nto called for.

    Having said that, you have to have a special kind of blinders on to miss the uppity negro aspect of this Fournier column, as it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

  18. 18.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Shygetz,

    So, the fact that there are lots of unfair stereotypes applied to blacks means that any criticism that could possibly reinforce one of those stereotypes is out of bounds? If I criticize Obama for skipping important votes (like Kyl-Lieberman) because I’m obviously doing it for racist reasons, since there is a stereotype that might come into play?

  19. 19.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    I guess he has bigger plans than the Presidency after this.

    He won’t lose the race, but instead transcend the office entirely.

  20. 20.

    Agsrue

    March 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    I don’t even know why this is a big deal. I hear people saying that Obama’s church is racist because the Pastor, out of thousands of sermons, said some wrong remarks when he was angry. This is not to excuse him, but come on!

    Now, suddenly, that means the Pastor has been spewing racist for 20 years?

    I am black and in my 30’s. My mother is in her 60’s and grew up in Alabama during Jim Crow and the rest of it. She still feels the anger to this day towards white people. She even says things which are racist sometimes. Do I believe the same thing as she does? No. And many blacks my age don’t and have (usually older) relatives that do. Most of the time, the people I know just shrug it off as old anger. You don’t agree with what they’re saying, but you can understand where they’re coming from. I have relatives and older friends who have all kinds of horror stories about Jim Crow, so they’re pissed and say stupid things. It doesn’t mean there aren’t other good things and bits of wisdom they share. It doesn’t mean they don’t go good things. I don’t excuse it and I don’t have any of the anger towards white people that they do. Should I stop talking to older black people?

    Even with blogs. There are some bloggers I read on a regular basis. Take Amanda Marcotte, I agree with her 85% of the time. 10% of the time I don’t agree with her at all, but I can understand where she’s coming from and 5% of the time I think she’s on crack. It doesn’t mean I need to renounce her over the 5%.

    That’s just life.

  21. 21.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    This is good. It means that the Wright thing is failing and they need a new attack.

    Big O took a 5 point hit since last Thursday. Hillary edged into the lead.

    So sayeth George

  22. 22.

    Jake

    March 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Shorter Ron Fornicate: He stepped on my shadow! Someone get a rope!

    Buy some waders now, folks. If Obama pulls this off the streets will be awash in fear piss.

  23. 23.

    zzyzx

    March 17, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    A 5 point hit is a sign that it’s not working IMO. If that’s all of the immediate damage and Obama doesn’t find a way of making this story explode, it’ll fade like everything else.

    We still have over a month until PA. That’s a long time to keep playing those same clips over and over again. The media gets bored easily and moves on to the next OMG HUGE story.

  24. 24.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Having said that, you have to have a special kind of blinders on to miss the uppity negro aspect of this Fournier column, as it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

    I think by definition everyone who thinks they are qualified to be President is arrogant. Someone who was humble would think they weren’t good enough.

    But in the words of Yogi Berra: “It ain’t bragging if you can do it.”

  25. 25.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

    Oh, come on, John!

    Every candidate who runs for President has a certain amount of arrogance. Nobody gets to that position by being humble and self-effacing. Obama does a good job of pointing out what a great guy he is without seeming to be too arrogant most of the time, but especially when he starts talking about his pre-Senate career opposition to the Iraq war, the self-righteousness comes through.

  26. 26.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Any criticism, fair or not, can be twisted into a racial attack if you want to do so…say he’s not telling the truth about something, you obviously are playing on the lying ni**er stereotype. Say he didn’t show up for votes or didn’t work hard enough in the Senate, you’re trying to reinforce the idea that blacks are lazy and shiftless.

    On a related aside, what would you catagorize the explicit opining of Obama as “intellectually lazy” as?

  27. 27.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    myiq2xu…great minds think alike.
    ;-)

  28. 28.

    Pooh

    March 17, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Big O took a 5 point hit since last Thursday. Hillary edged into the lead.

    Except in votes, states won and delegates. But none of those things count right?

  29. 29.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    On a related aside, what would you catagorize the explicit opining of Obama as “intellectually lazy” as?

    Obviously a racist attack, just as it is when they say the same thing about Bush.

  30. 30.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Having said that, you have to have a special kind of blinders on to miss the uppity negro aspect of this Fournier column, as it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

    But orogeny has a point. This isn’t about Barack’s skin tone any more than it was about Gore’s skin tone or Kerry’s skin tone or Dean’s skin tone or Hillary’s skin tone. Obama isn’t “uppity” for being born black, he’s “uppity” for being rich and powerful enough to run for office and not running as a conservative GOoPer. He’s got the audacity to be a liberal, when his bank account and religious identification indicate he should clearly be a rock-ribbed conservative.

    Remember the Graemme Frost Countertop Conspiracy, and how – after reading the description of the family – you pointed out that ten years ago these people would have been poster people for Reagen Republicans? Why do you think they were being attacked for their countertops? Because Malkin has – literally – nothing else to go on (that she could find… she’s admittedly an abysmal journalist).

    Barack is bullet proof. They’ve got nothing to actually stick him with. So they throw vague claims of arrogance, because he’s the enemy, they have to shoot at him, and their all out of ammo.

  31. 31.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    A 5 point hit is a sign that it’s not working IMO.

    A 5 point swing in less than a week is HUGE.

    But Gallup didn’t poll the reason for the change and with the MOE it could be less.

    Obama has been getting lots of negative press for a couple weeks now, which certainly has to be part of it too.

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    March 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Every candidate who runs for President has a certain amount of arrogance.

    I guess I just missed the pieces on Mitt Romney and John McCain by Ron Fournier that decried their “arrogance.”

  33. 33.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Exactly, Zifnab!

    If every time Obama is attacked, his supporters whine “racism,” it hurts his campaign. There are a substantial number of white voters out there who will vote for Obama as long as he can avoid the stereotype of entitlement that many whites have about blacks, especially in the workplace…the idea that every time a boss criticizes a black employee, he or she is subjected to charges of racism.

    When they lie about Barack, address the lie, point out its lack of basis in fact, call the accuser a lying sack of shit if it’s appropriate, but stay clear of the racism crap. That’s just going to turn off voters.

  34. 34.

    Mr Furious

    March 17, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    I guess I just missed the pieces on Mitt Romney and John McCain by Ron Fournier that decried their “arrogance.”

    Zif’s got you covered, John. Romney and McCain are just doing what’s expected of rich white guys…become Republicans. THEN you can do whatever the fuck you want.

    If you don’t sign that GOP blood-oath first, you better stay in line.

  35. 35.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Except in votes, states won and delegates. But none of those things count right?

    Look, whether you like it or not, the superdelegates are going to decide this thing. Right now he has the lead.

    But if between now and August Obama keeps getting mostly negative press (deserved or not) loses most of the remaining primaries and keeps dropping in the polls, the SD’s will flock to HRC and he will not win the nomination.

    If Obama is gonna win he needs to turn things around soon.

    This is serious business. If this thing with Rev. Wright is perceived as being the death blow to Obama’s candidacy, he won’t get another chance.

  36. 36.

    wingnuts to iraq

    March 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    “every white person in this country would be a billionaire if it weren’t for those negroes and mexicans”

    Politics of division, that’s all this is.

    We are ONE America. The same people dividing us now are the ones who BENEFIT for our division.

  37. 37.

    p.lukasiak

    March 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Well, I can’t say if Obama is arrogant or not, but the sense of entitlement coming from his campaign and surrogates at this point can certainly be seen as arrogant — and that impression is not unlikely to rub off on the candidate himself.

  38. 38.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    On a related aside, what would you catagorize the explicit opining of Obama as “intellectually lazy” as?

    Obviously a racist attack, just as it is when they say the same thing about Bush.

    I dunno if it’s neccessarily a racist remark, but you’ve got to admit it’s a fantastically bone-headed charge to make. (I can’t imagine how an intellectually lazy person could be elected to be president of the Harvard Law Review, f’r instance.)

    With Bush — considering his obvious incuriousity, his dogmatic thinking, his well-documented aversion to reading, etc. — the statement would at least have some merit.

  39. 39.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    I guess I just missed the pieces on Mitt Romney and John McCain by Ron Fournier that decried their “arrogance.”

    This is just like the “what Wright said is not that bad because right-wingers say thing just as bad and get away with it” line that has been repeated over and over here. McCain gets away with crap because the media’s script is that he’s a “maverick” and a “straight-shooter.” Hillary can’t get away with he slightest misstatement because the media script says they she’s a cold, calculating bitch who never says a word that hasn’t been carefully planned and focus-grouped. So, every time she says something, it is analyzed and reanalyzed until they can fit her statement into the script.The media is still working on a script for Obama and they are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

    Is it fair? No. But that’s the way it is. I still don’t think it has anything to do with race.

  40. 40.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    I guess I just missed the pieces on Mitt Romney and John McCain by Ron Fournier that decried their “arrogance.”

    They’re arrogant too, so what? You said Obama wasn’t arrogant.

  41. 41.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Every candidate who runs for President has a certain amount of arrogance.

    Well, be that as it may, this wasn’t a “Barack Obama has the arrogance appropriate to a man seeking the presidency” piece, now was it? This was a hatchet job claiming he was too arrogant, by the standards of presidential candidates. This is fairly clear from the first couple of lines. And as such, it is quite untrue.

    Really, after Bush, there should either be a new word for his arrogance, or everyone else’s. It’s at least a two-tiered adjective now, and he’s the only one on the top. Victory! Maybe Colbert could address this.

  42. 42.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    NO!!! Not hibblots and omobates again!!! MAKE IT STOP.

  43. 43.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    This was a hatchet job claiming he was too arrogant

    Like I said in my first post, there’s no question that this is true. It’s a hit piece. It just isn’t racist.

  44. 44.

    Tom Hilton

    March 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    It’s all about access. McCain lets reporters pal around with him on the Straitjacket Express; that’s why he’s a ‘maverick’ with ‘integrity’ whose flip-flops, ethical lapses, and temper tantrums get soft-pedalled or not covered at all. Obama, meanwhile, has been less ‘accessible’ to the press, which to them is ‘arrogance’.

    That’s the first thing you have to understand about the Washington Press Corps: it’s all about them.

  45. 45.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    But if between now and August Obama keeps getting mostly negative press (deserved or not) loses most of the remaining primaries [sic] keeps dropping in the polls, swears in public, fires his campaign staff, changes the little letter in front of his name to an (R), embraces the Iraq War, embraces rich people tax cuts, embraces Michael Jackson, and gets hit by a train while raping a kitten the SD’s will flock to HRC and he will not win the nomination.

    If Obama is gonna win he needs to turn things around soon.

    And all this time I thought Hillary needed to turn things around because Obama had all the momentum. But I guess that 66/33 win in Mississippi didn’t count.

  46. 46.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    From the linked article:

    The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead in the polls because “to know me is to love me.”

    A few months later, he said, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”

    True, there’s a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekiness to such remarks — almost as if Obama doesn’t want to take his adoring crowds and political ascent too seriously. He was surely kidding when he told supporters in January that by the time he was done speaking “a light will shine down from somewhere.”

    “It will light upon you,” he continued. “You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it.”

    Fournier says those statements were tongue-in-cheek. But standing alone they look arrogant as hell.

  47. 47.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Really, after Bush, there should either be a new word for his arrogance

    .

    Assholism?

  48. 48.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Jeeze, LiberalTarian! When the original post is about the Democratic primary, who do you think will be most involved in the comment thread…Rastafarians and Baptists?

  49. 49.

    Davis X. Machina

    March 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    He’s bordering on arrogance.

    “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”

    William Herndon, on his law partner, one-term US Rep from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.

  50. 50.

    Mr Furious

    March 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    I’m not seeing the racist angle myself… It seems more ageist if anything…

    Well, that at full of shit.

  51. 51.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Fournier says those statements were tongue-in-cheek. But standing alone they look arrogant as hell.

    Depends on where you’re standing.
    C’mon myiqey, you not even really trying with that one bro.

  52. 52.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    It’s a hit piece. It just isn’t racist.

    If it’s racist it’s sexist too:

    That may seem unfair to a candidate who’s running against Clinton, the former first lady who is the model of overbearing pride. This is a woman, after all, who claims experience from her eight years as first lady but won’t release her White House records; who trails Obama in delegates but deigned to suggest he’d be her running mate; and who has more baggage than Samsonite yet says Obama lacks “vetting.”

  53. 53.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Fournier says those statements were tongue-in-cheek. But standing alone they look arrogant as hell.

    Shorter myiq that is actually longer: Even in a complete hatchet piece, where the shameless hatcheter grudgingly admits that certain statements which positively ooze with lighthearted jokiness are in fact lighthearted jokes, I choose to believe that they are not, because being a Hillbot means having your sense of humor surgically removed, evidently.

    I realize my efforts need work here.

  54. 54.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    If it’s racist it’s sexist too:

    That’s OK, though, because Hillary is a cold-calculating bitch who, along with her husband, is responsible for everything that is wrong with America today. /snark

  55. 55.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    And all this time I thought Hillary needed to turn things around because Obama had all the momentum. But I guess that 66/33 win in Mississippi didn’t count.

    If Obama thought he had this thing locked up he wouldn’t be talking about going negative on Hillary.

    BTW – Didja notice the difference in the media narrative about Mississippi? The stories stress the racial breakdown of the vote.

    But I’m sure that’s all Hillary’s fault.

  56. 56.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Like I said in my first post, there’s no question that this is true. It’s a hit piece. It just isn’t racist.

    I doubt that the author is a racist, but, as written, I can see how the construction of the piece could be designed to perk up the ears of certain dogs.

    Which is to say, you don’t have to be an -ist to exploit an -ism.

  57. 57.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    being a Hillbot means having your sense of humor surgically removed, evidently.

    Now that’s arrogance!

  58. 58.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    I realize my efforts need work here.

    Yes they do. You are clueless.

  59. 59.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    I can see how the construction of the piece could be designed to perk up the ears of certain dogs

    Problem is, that could be (and has been) said of virtually any criticism of Obama.

  60. 60.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    You are clueless.

    Your mom is clueless.

  61. 61.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Now that’s arrogance!

    Yes they do. You are clueless.

    Well, as soon as some humor is demonstrated, I will happily carve out an exception. Possibly a knock-knock joke, or a man walks into a bar joke. I have a really bad pun I could share.

  62. 62.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    I don’t feel qualified to comment on whether or not it’s racist, being whitey and all, but I will just note in passing that John admits to using “shuck and jive”, a phrase which I would’ve considered well beyond passe, so I hardly think he’s hyper-attuned to how things sound. Mostly I thought it sounded ominous. “He’d better not forget it” — sheesh.

  63. 63.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Sorry, should be

    Which is to say, you don’t have to be an -ist to exploit an -ism.

    with no strikethrough.

  64. 64.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Your mom is clueless.

    She’s probably a perfectly nice person who raised her son better. Behold the sunshiney nature Obama has bestowed on me!

  65. 65.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Dammit!

    Which is to say, you don’t have to be an ist to exploit an ism.

  66. 66.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Problem is, that could be (and has been) said of virtually any criticism of Obama.

    You obviously have no sense of humor

  67. 67.

    Shygetz

    March 17, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    So, the fact that there are lots of unfair stereotypes applied to blacks means that any criticism that could possibly reinforce one of those stereotypes is out of bounds?

    No, but when an attack that is unsupported by the evidence and/or unmerited plays directly into one of these stereotypes, you’d have to be the type of blind optimistic idiot that Obama supporters are portrayed as to insist that racism has nothing to do with it.

    Now, the Kyl-Lieberman vote is supported by evidence and doesn’t seem to play directly into a negative stereotype of blacks, so it didn’t hit me as racist. Wasn’t so hard, was it? Maybe you should offer to give Fournier lessons.

    (I would like to mention that, while I do hold Obama’s non-vote on Kyl-Lieberman against him, I don’t hold it nearly as much against him as I do Clinton’s vote in favor of it. How many times does she have to effectively-but-not-really authorize a Bush war before she figures out how he operates?)

  68. 68.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    The arrogance come in when you paint all “Hillbots” in a certain way because of your dealings with one individual. As soon as I read the quotes in the article, I knew they were tongue-in-cheek.

    I’m sure you remember when exactly the same thing was done by the media to Al Gore when he jokingly said in a speech to a union group that his mother used to sing the “Look for the Union Label” song to him when he was a baby.

    It ain’t racism…it’s just politics and the media in America today.

  69. 69.

    The Other Steve

    March 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    This seems to be a case of pundit trying to discredit himself.

  70. 70.

    Billy K

    March 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    For those of you who don’t know what you’re talking about in this thread:

    ar·ro·gance [ar-uh-guhns] –noun
    offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

    Do any of you REALLY think this fits Obama? Come on…

  71. 71.

    Pb

    March 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    myiq2xu,

    standing alone they look arrogant as hell

    Yeah, that’s how that “quoting things out-of-context” thing works; great for smears. You can thank Nedra Pickler for one, she’s done a great job of it, turning old casual remarks into timeless, context-free soundbites that eventually find their way into hit pieces like this. That can be pretty funny on The Daily Show from time to time–but she works for the freaking AP.

  72. 72.

    Billy K

    March 17, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    This is serious business. If this thing with Rev. Wright is perceived as being the death blow to Obama’s candidacy, he won’t get another chance.

    Unlike some other candidates, who get as many do-overs as they want.

    Seriously, WTF?

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    March 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    I don’t feel qualified to comment on whether or not it’s racist, being whitey and all, but I will just note in passing that John admits to using “shuck and jive”, a phrase which I would’ve considered well beyond passe, so I hardly think he’s hyper-attuned to how things sound. Mostly I thought it sounded ominous. “He’d better not forget it”—sheesh.

    I used to use the old Brer Rabbit tar baby phrase, but apparently that’s racist too.

    There are times when the accusations do cross the line into absurdity.

    I thought accusing Obama of being esexist because he used the word periodically when referring to something Hillary occasionally does was another stupid example.

  74. 74.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    This is getting complex. If I’m keeping score correctly; you have to be ready to cross the commander-in-chief threshold, able to take The 3AM Phone Call but not too arrogant to be the president.

    So what happens when you’re not arrogant enough to cross the commander-in-chief threshold?

    Or that you’re sufficiently arrogant to cross the commander-in-chief threshold but you’re so arrogant that you don’t take The 3AM Phone Call?

    Or that you take The 3AM Phone Call but your response is so lacking in arrogance that you find yourself once again on the wrong side of the commander-in-chief threshold?

    It’s no wonder that a very sagacious man stated that “Presidentin’ is hard work.”

  75. 75.

    dnA

    March 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    I think that it definitely has something to do with Obama being a Democrat, but having heard this “arrogant” thing leveled at just about every professional black person in my family, I have no doubts that this piece was motivated by Fournier’s understanding of race.

    They’re not mutually exclusive.

  76. 76.

    jenniebee

    March 17, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    I thought it was more of a piece with the “Gore thinks he’s so smart. Well I can tell the whole country that he’s a liar based on stories that the press bus found at the bottom of a fifth of Wild Turkey and there’s jack-shit he can do about it, so who’s the smart guy now, Mr. Smarty Pants Gore?”

    It’s not about him being black; it’s about him not being one of the Kool Kids.

  77. 77.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    The arrogance come in when you paint all “Hillbots” in a certain way because of your dealings with one individual. As soon as I read the quotes in the article, I knew they were tongue-in-cheek.

    Allrighty then. You are sharper and probably more intellectually honest than myiq. Now break out the humor! C’mon, I’ve read Hillbot stuff all over the intertubz for months now. I’m hardly the first one to note that they are not exactly an amusing lot, nor particularly skilled at laughing at themselves. I likened them to Patti and Selma from the Simpsons, to much consternation from various people who accused me of sexism, misogyny, and hating women over 30 (which I am a woman over 30), demonstrating my point pretty damn effectively.

  78. 78.

    Stoic

    March 17, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Well, of course Obama is arrogant, as well as any Democrat. WE don’t represent the interests and concerns of your average dickhead right winger. Arrogant Bastards!

  79. 79.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Irony isn’t dead:

    If there is one thing the Clinton campaign and their surrogates do have down pat, it is playing the victim:

    Mark Penn says Obama can’t win the general election. John Cole says:

    I think it does boil down to this:

    At the risk of being offensive, etcetera, it’s because they can’t scream “nigger!”

    Ron Fournier says Obama is arrogant. John Cole says:

    Having said that, you have to have a special kind of blinders on to miss the uppity negro aspect of this Fournier column, as it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

  80. 80.

    Wilfred

    March 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    It ain’t racism…it’s just politics and the media in America today.

    It’s race-based politics at best, racism at worst. In any case, I’ve had enough. If CLinton is the nominee I will do everything in my limited power to make sure she loses. In two states, Michigan and Virginia, I can do my absolute best to make sure that Muslim and Arab voters know what a pandering anti-Muslim bigot Clinton is. It’s already starting. We got the vote out in Northern Virginia for Webb – ask around if you actually know anybody – and pushed him over the top.

    You don’t want black or brown people. You’re running whiter than white. Go fuck yourself.

  81. 81.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    And, really, if you can find one comment, anywhere, on a blog like Taylor Marsh or Hillaryis44 or TalkLeft, or anywhere, of a Hillary supporter taking a lighthearted jab at Hillary, laughing at themselves, or something that parallels the MUP stuff infecting this blog, really, anything — I would like to see it. The closest thing I can think of is Tina Fey’s “bitch is the new black”. Can’t think of anything I’ve seen in the blogosphere. That was okay, but pretty lame as the gold standard of Hillary humor.

  82. 82.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    I can see how the construction of the piece could be designed to perk up the ears of certain dogs

    Problem is, that could be (and has been) said of virtually any criticism of Obama.

    It doesn’t mean though, that it isn’t true.

    The problem with some loaded statements is determining whether the critic is making an honest argument in good faith, or if he (or she) is trying to blow the whistle.

    I’m undecided on Fournier.

  83. 83.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    You are sharper and probably more intellectually honest than myiq.

    Why, because I pointed out that those statements, standing alone, look arrogant?

    What was intellectually dishonest about that?

    I’m hardly the first one to note that they are not exactly an amusing lot, nor particularly skilled at laughing at themselves.

    Now I know you’re not talking about me.

  84. 84.

    prm

    March 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Well, I can’t say if Obama is arrogant or not, but the sense of entitlement coming from his campaign and surrogates at this point can certainly be seen as arrogant

    Yeah, well … winning elections tends to do that to people.

  85. 85.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    If CLinton is the nominee I will do everything in my limited power to make sure she loses.

    Right on, Wilfred! What this country needs is four more years of Bush-Cheney policy. That’ll show ’em. Nader’s running, maybe you can vote for him.

  86. 86.

    empty

    March 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    I can do my absolute best to make sure that Muslim and Arab voters know what a pandering anti-Muslim bigot Clinton is.

    You might have a teensy bit of a problem given the speed with which Obama did a “Brzezinski who?” (and Malley who?) after getting criticized by the AIPAC crew for his association with them.

  87. 87.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Myiq, you are capable of humor. Just not about Hillary. When discussing Hillary or Obama, you morph into the most tiresome, reactionary, tedious, predictable black hole that exists when discussing Hillary. You are the Marvin of the Hillbot world. It is a shame.

  88. 88.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    And, really, if you can find one comment, anywhere, on a blog like Taylor Marsh or Hillaryis44 or TalkLeft, or anywhere, of a Hillary supporter taking a lighthearted jab at Hillary, laughing at themselves, or something that parallels the MUP stuff infecting this blog, really, anything—I would like to see it.

    How about his from earlier today?:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Well, guess I’ll burn in hell now.

    While you’re down there, could you drop off something to myiq2xu for me?

    Thanks.

    March 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    myiq2xu Says:

    While you’re down there, could you drop off something to myiq2xu for me?

    Hillary used her family connections to get me a staff position.

    March 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  89. 89.

    empty

    March 17, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Myiq, you are capable of humor Just not about Hillary when you agree with me.

    Fixed.

  90. 90.

    Billy K

    March 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Jen Says:
    Myiq, you are capable of humor. Just not about Hillary. When discussing Hillary or Obama, you morph into the most tiresome, reactionary, tedious, predictable black hole that exists when discussing Hillary. You are the Marvin of the Hillbot world. It is a shame.

    I second. You do not even seem to be the same person when you start talking about Hillary.

  91. 91.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    I’m hardly the first one to note that they are not exactly an amusing lot, nor particularly skilled at laughing at themselves.

    That’s worng on the face of it. myiq2xu’s support of Senator Clinton is proof of a profound, if slightly warped, sense of humor.

  92. 92.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    And once again, poor editing skills de-zing all my zingers.

    I’m sure you’re going to come back with a fantastic, self-deprecating rebuttal, but sadly, I must go meet my Obama staffer houseguest. An Obamatini — vodka, cranberry, Grand Marnier, and just a splash of Kool-Aid — to all of you.

  93. 93.

    Punchy

    March 17, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    In other news….

    OT: Lieberman makes it all but official.

    Apparently “I” is the new “R”

  94. 94.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    I’m sure you’re going to come back with a fantastic, self-deprecating rebuttal, but sadly, I must go meet my Obama staffer houseguest. An Obamatini—vodka, cranberry, Grand Marnier, and just a splash of Kool-Aid—to all of you.

    As usual, you run away to avoid facing proof you are wrong.

  95. 95.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    How about his from earlier today?:

    Well, that’s something, but that’s on this blog. John’ll put anything on this blog. Try putting that up on a Hillary blog. I triple dog dare you. That’s my whole point.

  96. 96.

    empty

    March 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    I second. You do not even seem to be the same person when you start talking about Hillary.

    He isn’t. He is his evil twin – the boy toy of the post menopausal crowd.

  97. 97.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    something that parallels the MUP stuff infecting this blog

    Sorry, Jen, the light-hearted MUP stuff disappeared from this blog some time ago. I don’t frequent the pro-Hillary blogs you mentioned, so I can’t comment on them, but here and at Americablog and Kos and TPM, the commenter spend the majority of the time in primary threads discussing the monstrous evil that is Hillary Clinton.

  98. 98.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    As usual, you run away to avoid facing proof you are wrong.

    It’s 5:23 on the East Coast, moron. I’m going home. I’ll face your proof later, it will undoubtedly make me weep with regret and self-loathing.

  99. 99.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    He isn’t. He is his evil twin – the boy toy of the post menopausal crowd.

    You were here Friday night too?

    TZ nearly choked on his virgin margarita when I said that.

  100. 100.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    I’m on Central time and I’ll be leaving in about 15 minutes…I swear I’m not running away, except from work.

  101. 101.

    dnA

    March 17, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    It’s 5:23 on the East Coast, moron. I’m going home. I’ll face your proof later, it will undoubtedly make me weep with regret and self-loathing.

    I do that every time I lose at DICEWARS

  102. 102.

    Jake

    March 17, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Friday, Lieberman said he will attend the Republican National Convention this summer, “if Senator McCain thinks it will be helpful to be there in some capacity.” […]

    With JoLie in the room people will realize that McCane might be barking mad, but at least he isn’t creepy.

    “I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons,” Lieberman said.

    You suck?
    No one likes you?
    Scared Nancy Pelosi will ask you to step outside?

    The list is endless.

  103. 103.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Well, I can’t say if Obama is arrogant or not, but the sense of entitlement coming from his campaign and surrogates at this point can certainly be seen as arrogant

    Considering the Obama campaign went from “Hillary’s inevitable” to “Obama’s the front runner” and are ahead in delegates and votes, they’re entitled to no small bit of pride and I don’t feel it’s entered into “offensive display of superiority or self-importance“.

    The Clinton campaign meme that the superdelegates should negate the popular will and support Hillary because she’s the superior candidate (along with the entire MI/FL kerfluffle) comes across as terribly arrogant. Curiously, according to the essay, that’s not a bug – it’s a feature.

  104. 104.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    but here and at Americablog and Kos and TPM, the commenter spend the majority of the time in primary threads discussing the monstrous evil that is Hillary Clinton.

    Join me and myiq just about any late nite if you want to see some “monstrous evil”.

  105. 105.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Jen is gonna have to eat crow:

    myiq2xu Says:

    How is she qualified again? You know, that Ready on Day One bullshit, and the 3 am deal?

    Because she spent so many nights wide-awake at 3am, wondering where the hell Bill was!

    March 14th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    myiq2xu Says:

    You actually HAVE a reason for supporting HBeast?

    Sex. Wild freaky sex.

    March 14th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    ThymeZone Says:

    Sex. Wild freaky sex.

    { thinking }

    Sorry, I have no rebuttal.

    March 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    myiq2xu Says:

    Sorry, I have no rebuttal.

    What is Hillary’s core constituency? Women.

    Older, yet “liberated” women.

    At 47 years old, I am a “boy toy.”

    Since they are post-menopausal, that means they don’t swell, they don’t tell, and they’re grateful as hell.

    March 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    It got worse when cbear showed up.

    As for comments at Hillaryis44, I have never been there. In fact, the only people I know of that go there are Obama supporters.

  106. 106.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    It got worse when cbear showed up

    BTW myiq, I’m not real clear on what (or who) we did last Friday night, but I woke up this morning feelling kinda funny, you know, down there—and I think maybe my hard drive has a virus.
    Is it a bad sign when yellow stuff oozes out of the pc card slot?
    Should we stop drinking?
    Who are we abusing tonight?

  107. 107.

    Tim

    March 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Does it matter? If people wanted to bring all this negative Obama stuff, wouldn’t it have been better to do it before the primaries were pretty much over? At this point the only way Clinton pulls this out is if Obama pulls an “Epic Fail” between now and the convention. And it has to be a bad enough mistake where Obama supporters won’t stay home in droves because they feel that the nomination has been stolen. The arglebargle over Wright is simply not enough. It may weaken Obama in the general, but it doesn’t give Clinton the nomination.

    As for the accusations that some of the attacks on Obama are either racially charged or feeding into racist fears, I really think there is room for reasonable people to disagree on that. Is Ron Fournier’s article racially charged? I don’t know. The dog whistle stuff exists, but I don’t hear those frequencies so I can’t always tell the difference.

  108. 108.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    OT: Lieberman makes it all but official.

    Apparently “I” is the new “R”

    Do you think Connecticut would be interested in running a recall election?

  109. 109.

    Svensker

    March 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    The problem with some loaded statements is determining whether the critic is making an honest argument in good faith, or if he (or she) is trying to blow the whistle.

    I’m undecided on Fournier.

    Well, whether he meant this piece in a dog whistle way, or whether he’s just an asshole is debatable. There was no “honest argument” in the article at all. Fournier doesn’t like Obama. Why? Shut up, that’s why!

  110. 110.

    The Populist

    March 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    I still support the guy regardless of Pastor Wright’s commentary. Obama can’t just change churches or he is viewed as an opportunist/hypocrite. He can’t do more than condemn the statements of a man he calls a “crazy uncle” because then the press will make it seem Barack is a fair weather friend.

    I don’t know what this speech is about tomorrow but I will say this, the racists on message boards all over the net have come out in force with their lame proclamations that Obama isn’t the messiah, he’s a closet racist, he will do whatever is possible to give the black community carte blanche at the expense of white America.

    It’s sad. I thought MAYBE we could come together, overlook some of the crap involved with folks of race running for high office and get a chance to change some things. Now I feel sick and disenfranchised again (I am as pasty white as John most likely is). I feel he won’t be able to overcome this nonsense because old white voters are now SCARED because of a 2 minute You Tube clip.

    Funny, I am much more scared of the likes of Hagee and Parsley than I am of some civil rights era preacher who got worked up by saying unfortunate things.

    Argh. I am back to being hopeless. The dollar is crap, the economy is crumbling YET all we do is talk about this stupidity.

  111. 111.

    Rarely Posts

    March 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    I don’t find Obama arrogant, either. And while I guess uppity and arrogant are the same thing, I think the country will be healed when a black man can be considered arrogant on his own merit.

  112. 112.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Friday, Lieberman said he will attend the Republican National Convention this summer.

    How’s that work? You’d think that bathroom stall at the Minneapolis Airport is gonna be a little crowded.

    I can hear Larry Craig now:
    “It’s a tight fit Joe, but lick your fingers and squeeze on in”

  113. 113.

    The Populist

    March 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    I will say one positive comes out of this, we can all put the kabosh on the stupid Obama is a muslim/closet jihadist/et al argument now!

  114. 114.

    The Populist

    March 17, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    I can hear Larry Craig now:
    “It’s a tight fit Joe, but lick your fingers and squeeze on in”

    Can Larry and the Republicans handle the Joementum that he brings?

  115. 115.

    Wilfred

    March 17, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    What this country needs is four more years of Bush-Cheney policy.

    I told you already to go fuck yourself. I’m not going to engage in this childish nonsense of “Oh, McCain is worse”. I don’t like racist, dog-whistle politics whatever the source and I don’t back people who do it. Besides, she’s as much an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigot as McCain. Vote the color of your skin asshole, and shut the fuck up.

  116. 116.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Can Larry and the Republicans handle the Joementum that he brings?

    Er, I think you mean “Santorum”.

    As I’ve explained before, “Joementum” is the term used to describe that singularly uncomfortable feeling that arises—when you come to the realization that what you thought was a fart was actually a squirt.

  117. 117.

    DougJ

    March 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    You are sharper and probably more intellectually honest than myiq.

    Can we not talk about “intellectual honesty.” It’s one of Joe Klein’s and Michael Kinsley’s favorite phrases. They use it to describe serious people like David Brooks and Michael O’Hanlon.

    I come here to get away from all of that.

    I find myiq’s love for the H-Bomb kind of funny, personally.

  118. 118.

    Jen

    March 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    I’m home now, but I’ll be gone again soon. Just in case you accuse me of running away.

    I’m not eating any crow, myiq, because all of that was on this blog. 99% of my point is that pro-Hillary sites will remove those comments like Oxydol on a wine stain (that stuff really works. Screw club soda.), and will probably ban you too, and most likely call you a misogynist for good measure.

    But I am glad to see that you are occasionally letting the funny myiq out of the closet. Leave the door unlocked, he needs the Vitamin D and exercise, o.k.?

  119. 119.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    I find myiq’s love for the H-Bomb kind of funny, personally.

    I keep telling people I am not emotionally invested.

    It’s just sex

  120. 120.

    Martin

    March 17, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics,” his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.

    I think that statement simply reflects what they said when he launched his campaign that Washington changes people and that he wanted to run before he had alliances working for and against him. I think that Bill’s presidency is a mixed blessing for Clinton as it has had that very effect. She has very strong support from some powerful corners and very strong opposition from others. Obama just hasn’t had much time to make enemies or to fail to show progress. Considering what he’s running on, I think that’s a plus. And consider that last statement very carefully, because both Clinton and Obama suffer from it. With a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president, neither candidate has been able to show what they can do in terms of passing legislation. A candidate with a poor record of getting legislation passed, even if it is out of their control, will have trouble making their case which is why authored legislation has played a fairly minor role for both of them in favor of what they have voted for. Expect to see McCain’s legislative record touted like mad, even though any piece of Republican crap proposed before 2007 could get passed.

    But I don’t think they are claiming he has bigger aspirations, rather that if he doesn’t run now he’s unlikely to have another chance until 2016 and by then he may not be able to make the case for the platform he wants to run on.

    As to the arrogance, I think that’s a mixed bag. Compared to my barber, he’s extremely arrogant. Compared to presidential candidates in general, I don’t think he is at all. If he was, it’d be the ‘I’ campaign instead of the ‘we’ campaign and he’d be pushing his mistakes off on other people. I see a lot more of that in Clinton, to be honest. But it’s also not uncommon for people to pass off humility as arrogance. Some people welcome praise and some people don’t (they may be embarrassed by it). When someone who welcomes it watches someone who doesn’t brush off that praise, they may see arrogance – that the person is so full of themselves that their ego can afford to hand away praise.

    Admittedly, that’s one of the things that I like about Obama. He appears to be self-confident out of introspection and education. I don’t see him taking a position without having made the case to himself first. So he can speak confidently on it because he knows that if pressed on it, he has an argument to back it up. You might disagree with the argument, but you can’t accuse him of being one-dimensional. I don’t think praise carries as much weight for him because his internal dialogue is more important than the external one. It’s more important that he have support for his own views than support from someone on the outside. If that’s arrogance, then I welcome it. It’s the exact opposite of Bush who speaks without having a clue whether what he says makes sense, but is so needy of getting that external reinforcement that he laughs at his own jokes.

  121. 121.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    I’m not eating any crow, myiq, because all of that was on this blog.

    How quickkly you forget:

    because being a Hillbot means having your sense of humor surgically removed, evidently.

    Well, as soon as some humor is demonstrated, I will happily carve out an exception.

    You are sharper and probably more intellectually honest than myiq. Now break out the humor! C’mon, I’ve read Hillbot stuff all over the intertubz for months now. I’m hardly the first one to note that they are not exactly an amusing lot, nor particularly skilled at laughing at themselves.

    And, really, if you can find one comment, anywhere, on a blog like Taylor Marsh or Hillaryis44 or TalkLeft, or anywhere, of a Hillary supporter taking a lighthearted jab at Hillary, laughing at themselves, or something that parallels the MUP stuff infecting this blog, really, anything—I would like to see it.

    Myiq, you are capable of humor. Just not about Hillary.

    And I’m intellectually dishonest.

  122. 122.

    Ted

    March 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    As for comments at Hillaryis44, I have never been there. In fact, the only people I know of that go there are Obama supporters.

    Well, there he goes again! Myiqcan’tbebothered deliberately ignoring the absolute racist cess-pool that are the comments and blogs under the HillaryClinton.com website umbrella. It’s like dredging through Free Republic.

    But we’ll just go on ignoring that, right!

  123. 123.

    4jkb4ia

    March 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    LHP at FDL
    examines whether charges against Spitzer will stand up
    . This is the same person who thought there might be something to Rezko.

  124. 124.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    It’s like dredging through Free Republic.

    Another site I’ve never been to.

    Why do so many of you spend so much time at sites you hate?

  125. 125.

    4jkb4ia

    March 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    “Arrogance” is in the eye of the beholder.

  126. 126.

    Pooh

    March 17, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    ’m not eating any crow, myiq, because all of that was on this blog. 99% of my point is that pro-Hillary sites will remove those comments like Oxydol on a wine stain (that stuff really works. Screw club soda.), and will probably ban you too, and most likely call you a misogynist for good measure.

    Plus, not so much funny. I mean if you think the fortune cookie game is endless hours of amusement, IN BED, then it might work for you.

    Again, I’m amused, bemused and slightly confused that Myx, et al think it is coherent to argue that the person who is by any objective measure, WINNING is displaying a sense of entitlement in saying that he should be the nominee, whereas the person who is, uhm, LOSING, is just playing good clean politics by saying that she should. Of course tubthumping is pretty much mutually exclusive from intellectual coherence.

    Awaiting your next ‘humorous’ missive. Maybe get Dennis Miller to ghostwrite it for you?

  127. 127.

    DougJ

    March 17, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    I keep telling people I am not emotionally invested.

    It’s just sex

    Didn’t you also way “I’d hit that” about Dana Perino?

  128. 128.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Awaiting your next ‘humorous’ missive. Maybe get Dennis Miller to ghostwrite it for you?

    Those who can, do. Those who can’t, criticize.

  129. 129.

    Temple Stark

    March 17, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Oh don’t shit around with the “uppity negro” garbage. Idiot journalists say that of a lot of people. Are you trying to make Obama a race victim here?

    Temple

  130. 130.

    Zifnab

    March 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Didn’t you also [s]ay “I’d hit that” about Dana Perino?

    And you wouldn’t? She’s the sexiest White House Press Secretary we’ve had in at least two Presidents. But maybe you were more into McClellan. I won’t judge.

  131. 131.

    The Populist

    March 17, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    I don’t know about Perino…she’s pleasant looking enough but I am not into cold fish.

  132. 132.

    scrutinizer

    March 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    I think myiq is actually a closet MUPpet. His pro-Hillary comments wind up being more reasons to go for the MUP.

  133. 133.

    Pooh

    March 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Those who can, do. Those who can’t, criticize.

    What about those who try, yet fail?

  134. 134.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Didn’t you also way “I’d hit that” about Dana Perino?

    Dana Perino Lies about everything. I know because when I was with her she kept saying “Go ahead, put it all in.”

  135. 135.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    She’s the sexiest stooopidest White House Press Secretary we’ve had in at least two Presidents.

    Fixeted.

    I’d hit it too, but I’d double up on raincoats and make her wear a ball-gag. Little cbear is delicate and big cbear don’t want to hear no gooper talk.

  136. 136.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    blockquote not work good. Sorry me.

  137. 137.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Didn’t you also way “I’d hit that” about Dana Perino?

    Not out loud.

  138. 138.

    ThymeZone

    March 17, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Those who can, do. Those who can’t, criticize work as agents and take a cut.

    Just helping you out.

    So to speak.

  139. 139.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    What about those who try, yet fail?

    They comment at Balloon Juice under the name of a bear from a kid’s story.

  140. 140.

    ThymeZone

    March 17, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    but the sense of entitlement coming from his campaign and surrogates at this point can certainly be seen as arrogant

    That has got to be spoof. Nobody who pimps the Clintonatron can possibly say such a thing about another candidate with a straight face.

    Amazing. Sooner or later, you will see everything here.

  141. 141.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    They comment at Balloon Juice under the name of a bear from a kid’s story.

    Is that you, Pooh? Is your hand still stuck in Hillary’s “cookie” jar?

  142. 142.

    Temple Stark

    March 17, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Since Jen’s on a humor kick in this thread, i’ll speak for myself in saying that when you’re trying to defend the serious charges of racism it’s pretty hard to you know, be funny about it when you don’t think cries of racism are funny.

    Or you know, if you tried to make a joke to people who clearly want to make the most serious charges around just for the sake of … Well they either do so because they think they’re right or because they want to justify in some crazy way that the other side IS really evil. Really. Evil.

    Jen has a great taste in music from what I’ve been able to gather here, however so she’s undoubtedly right.

    myiq2xu, it has been mentioned at least in passing a few times, has a sense of humor.

    Tweet Me or Die (

  143. 143.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Is your hand still stuck in Hillary’s “cookie” jar?

    I got my hand caught in her honey pot, but you weren’t supposed to tell everyone!

  144. 144.

    Pooh

    March 17, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    They comment at Balloon Juice under the name of a bear from a kid’s story.

    Alright, that was well played. First time for everything.

  145. 145.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Since Jen’s on a humor kick in this thread, i’ll speak for myself in saying that when you’re trying to defend the serious charges of racism it’s pretty hard to you know, be funny about it when you don’t think cries of racism are funny.

    If John’s take on this was simply that Fournier was full of shit, that would be one thing.

    But turning it into racism is absurd, especially coming from someone who thinks Hillary and the Hillbots falsely cry sexism every time she is criticized.

    We only do that most of the time.

  146. 146.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    I thought the post was about Obama being arrogant. I admit, I am primary-o-phobic. My primary has passed and I know I’ll vote for the Dem in the November election, regardless of who they are. I’m contrary enough to want Obama to make them pay for sliming him, his wife, and everyone they know. While he is at it, the rampant criminal corruption we’ve been seeing the last bunch of years. Frankly, who ever gets in is going to need a good offense. The GOP has been rewarded for this kind of behavior for the last 20 years–and just like a spoiled rotten kid, it’s gonna get worse before it gets better. Still, ya get out the discipline and you keep at it.

    What I’d really like to talk about is how to run the McCain campaign right into the ground. Sure, we all love to hate the GOP, but you can never discuss that enough. ;)

  147. 147.

    Temple Stark

    March 17, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    The rest of my comment after my last line above got cut off, making it all the funnier.

    Accidental humor only strengthens my point :-)

  148. 148.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Tweet Me or Die (

    I just figured it was one of many inside jokes I was never going to get, and can never personally say to anyone anyway.

  149. 149.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    Sure, we all love to hate the GOP, but you can never discuss that enough.

    The survivors will discuss the GOP after the nomination is settled.

    Assuming there are any survivors.

  150. 150.

    ThymeZone

    March 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    I got my hand caught in her honey pot, but you weren’t supposed to tell everyone!

    The metaphor police called. They are evacuating the neighborhood ……

  151. 151.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Temple, thanks for clearing that up. These days, I’m so unhip that when you say “Dylan” I think that you’re talking about Bob Dylan – whoever he was.

  152. 152.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    The metaphor police called. They are evacuating the neighborhood ……

    DON’T TASE ME, BRO!

    Sorry, somebody had to say it.

  153. 153.

    John Cole

    March 17, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    If John’s take on this was simply that Fournier was full of shit, that would be one thing.

    Did you even read the God damned post? Like this part:

    Again, I am not sure if it is the narcotics that are clouding my memory, or if Fournier is simply talking out his ass, but the last damned thing I think of when I think of Obama is arrogant. The man comes off to me as exceedingly humble, thoughtful to a fault, and his speech is considered, reasoned, and deliberate. At times he appears too cautious to me. But arrogant?

    That isn’t a word I would use to describe Obama.

    Obama is the antithesis of arrogant. But you probably didn’t even read the post, and instead chose to come in here and start popping off the mouth about Hillary. My God that woman is blessed with the most irritating supporters on the planet. And I remember when I thought the Obama supporters were insufferable.

    Is it November yet?

  154. 154.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    DON’T TASE ME, BRO!

    Sorry, somebody had to say it.

    Heh. Read a story recently about how a guy got tased in his back yard here in Sacto.

    New rule on my list re “how to not get tased”:

    Don’t get drunk and having screaming fight with housemate and pass out in back yard; if you do, for God’s sake, don’t un-pass out when the police show up. Gist of story–he got tased on chest and lost a nipple (it essentially got burned off).

    I am very attached to my nipples. Keep that taser in your pocket, buddy.

  155. 155.

    Brachiator

    March 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Arrogance is a common vice in presidential politics. A person must be more than a little self-important to wake up one day and say, “I belong in the Oval Office.”

    But there’s a line smart politicians don’t cross — somewhere between “I’m qualified to be president” and “I’m born to be president.” Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

    He’s bordering on arrogance.

    I have absolutely no idea what the point of Fournier’s column is supposed to be. However, it is clear that he has no idea either. I’ll pass on the is it racist stuff, although the tone of “Barack Obama better watch his step” makes me wonder what, exactly, Obama is supposed to watch out for, and reminds me of an editorial from long ago warning prize fighter Jack Johnson not to get too full of himself lest he outrage white society.

    Another thread about John Adams brings to mind what that president wrote about Thomas Jefferson:

    Upon learning that his former friend Jefferson intended to resign as secretary of state in late 1793, John observed, “Instead of being the ardent pursuer of science that some think him, I know he is indolent, and his soul is prisoned with Ambition.”

    If this is the kind of “arrogance” which Obama supposedly exhibits, then I can only say, Rock On, MUP! You’re in damned good company.

    Oh yeah, and Adams had his share of detractors too, that he was arrogant. Go figure.

    Dana Perino Lies about everything.

    On the Stephanie Miller radio show, she is referred to as the Lying Sack of Cute.

  156. 156.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Thomas Jefferson

    John F. Kennedy, April 29, 1962- At a dinner honoring 49 Nobel Laureates:

    “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

  157. 157.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Did you even read the God damned post? Like this part:

    I read and responded to this:

    “Uppity Negro Alert”

    and:

    Having said that, you have to have a special kind of blinders on to miss the uppity negro aspect of this Fournier column, as it is clear Obama is the opposite of arrogant.

    The way I read it, your position is that since you don’t think Obama is arrogant, Fournier is calling him an uppity negro. Is that incorrect?

  158. 158.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Obama is the antithesis of arrogant. But you probably didn’t even read the post, and instead chose to come in here and start popping off the mouth about Hillary. My God that woman is blessed with the most irritating supporters on the planet. And I remember when I thought the Obama supporters were insufferable.

    Is it November yet?

    See? See? Fucking obnoxious, isn’t it???

  159. 159.

    LiberalTarian

    March 17, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Ok, off to drink as if I’m Irish!!

    Happy St. Pat’s Day!!!

  160. 160.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    But you probably didn’t even read the post, and instead chose to come in here and start popping off the mouth about Hillary.

    I didn’t come in here and “start popping off the mouth about Hillary.” My first comment in this thread:

    myiq2xu Says:

    The man comes off to me as exceedingly humble, thoughtful to a fault, and his speech is considered, reasoned, and deliberate. At times he appears too cautious to me. But arrogant?

    Arrogant? Running for President when you haven’t even finished half of your first Senate term?

    My favorite part of the article:

    But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

    “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics,” his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.

    I guess he has bigger plans than the Presidency after this.

    March 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    I even quoted from the post you don’t think I read.

  161. 161.

    The Other Steve

    March 17, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    Obama is clearly arrogant, and John Cole’s post is proof of that.

    This will be bad for Democrats.

  162. 162.

    dslak

    March 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    I haven’t plowed my way through all the above posts yet, but after reading a few, I’ve got at least two cents to toss in.

    1. Zifnab, oregwhatever, and myiq are at least right when it comes to the fact that it’s counterproductive for the Obama campaign to accuse anyone of racism when it’s subtle. On the other hand, Obama surrogates can sometimes help his campaign by doing so.

    2. In the general election, racist discrimination is going to set off more alarm bells than misogyny would. This is the one thing that feminists are right about, even if this by itself is a bad argument to support Hillary over Obama. When GOP operatives test the waters on a racist attack, it won’t be just Obama supporters who get uncomfortable.

    3. Why is it so easy for John to assume racist intent behind certain kinds of criticism of Obama? It’s because the GOP is assumed to harbor a number of racists, and has historically relied on racist politics to win elections. A one-two combination of surrogates pushing 1, combined with 2, means there’s a good chance an Obama campaign will lead to the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot at least a couple of times over the course of the campaign.

  163. 163.

    Ninerdave

    March 17, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Question to the resident Hillary supporters here.

    How exactly can Hillary win now? What set of circumstances do you see that will enable her to get the nomination?

  164. 164.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    I’ve got at least two cents to toss in.

    My point in this thread is that there is no reason to accuse Fournier of racism, even if you think he’s full of shit.

    I also said I think it’s ironic for someone to see racism in the article when they have been critical of Hillary supporters complaining of sexism and playing the “victim” card.

    What I didn’t say was that crying wolf on racism will end up hurting Obama later on when the real racist attacks start.

  165. 165.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Ok, off to drink as if I’m Irish!!

    I am only one-fifth Irish so I am only drinking one fifth.
    I’m also Scotch, German, Italian and Czech – all nationalities known for their sobriety, calm temperaments, and dislike of fist fighting.

    Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all!

  166. 166.

    dslak

    March 17, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    I came home this evening and checked what the media big dogs were saying about the Obama/Wright thing, and . . . not so much. Of course, FOX had all their talking heads pushing it, but it doesn’t seem to be getting much resonance in other circles.

    On the claim that Clinton is leading Obama in the polls: point, counterpoint.

    On the other hand, this should concern Obama and Hillary supporters alike.

  167. 167.

    dslak

    March 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    What I didn’t say was that crying wolf on racism will end up hurting Obama later on when the real racist attacks start.

    I wasn’t saying you said this, but some of the others I was responding to were.

    Since many of the real racist attacks will come in subtle forms, it will be hard at times to distinguish cries of “Wolf!” from legitimate points.

    This is why it would behoove the Obama campaign to leave the task of sniffing out racism wholly to proxies and surrogates.

  168. 168.

    The Other Steve

    March 17, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    This is why it would behoove the Obama campaign to leave the task of sniffing out racism wholly to proxies and surrogates.

    Calling people surrogates is sexist.

  169. 169.

    4tehlulz

    March 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    On the other hand, this should concern Obama and Hillary supporters alike.

    It’s Zogby; I’m not worried.

  170. 170.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Calling people surrogates is sexist.

    Calling people sexist is sexist – unless they’re black in which case it’s racist as well.

  171. 171.

    dslak

    March 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    It’s Zogby; I’m not worried.

    I considered saying something along those lines myself, but I didn’t want to take all the glory for myself.

    I guess I’m humble that way, like Obama.

  172. 172.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    This is serious business. If this thing with Rev. Wright is perceived as being the death blow to Obama’s candidacy, he won’t get another chance.

    NoIQ, take your wetdream somewhere else.

  173. 173.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    If this does kill Obama’s campaign, Clinton will lose to McCain and then go on become this century’s Adlai Stevenson.

  174. 174.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    How exactly can Hillary win now? What set of circumstances do you see that will enable her to get the nomination?

    In spite of what the Obama supporters and Nancy Pelosi seem to believe, the super delegates were not created just to be a rubber stamp for the popular vote. If that were the case, there wouldn’t even be a reason for a convention.

    After the McGovern debacle in ’72 (I worked on his campaign in Florida…we lost 49 states), the DNC instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Like it or not, system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.

    So, If Clinton can win a majority of the remaining primaries and go into the convention with momentum and with Obama having a relatively narrow elected delegate lead, it would be quite possible for her to convince enough super delegates to support her to win the nomination.

    You can bitch about the unfairness of this all you want to, but it has been a Party rule since about 1975. To fault Clinton for taking advantage of the super delegate system is to fault her for playing by the rules.

  175. 175.

    chopper

    March 17, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    If this does kill Obama’s campaign, Clinton will lose to McCain and then go on become this century’s Adlai Stevenson.

    don’t insult stevenson like that.

  176. 176.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    You can bitch about the unfairness of this all you want to, but it has been a Party rule since about 1975. To fault Clinton for taking advantage of the super delegate system is to fault her for playing by the rules.

    Just like Bush 2000.

  177. 177.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    don’t insult stevenson like that.

    Sorry, in my haste to make a point I glossed over the facts that Stevenson was an actual progressive and an actual Democrat.

  178. 178.

    chopper

    March 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Like it or not, system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.

    So, If Clinton can win a majority of the remaining primaries and go into the convention with momentum and with Obama having a relatively narrow elected delegate lead, it would be quite possible for her to convince enough super delegates to support her to win the nomination.

    which would of course mean that if the supers decide to nominate clinton over obama, they were considering nominating obama to be a ‘mistake’.

    if the supers were created to keep the democratic party members from driving the party off a cliff with an unelectable nominee, i’ll grant you that. now all you (or hillary) have to prove is that obama fits that description.

    to me a situation where the supers override the earned delegate count should be for a pretty fucking damn good reason. i’m trying to see what that reason is in this race.

  179. 179.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Just like Bush 2000.

    Show me the rule that says it’s OK to use a partisan Supreme Court to override the will of the people and the actual result of the election. The only part of the 2000 election that resembles this situation is Bush winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. If Bush had succeeded in doing this without using a partisan vote by the Supreme Court to subvert the actual result of the election, we wouldn’t have a legitimate com-plaint. We could bitch about the unfairness of it all, but if he really won the electoral vote, he legally won the election. The fact of 2000 is that Bush didn’t legitimately win the electoral vote.

  180. 180.

    jag

    March 17, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    John, I read this article from a different link before I came here… and I too thought the words “uppity negro” were exactly what Fournier wanted to say, but couldn’t.

  181. 181.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Dana Perino Lies about everything. I know because when I was with her she kept saying “Go ahead, put it all in.”

    You played Poker with Dana Perino? ;)

  182. 182.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Chopper,

    That is for the super delegates to decide. If they feel strongly enough that Clinton is the more likely candidate to beat McCain then they will vote for her. That’s the way the system is designed. You can say that it is not fair, that it subverts the will of the people, and you may be right…but it has been a Party rule for more than 30 years.

  183. 183.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    John, you are precisely right, and I have to agree, Hillary’s supporters are so loud and proud that I will NEVER vote for her, not even if she ever found a way to grab my attention (which I find hardly likely).

  184. 184.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    If Bush Clinton had succeeded in doing this without using a partisan bought and paid for vote by the Supreme Court super delegates to subvert the actual result of the election, we wouldn’t have a legitimate com-plaint.

  185. 185.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Dennis – SGMM,

    First, Clinton hasn’t succeeded in doing anything yet. Second, the “bought and paid for” crack is pretty typical of the line that a lot of Obama supporters take…”The MUP is such an awe-spiring candidate that no one could dare prefer another unless they were either stupid or bribed.”

    The super delegates are elected officials and Party leaders who have worked hard for the Party and have been rewarded with SD status. For you to say that they will be “bought and paid for” is the height of arrogance and/or ignorance.

  186. 186.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    if the supers were created to keep the democratic party members from driving the party off a cliff with an unelectable nominee, i’ll grant you that. now all you (or hillary) have to prove is that obama fits that description.

    If it works the way it was supposed to, I think it will be the fault of Miracle Max.

  187. 187.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    The super delegates are elected officials and Party leaders who have worked hard for the Party and have been rewarded with SD status. For you to say that they will be “bought and paid for” is the height of arrogance and/or ignorance.

    Are you aware of the fact that one of the supers from MI is a twenty one year old who has never voted in a presidential election? To say that anyone in American politics hasn’t, at one time or another, been bought and paid for is the height of naievete.

  188. 188.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    …”The MUP is such an awe-spiring candidate that no one could dare prefer another unless they were either stupid or bribed.”

    Look, I’m just one person here and not representative of either a group mentality or paid to shill for Obama, but, personally I would rather vote for a guy who is doing his damnedest to keep the fight clean than vote for the one who is making this thing so fucking messy.

  189. 189.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    If you believe that, Dennis, why even participate in the system? Of course there are individuals in the system who shouldn’t be there, there are probably a fair number of dishonest ones as well. But I choose to believe that at it’s core, the system is honest and the SDs will vote for the cnadidate who they believe will best represent the Party. If Obama wins I’m good with that and will be working for his campaign in the fall. If Clinton wins, the same is true.

  190. 190.

    chopper

    March 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Show me the rule that says it’s OK to use a partisan Supreme Court to override the will of the people and the actual result of the election.

    show me the rule that says that you can’t.

    That is for the super delegates to decide.

    see above.

    you can’t have it both ways; you can’t say that a ‘learned council of elders’ can decide an election contrary to the popular vote and it’s just totally cool, and if another one decides another one it totally sucks and stay consistent.

    the supers are like the nuclear option of the democratic party. they’re the big red button that you only push when everything has gone to shit and the fucking zombie hippies are climing over the fence by the thousands and fuck, if i’m going down i’m taking all those goddamn undead liberal bastards with me.

    like seriously. what i want to know is, what is it about obama that has some of you dems’ knickers all twisted up?

  191. 191.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    If you believe that, Dennis, why even participate in the system?

    Because armed revolution in the Sixties failed. As lamentable as it is, this is the only system we have.

  192. 192.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    So, If Clinton can win a majority of the remaining primaries and go into the convention with momentum and with Obama having a relatively narrow elected delegate lead, it would be quite possible for her to convince enough super delegates to support her to win the nomination.

    Keep dreaming, it’s gotta turn around sometime soon, eh? It’s just gotta! Hmmm, what are you drinking?

  193. 193.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    chopper,

    Do you understand that there is a difference between a Party primary and a general election? In the case of the super delegates, the Party set up the rule specifically for a situation like this. The super delegates were designed to be a “learned council of elders” to decide the primary. The Party makes its own rules for how it’s candidates are selected. Attempting to get the super delegates’ votes to win at the convention is perfectly within the spirit of the rule.

    In the general, the rules are set by the constitution and there is nothing in the constitution that says that the Supreme Court can arbitrarily set aside the actual election result. Bush got away with it because the recount situation in Florida gave the Supremes a tiny sliver of legitimacy in their decision. The decision may not have been completely outside the law, but it was a blatant violation of the spirit of the law.

    what is it about obama that has some of you dems’ knickers all twisted up?

    What is it about being an Obama supporter that makes it so difficult to believe that someone might actually prefer another candidate to Barack? I defy you to find a post of mine that has ever said anything truly disparaging about Obama. I prefer Clinton, but as I have said multiple times, Obama is far superior to McCain and if he’s the nominee I’ll support him 100%.

  194. 194.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    I wonder how Hill-bots are going to pull it off in the general when it becomes clear the GOP put Hillary in the position she finds herself in now.

    Without GOP voters, Obama would be leading this thing. Ha! NoIQ has friends in low places, whodda thunk it?

  195. 195.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Because armed revolution in the Sixties failed. As lamentable as it is, this is the only system we have.

    At least until total anarchy becomes more acceptable, and as badly as this system appears to be working lately, I’m afraid we’ll have to pull that out of the bag in the next couple of decades.

  196. 196.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Without GOP voters, Obama would be leading this thing. Ha! NoIQ has friends in low places, whodda thunk it?

    You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.

  197. 197.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    What is it about being an Obama supporter that makes it so difficult to believe that someone might actually prefer another candidate to Barack?

    Because they’d prefer a Democrat who didn’t vote to hand a loaded gun to an idiot? Twice.

  198. 198.

    Martin

    March 17, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    ”The MUP is such an awe-spiring candidate that no one could dare prefer another unless they were either stupid or bribed.”

    I take offense to that. I know a lot of Obama supporters that were perfectly happy with Clinton and were quite willing to rush to her defense if attacked unfairly. But let’s be blunt about one thing – dKos is the 500 lb gorilla of the political blogs, and dKos has had a large hand in shaping the debate among bloggers (good or bad). But I think this insight was spot on:

    DKos has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party to be more grassroots oriented, adhere to a 50-state strategy, stop the war in Iraq, and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). That’s the glue that has always held the DKos community together and made it so large and strong.

    And that’s true. Hillary was always on weak ground there because of Penn and Co. – the people that dKos blames for running losing campaigns in 2000 and 2004, and it’s no mystery that dKos generally despises the DLC. In straw polls there she never led – even Dodd beat her now and then. But even with that there were a lot of defenders of her. Maybe not supporters, but they didn’t want to see Hillary damaged either because many expected her to win the nomination even if she wasn’t their first pick.

    It was the dismissal of the 50 state strategy along with the simultaneous dropping out of Edwards that really did her in. The 50 state people (raises hand) really took offense at the constant dismissal of voters, and her ‘concern’ for Florida and Michigan is seen as incredibly hypocritical as a result.

    Not that many people thought Obama was so substantially better than Clinton. Instead, most of us over time came to see Clinton as a poor representative for what we thought the Democratic party should represent. And I think valuing voters in all states is the most critical foundation for the party. You can’t say that you represent water rights in the west or small farms in the midwest etc. if you are unwilling to value a Nebraska or Nevada vote as being every bit as valuable as a Massachusetts vote.

    Now, you can dispute my argument that I think Clinton is a poor representative, but that’s precisely the debate that is still taking place on the right with McCain, so it’s not at all unreasonable.

  199. 199.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Because they’d prefer a Democrat who didn’t vote to hand a loaded gun to an idiot? Twice.

    So, you prefer a Democrat who wasn’t around for the first vote and conveniently skipped the second one?

    And, of course, Clinton couldn’t have had a valid reason for the votes.

  200. 200.

    TR

    March 17, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    What’s the latest Clinton strategy to get the nomination? Are they hoping we admit seven more states into the union this month and they all go for Hillary?

  201. 201.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    And, of course, Clinton couldn’t have had a valid reason for the votes.

    Aw, ya’ got me. Quoting the Barack-hating Joe Wilson certainly changes my mind. Blow up Iran, and do it now, dammit. I’m sure that John McCain would agree. And of course, Senator Clinton was misled by George W. Bush on the AUMF vote. Now there may be some who would say that being misled by George W. Bush is equivalent to being sold an ’81 Yugo by a mollusk but, hey, the good news is that there is no one else in the world whose keen intellect and mesmerizing oratory matches that of Bush so Clinton certainly won’t get fooled again.

  202. 202.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    NoIQ, take your wetdream somewhere else.

    That is not my “wetdream.” You speak from ignorance.

  203. 203.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    What’s the latest Clinton strategy to get the nomination? Are they hoping we admit seven more states into the union this month and they all go for Hillary?

    Suggest DC gets statehood before Denver?

  204. 204.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    Now there may be some who would say that being misled by George W. Bush is equivalent to being sold an ‘81 Yugo by a mollusk

    Thanks, I needed that visual. ;)

  205. 205.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    I wasn’t saying you said this, but some of the others I was responding to were.

    Actually, I meant to say was “What I didn’t say but agree with is that crying wolf on racism will end up hurting Obama later on when the real racist attacks start.”

  206. 206.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    That is not my “wetdream.” You speak from ignorance.

    I clearly remember you saying the reason you were pushing Hillary was for the sex, don’t lie!

  207. 207.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    John, you are precisely right, and I have to agree, Hillary’s supporters are so loud and proud that I will NEVER vote for her, not even if she ever found a way to grab my attention (which I find hardly likely).

    You feel free to insult me and then you say that? I have said repeatedly that I will support the nominee, regardless of who it is.

  208. 208.

    Sasha

    March 17, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    the DNC instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Like it or not, system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.

    So, If Clinton can win a majority of the remaining primaries and go into the convention with momentum and with Obama having a relatively narrow elected delegate lead, it would be quite possible for her to convince enough super delegates to support her to win the nomination.

    The thing is not many people, outside of die-hard Hillary supporters, would consider Obama getting the nom to be a “mistake.”

    Ironically, the one scenario where I can imaging the superdelegates maintaining party integrity and remedying a mistake by going against the pledged/popular vote is one where they vote Obama.

    (Imagine that Hillary sweeps the remaining primaries and pulls ahead of Obama in pledged delegates thanks to the Limbaugh Republican vote. Having the superdelegates overturn the “popular” choice would be much more justified.)

  209. 209.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Without GOP voters, Obama would be leading this thing. Ha! NoIQ has friends in low places, whodda thunk it?

    Name calling is not a cogent argument. It’s also rude, and a sign of intellectual poverty.

  210. 210.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    You feel free to insult me and then you say that? I have said repeatedly that I will support the nominee, regardless of who it is.

    Who it is? Who it is? Now I can’t decide whether to accuse you of racism or sexism.

  211. 211.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Who it is? Who it is? Now I can’t decide whether to accuse you of racism or sexism.

    Clearly NoIQ is falling into the realm of “ITism” now.

  212. 212.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Who it is? Who it is? Now I can’t decide whether to accuse you of racism or sexism.

    Anthropomorphism.

  213. 213.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Name calling is not a cogent argument. It’s also rude, and a sign of intellectual poverty.

    Namecalling? Oh, because I don’t believe your IQ is 2x everyone else here? Sensitive? Awwww, have a tissue!

  214. 214.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    And of course, Senator Clinton was misled by George W. Bush on the AUMF vote.

    So… Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Reid, et.al. are all lying about their reasons for voting for the AUMF?

  215. 215.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    You feel free to insult me and then you say that? I have said repeatedly that I will support the nominee, regardless of who it is.

    How nice NoIQ, it is your singlehanded efforts to create havoc on this blog that have convinced me to remove that potential vote. Prior to your antics, I would have.

    I say to you: “Good job man!”

  216. 216.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    (Imagine that Hillary sweeps the remaining primaries and pulls ahead of Obama in pledged delegates thanks to the Limbaugh Republican vote. Having the superdelegates overturn the “popular” choice would be much more justified.)

    As long as Obama wins it’s okay?

  217. 217.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    So… Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Reid, et.al. are all lying about their reasons for voting for the AUMF?

    None of them, to my knowledge, are finalists for the Democratic nomination. My point, because you seemed to have missed it, was that voting for the AUMF was a stupid move. Senator Clinton’s current opposition to the war in Iraq would have been much more effective and convincing if it had been delivered on the Senate floor when the AUMF was being debated.

  218. 218.

    Gus

    March 17, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    I think anybody who doesn’t see “uppity negro” in “Obama better watch his step. He’s bordering on arrogance” is a bit naive.

  219. 219.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    NoIQ, take your wetdream somewhere else.

    Ouch.
    Apparently that whole “I told her my name was John Cole” from last Friday night didn’t work out so well, huh myiq?

    I told you this would happen. You and your fumbling juvenile attempts at gaining access to her motherboard…next time let a pro go first.

  220. 220.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    I think anybody who doesn’t see “uppity negro” in “Obama better watch his step. He’s bordering on arrogance” is a bit naive.

    It looks different with the WHOLE quote:

    But there’s a line smart politicians don’t cross — somewhere between “I’m qualified to be president” and “I’m born to be president.” Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

    He’s bordering on arrogance.

    Fournier was clearly saying that Obama needs to be careful he doesn’t cross the line between confidence and arrogance.

  221. 221.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Apparently that whole “I told her my name was John Cole” from last Friday night didn’t work out so well, huh myiq?

    That ruse would have never worked. You apparently don’t know my weakness. ;)

  222. 222.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    if it had been delivered on the Senate floor when the AUMF was being debated.

    It was.

  223. 223.

    cbear

    March 17, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    That ruse would have never worked. You apparently don’t know my weakness.

    I know baby, I know. A man can never truly understand the mysteries that lie buried in the heart of a beautiful woman, he can only but try to lead her to that secret garden of her soul.

    (myiq, psssst, myiq….I’m in, get your ass over here with the router—and keep your big mouth shut this time)

  224. 224.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    You can bitch about the unfairness of this all you want to, but it has been a Party rule since about 1975. To fault Clinton for taking advantage of the super delegate system is to fault her for playing by the rules.

    You mean like she did with FL? That’s too bad that she won’t be getting those votes now.

  225. 225.

    Tax Analyst

    March 17, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Tom Hilton Says:

    It’s all about access. McCain lets reporters pal around with him on the Straitjacket Express; that’s why he’s a ‘maverick’ with ‘integrity’ whose flip-flops, ethical lapses, and temper tantrums get soft-pedalled or not covered at all. Obama, meanwhile, has been less ‘accessible’ to the press, which to them is ‘arrogance’.

    That’s the first thing you have to understand about the Washington Press Corps: it’s all about them.

    This is a very good point, Tom. For instance – L.A. Times Sunday Edition Headline: “McCain far from predictable on Foreign Policy”. WTF??? They COULD have kissed his ass a little deeper, maybe – “McCain firm but flexible on Foreign Policy”, but if you put the exact same policy positions in an article about Obama or Clinton how much you wanna bet the implied meaning of the headline would come out something like “______ muddled and unsure on Foreign Policy”?

    And I wondered if there was some particular reason the Times would shade things this way, but the “pal-ism” didn’t occur to me. But I think that’s it.

    I sure hope this election doesn’t turn on who the American voting public would like to chew Pork rhinds and drink beer with. We already know how that shit would turn out.

  226. 226.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    It was.

    Does this mean that she was against it but she voted for it anyway? So her words don’t match her deeds then, do they? The speech that you linked to is a recapitulation of all of the Bush talking points that were delivered in justifying the war. That speech overlooks the fact that UN weapons inspectors had been given free access to any place in Iraq, including the presidential palaces. Either you weren’t around back then or you weren’t paying attention.
    Clinton voted to hand a loaded gun to an idiot. You can rationalize all you want to but the fact remains.

  227. 227.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    You mean like she did with FL? That’s too bad that she won’t be getting those votes now.

    So, Clinton took a gamble and lost… the rules worked. The only way she could have gotten the FL delegates was if the DNC voted to change the rules and they didn’t. I think the Party was wrong to completely disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan…the Repubs, by reducing the delegate count by 50% for states who violated their rules had a better solution. But, the rules are the rules. that’s the way things are supposed to work and I’m certainly not going to whine about it.

  228. 228.

    orogeny

    March 17, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Does this mean that she was against it but she voted for it anyway?

    Did you read the speech? Agree or not, there is a reasonable case to be made that the AUMF was designed to be used as leverage against Saddam in order to prevent an invasion. If Bush and lived up to his “word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” the invasion could have been avoided.

  229. 229.

    Tax Analyst

    March 17, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Martin Says:

    ”The MUP is such an awe-spiring candidate that no one could dare prefer another unless they were either stupid or bribed.”

    I take offense to that. I know a lot of Obama supporters that were perfectly happy with Clinton and were quite willing to rush to her defense if attacked unfairly. But let’s be blunt about one thing – dKos is the 500 lb gorilla of the political blogs, and dKos has had a large hand in shaping the debate among bloggers (good or bad). But I think this insight was spot on:

    DKos has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party to be more grassroots oriented, adhere to a 50-state strategy, stop the war in Iraq, and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). That’s the glue that has always held the DKos community together and made it so large and strong.

    And that’s true. Hillary was always on weak ground there because of Penn and Co. – the people that dKos blames for running losing campaigns in 2000 and 2004, and it’s no mystery that dKos generally despises the DLC. In straw polls there she never led – even Dodd beat her now and then. But even with that there were a lot of defenders of her. Maybe not supporters, but they didn’t want to see Hillary damaged either because many expected her to win the nomination even if she wasn’t their first pick.

    It was the dismissal of the 50 state strategy along with the simultaneous dropping out of Edwards that really did her in. The 50 state people (raises hand) really took offense at the constant dismissal of voters, and her ‘concern’ for Florida and Michigan is seen as incredibly hypocritical as a result.

    Not that many people thought Obama was so substantially better than Clinton. Instead, most of us over time came to see Clinton as a poor representative for what we thought the Democratic party should represent. And I think valuing voters in all states is the most critical foundation for the party. You can’t say that you represent water rights in the west or small farms in the midwest etc. if you are unwilling to value a Nebraska or Nevada vote as being every bit as valuable as a Massachusetts vote.

    Now, you can dispute my argument that I think Clinton is a poor representative, but that’s precisely the debate that is still taking place on the right with McCain, so it’s not at all unreasonable.

    Martin, I think this is very much the case with many Obama supporters, including myself. Initially, in fact, I favored and preferred Clinton because I did feel she had leadership qualities and was somewhat more electable. But that initial impression has been displaced by all the triangulation and contortion and just plain stupid campaign strategy of her “Team”. It all has reflected miserably on HRC’s executive judgment and political sense and that’s not a good sign when one looks towards the November General Election. This is not going to be a cake-walk, even though given the complete wrong-headed and disasterous results of Republican policies in almost every critical area it ought to be.

    I will support whichever Democrat comes out of this with the Party’s nomination, but I honestly believe Obama has a better shot at beating McCain and also honestly believe he would be a better President than HRC. He might even be the tonic this country needs to pull out of the hole we’ve been busily drilling for ourselves – that could be wishful thinking but I consider it a real possibility.

  230. 230.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Did you read the speech?

    What a fine speech. Of course anyone can make speeches larded with fine words. Oops, that’s her criticism of Obama isn’t it? Clinton voted for war after that speech. End of story.

  231. 231.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    March 17, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    It was the dismissal of the 50 state strategy along with the simultaneous dropping out of Edwards that really did her in. The 50 state people (raises hand) really took offense at the constant dismissal of voters, and her ‘concern’ for Florida and Michigan is seen as incredibly hypocritical as a result.

    Not that many people thought Obama was so substantially better than Clinton. Instead, most of us over time came to see Clinton as a poor representative for what we thought the Democratic party should represent. And I think valuing voters in all states is the most critical foundation for the party. You can’t say that you represent water rights in the west or small farms in the midwest etc. if you are unwilling to value a Nebraska or Nevada vote as being every bit as valuable as a Massachusetts vote.

    [raises hand]

    I resemble that remark.

    One thing supporters of both candidates need to remember is that it is in the very nature of elections to be polarizing. They collapse a very complex, messy analog set of factors (our fears, hopes, dreams, preferences, and reactions to the candidates on both an intellectual and emotional level) down into a very stark binary result: vote for X or vote for Y. You can’t do both, you have to make a choice.

    But that doesn’t mean we have to keep throwing rocks at each other. Stop being so emotionally invested in the outcome – save some of that for the general election, as it is going to be needed. Having said that, I admit to being as guilty as anyone here.

  232. 232.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Clinton voted for war after that speech. End of story.

    Absolutely!

  233. 233.

    myiq2xu

    March 17, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    myiq, psssst, myiq

    “Danger Will Robinson!”:

  234. 234.

    Martin

    March 17, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    Did you read the speech? Agree or not, there is a reasonable case to be made that the AUMF was designed to be used as leverage against Saddam in order to prevent an invasion. If Bush and lived up to his “word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” the invasion could have been avoided.

    I agree that a reasonable case could be made there, but anyone who paid any attention to the players here should have been able to see Bush had been positioning against Iraq since the day he came into office. Every time Bush claimed that Saddam was pushing for something, there were Blix and ElBaradei refuting that claim.

    Sorry, but trusting Bush to not abuse the AUMF was terrible judgement on her (and the other Senators) part.

    If you look at the Dems that voted, Senators up for re-election voted overwhelmingly in favor of it and those not up for re-election voted overwhelmingly against it. Regardless of Clinton or anyone else’s stated reasons, it would appear that Dems voted for it to save their seats, and that statistic trumps everyone’s individual reasons. Maybe the prospect of re-election simply clouded their judgement, but that makes it a fair 3AM data point, doesn’t it?

  235. 235.

    Asti

    March 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    NoIQ, you must be a lonely and sad fellow to be so obsessed with women’s issues. Thanks for linking though, I’m glad someone finally came out and said this:

    Let’s put this shit to bed right now: Women don’t lose their minds when they have period-related irritability. It doesn’t lower their ability to reason; it lowers their patience and, hence, tolerance for bullshit. If an issue comes up a lot during “that time of the month,” that doesn’t mean she only cares about it once a month; it means she’s bothered by it all the time and lacks the capacity, once a month, to shove it down and bury it beneath six gulps of willful silence. Those are the things most worth paying attention to. (By both people involved.)

  236. 236.

    p.lukasiak

    March 17, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    I agree that a reasonable case could be made there, but anyone who paid any attention to the players here should have been able to see Bush had been positioning against Iraq since the day he came into office. Every time Bush claimed that Saddam was pushing for something, there were Blix and ElBaradei refuting that claim.

    uh, that was after the AUMF passed.

    The problem with the AUMF was that it was assumed that Saddam did have WMDs, and would refuse to cooperate with inspections. If that had happened, the US would have had the kind of coalition and international backing we had when we threw Iraq out of Kuwait.

    In other words, everyone “knew” there would be a war, because everyone “knew” that Saddam would not fully cooperate. Only those of us with Bush derangement syndrome were saying that Bush was going to war regardless of what happened….

  237. 237.

    myiq2xu

    March 18, 2008 at 12:04 am

    Only those of us with Bush derangement syndrome were saying that Bush was going to war regardless of what happened….

    It’s trendy now to claim to have been anti-war all along and everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

    I recall how it was back in 2002-03 and it was pretty fucking lonely being a DFH war protester. I had to bite my tongue at work, and 99% of the media was cheerleading the war.

  238. 238.

    Asti

    March 18, 2008 at 12:08 am

    I recall how it was back in 2002-03 and it was pretty fucking lonely being a DFH war protester. I had to bite my tongue at work, and 99% of the media was cheerleading the war.

    Those of us who werea against teh war all along were out there, we were just isolated and had no way to coalesce until after the patriotic ferver of the war could begin to wear off a bit. I agree it was far more popular to be for the war than to be against it. I was spending my days fighting righties on AOL messageboards in those days. I wonder sometimes if any of those nutcases ever got it.

  239. 239.

    Tax Analyst

    March 18, 2008 at 12:25 am

    I recall how it was back in 2002-03 and it was pretty fucking lonely being a DFH war protester. I had to bite my tongue at work, and 99% of the media was cheerleading the war.

    Oh, yeah…it was a whole lotta fun being called a “Traitor” and other such bullshit for trying to point out the fallacies and phony-assed assumptions that were passing as “Conventional Wisdom”. Actually, I worked in a fairly “Anti-War” environment, but it was for the most part a very quiet, almost silent dissent. People really were intimidated and bullied for speaking against the War…I think many felt it would all be over quickly and thus not worth the discomfort of saying what they thought – after all, if it was indeed a cakewalk it would just be one more thing to be ridiculed over. It’s sad, but I remember some of the crap that got thrown at me for opposing the War – even when offering practical reasons – I realized there was no point in making moral arguments, it seems many Americans felt that an unprovoked attack on a country that had not in any way been involved in the attack on NYC & the Pentagon was OK with them as long as we went in, expeditiously kicked ass, got our precious oil secured, and got out. That is, as long as we could point out that a miserable tyrant was in charge of the joint.

    It’s still difficult-to-nearly impossible to talk to many folks of right-wing persuasion about it. I don’t think I could stand one more rebuttal of, “Well, you Lib’ruls didn’t let us do it right or it woulda worked out”. What can you possibly say in response to a mind-set like that?

  240. 240.

    Martin

    March 18, 2008 at 12:50 am

    uh, that was after the AUMF passed.

    The problem with the AUMF was that it was assumed that Saddam did have WMDs, and would refuse to cooperate with inspections. If that had happened, the US would have had the kind of coalition and international backing we had when we threw Iraq out of Kuwait.

    Formally they protested after the AUMF, but they interviewed the shit out of those two after the 2002 SotU. Between when I woke up and left for work every day from 9/11 until the war started I had to have CNN on and those two were quoted fairly regularly during that period.

    Working at a major research university surrounded by as many foreign born people as domestic, there weren’t that many cheerleaders. There was a lot of open discussion of what was happening and I had no shortage of experts to have lunch with, not to mention people that grew up and had family in every country involved. There was almost universal support for Afghanistan and if there was any support for Iraq, they didn’t raise their heads by the end of 2002. I also had a stream of inside info from an acquaintance of Chalabi which made it pretty obvious that the whole thing was a load of shit. Overall there was pretty uniform outrage that Bush was rushing to war.

  241. 241.

    myiq2xu

    March 18, 2008 at 12:58 am

    Oh, yeah…it was a whole lotta fun being called a “Traitor” and other such bullshit for trying to point out the fallacies and phony-assed assumptions that were passing as “Conventional Wisdom”.

    My point in bringing it up is the meme I see around here that it was “obvious” that Bush intended to invade Iraq no matter what.

    It wasn’t obvious, and we didn’t find out until later that they were “gaming the intelligence” (lying to us) about WMD’s and terrorist connections. And although it was obvious that G-dub was a moron, we didn’t know back then that he was batshit crazy too.

    We had an election between the AUMF and the Democrats lost seats in Congress, including some Dems who voted for the AUMF. The war was still popular in 2004, and Obama wasn’t publically opposing it anymore. His record on Iraq since he reached the Senate is virtually identical to Hillary’s.

    McCain on the other hand, was the original proponent of the “surge” and wants to stay there for 100 years (200 Friedman units)

  242. 242.

    Asti

    March 18, 2008 at 1:12 am

    My point in bringing it up is the meme I see around here that it was “obvious” that Bush intended to invade Iraq no matter what.

    It wasn’t obvious, and we didn’t find out until later that they were “gaming the intelligence” (lying to us) about WMD’s and terrorist connections. And although it was obvious that G-dub was a moron, we didn’t know back then that he was batshit crazy too.

    Perhaps it wasn’t obvious to you. It was obvious to some of us. I knew as soon as they first mentioned Iraq that Bush was planning to invade. “They tried to kill my daddy”… yes, I figured that was where he was going with it, and unfortunately I was right. I remember that package of information that came from Iraq with all the disks of files (the package as shown on tv, lots and lots of CD’s in pretty colored jewel cases), and the push to say Iraq wasn’t cooperating. Iraq DID cooperate, Bush was just sure they were hiding something that they didn’t have. As soon as I heard “Iraq isn’t cooperating” I knew we were going in.

  243. 243.

    Martin

    March 18, 2008 at 1:43 am

    We had an election between the AUMF and the Democrats lost seats in Congress, including some Dems who voted for the AUMF. The war was still popular in 2004, and Obama wasn’t publically opposing it anymore. His record on Iraq since he reached the Senate is virtually identical to Hillary’s.

    Why is it that Clinton supporters are unable to discern between evaluative judgments and obligation judgments? We had a choice whether to start a war. One started, we can’t completely unstart it, so we have an obligation to make the best decisions once committed to that path, even if you totally disagree with the initial decision. To not do that makes you selfish and a sore loser (and a dick).

    For the slow-witted: You may fight vociferously with your wife about attending her second cousin’s pagan wedding, but once you get there you fucking well better be gracious, happy, and dance with her 6 year-old niece. Now, should a fire break out or weapons drawn, feel free to call for an end to the event but don’t think you can just stroll out once you get there for no reason.

  244. 244.

    TenguPhule

    March 18, 2008 at 3:50 am

    It wasn’t obvious, and we didn’t find out until later that they were “gaming the intelligence” (lying to us) about WMD’s and terrorist connections.

    Only to complete morons.

    The signs were there for people who didn’t hit the bong of ‘patriotism’.

    The claims were crap. The evidence was crap. Colin ‘Uncle Tom’ Powell was crap.

    It was rather horrifying to watch most of the country turn into oatmeal zombies.

  245. 245.

    dslak

    March 18, 2008 at 6:08 am

    Given the dubiousness of the evidence, some people in Congress could have voiced opposition to the AUMF once it was used to justify invading Iraq, but they were noticably silent.

    Also, the AUMF was itself an abrogation by Congress of their prerogative to declare war. Those Democrats who voted for it were by and large cowards who did not want to bear the responsibility which is a part of their office.

  246. 246.

    dslak

    March 18, 2008 at 6:17 am

    Clinton will have to get the votes of 70% of the remaining superdelegates to win. It’s not going to happen. A Hillary Clinton presidency is now a pipe dream.

  247. 247.

    p.lukasiak

    March 18, 2008 at 7:50 am

    Perhaps it wasn’t obvious to you. It was obvious to some of us. I knew as soon as they first mentioned Iraq that Bush was planning to invade.

    I think this was true for a lot of people — over that summer there was a lot of opposition (both domestic, and international) to the idea of unilateral war, but it never coalesced because Bushco didn’t want to “roll out its new product” during the summer. When Bush went to the UN, there was a great sigh of relief — if the US did invade because of “Iraq’s WMDs” it would be with the co-operation and approval of the international community.

    And that was the atmosphere in which the AUMF passed. The Democrats didn’t want to give Bush all the authority he was demanding, but it was coming up on the 2002 election, and the Dem leadership folded on the language of the AUMF. Practically no one in Congress was opposed to the idea of an invasion with international support, and when the Dem leadership folded, Dem Congresscritters had merely a symbolic choice to make — make a symbolic gesture of opposition to the language of the AUMF and oppose it, or look “strong on terrorism” and support it.

    Clinton, a freshman senator with less than 2 years experience, and political ambitions, decided to go with the flow and vote in favor of the resolution. But her decision to vote in favor had no impact on the passage of the bill, which was already assured.

    Which is really the whole point — while her vote was politically expedient, this is not a case where expediency had any impact on the outcome. Political expedience should only be held against someone when it makes a difference. In this case, it didn’t.

  248. 248.

    dslak

    March 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

    But her decision to vote in favor had no impact on the passage of the bill, which was already assured.

    Why do we even hold people responsible for their votes, if we’re not going to count their votes at times when it doesn’t affect the outcome?

    “Vote however you want and we’ll elect you, as long as your votes don’t matter.”

  249. 249.

    p.lukasiak

    March 18, 2008 at 7:57 am

    Only to complete morons.

    The signs were there for people who didn’t hit the bong of ‘patriotism’.

    While it was obvious that the administration was over-hying/lying about the evidence, the sense that “the President knows more than he can tell us” remained. Its the same mindset that results in innocent people getting convicted of crimes on weak evidence — prosecutors will act will complete confidence in their case, and even signal to the jury that there is stuff that is “inadmissible.

  250. 250.

    p.lukasiak

    March 18, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Why do we even hold people responsible for their votes, if we’re not going to count their votes at times when it doesn’t affect the outcome?

    for the same reason that, had the war not turned into a disaster, Obama would now be claiming that his speech was in opposition to unilateral war, not one with international support, and that by 2004 he was on record as approving of how Bush was handling things.

  251. 251.

    4tehlulz

    March 18, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Which is really the whole point—while her vote was politically expedient, this is not a case where expediency had any impact on the outcome. Political expedience should only be held against someone when it makes a difference. In this case, it didn’t.

    Wow. The gutlessness of this statement is breathtaking. I almost admire it, as it represents cowardice in its pure, unadultarated form.

    I guess this lets Reid et al off the hook too, right? I mean, it was going to pass anyway, so it didn’t really matter.

  252. 252.

    Sasha

    March 18, 2008 at 8:08 am

    (Imagine that Hillary sweeps the remaining primaries and pulls ahead of Obama in pledged delegates thanks to the Limbaugh Republican vote. Having the superdelegates overturn the “popular” choice would be much more justified.)

    As long as Obama wins it’s okay?

    Don’t ever remember posting anything like that.

    My hypothetical (admittedly, not a very likely one) posits the superdelegates correcting for GOP partisans trying to game the Dem primary system. That’s strikes me as much more justified than choosing the less popular of two equally qualified and electable candidates for no good reason.

  253. 253.

    myiq2xu

    March 18, 2008 at 8:13 am

    Don’t ever remember posting anything like that.

    Strange, when GOPers were voting for Obama, he was “widening the party’s base.”

  254. 254.

    Wilfred

    March 18, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Clinton, a freshman senator with less than 2 years experience, and political ambitions, decided to go with the flow and vote in favor of the resolution. But her decision to vote in favor had no impact on the passage of the bill, which was already assured.

    You have to be a spoof. What about all her VAST years of experience in foreign policy? Now she’s just a hurt little lamb forced into the unfairness of it all, all she wanted was to be Pwesident and the mean people made her vote on something already decided. Just like her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, no doubt.

  255. 255.

    dslak

    March 18, 2008 at 8:32 am

    for the same reason that, had the war not turned into a disaster, Obama would now be claiming that his speech was in opposition to unilateral war, not one with international support, and that by 2004 he was on record as approving of how Bush was handling things.

    So it’s okay that Hillary went with political expediency on an important vote because, had things been otherwise, Obama might have done so, too?

    This isn’t a defense of Hillary’s actions; it’s an attempt to defend Hillary by saying that Obama would have done the same thing. I’m curious: How does a certain action, if wrong, become okay if done by Obama?

  256. 256.

    orogeny

    March 18, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. – Hillary Rodham Clinton, October 10, 2002

    There is a point where, when a bill is assured of passage, it becomes important to present a united front to the rest of the world. If Bush had followed through on the promises he’d been making to work in good faith with the UN to bring Saddam into line, the fact that the AUMF was passed with strong bipartisan support would have been useful in convincing the Security Council of our commitment to doing whatever it took to eliminate the Iraq threat. At the time, the consensus was that Saddam did have stockpiles of WMD…the real debate was over whether Iraq represented an “imminent” threat.

  257. 257.

    Wilfred

    March 18, 2008 at 8:38 am

    Clinton’s vote contributed to the death of 4,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the permanent disrepair of America’s reputation in most of the world. Not counting nearly a trillion dollars and the permanent debtor status of the country.

    Wash your hands all you want, Ladies, the blood won’t come out.

  258. 258.

    bootlegger

    March 18, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Anyone know what time OBH is speaking today? How about on-line broadcast?

  259. 259.

    Gus

    March 18, 2008 at 9:03 am

    If Fournier had said “Obama better be careful” instead of “Obama better watch his step” I might not see any racist intent there. If Fournier is a veteran journalist, he chooses his words very carefully. If you tell a black man “you’d better watch your step,” the unspoken word at the end is “boy.”

  260. 260.

    ThymeZone

    March 18, 2008 at 9:54 am

    the sense that “the President knows more than he can tell us” remained.

    Unfortunately, this is just a device to circumvent the Constitution. Only congress can declare war under the Constitution. One has to imagine that the Founders intended that the president would just come before congress and say, I know things I can’t tell you, just trust me and declare war.

    Um, no. That “sense” you are talking about is an abdication of responsibility. If that “sense” was the rationale, then the members who voted against the measure were the only ones who were carrying out their Constitutional responsibility.

    Clinton was not one of them. She made a bad decision, and then compounded it by refusing to say so when it was self-evident that she had.

  261. 261.

    Sasha

    March 18, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Strange, when GOPers were voting for Obama, he was “widening the party’s base.”

    The Republicans (and independents) from which Obama got votes were self-described as disenchanted with the GOP and their current crop of candidates and expressed a legitimate desire to see Obama as president. Additionally, most of those votes were cast before clear front runners emerged and McCain became as the presumptive nominee.

    Most of Hillary’s GOP votes have come after McCain’s “win”, (where a vote for another GOP candidate would be academic). Furthermore, virtually all of those Republicans voting for her have stated that they want Hillary to win the nomination because they perceive her as more likely to lose against McCain — not because they actually want her as president.

  262. 262.

    orogeny

    March 18, 2008 at 10:14 am

    virtually all of those Republicans voting for her have stated that they want Hillary to win the nomination because they perceive her as more likely to lose against McCain

    You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.

  263. 263.

    Sasha

    March 18, 2008 at 10:25 am

    You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.

    I skimmed through that article the first time you posted the link. (I will have to read it more thoroughly when I have the chance.) What it suggests to me is simply the reflexive impulse of conservative pundits to denegrate the Clintons, rather than a grand scheme to nominate the supposedly less-electable Obama.

    Regardless, recent polls and exit interviews have indicated that the actual GOP voters vote for Clinton for the reasons I previously indicated (she’s considered the weaker candidate vs. McCain).

  264. 264.

    jennifer reed

    March 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    The discussion should not be wheather or not Obama is arrogant. I think it’s pretty clear ALL politicians are arrogant. The discussion should be; why point it out in Obama? The way Ron wrote his article seems pretty racist to me. And it is clear that MANY people (of all races) viewed it that way. Concious or not, on purpose or not, that’s what the article screamed.

  265. 265.

    Martin

    March 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Wow. The gutlessness of this statement is breathtaking. I almost admire it, as it represents cowardice in its pure, unadultarated form.

    Agreed. It merely allows each Senator to hide behind the vote of every other Senator. What happens when you look around and see that 30 people voted out of political expediency and the winning margin was only 21? You just fucked your country and yourself because you didn’t have the stones to stand up for what was right.

  266. 266.

    Martin

    March 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.

    And you might want to acknowledge that 25% of Clinton’s vote in MS were Republicans, 25% had very favorable opinions of McCain, and over 30% thought that she was dishonest. That paints a pretty damning picture.

  267. 267.

    TenguPhule

    March 19, 2008 at 12:38 am

    for the same reason that, had the war not turned into a disaster, Obama would now be claiming that his speech was in opposition to unilateral war, not one with international support, and that by 2004 he was on record as approving of how Bush was handling things.

    So something that didn’t happen might have changed something that was done correctly into being something wrong if ponies could fly?

    I’m sorry, at this point it’s time for you to raise the white flag.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. bastard.logic says:
    March 17, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    ‘Arrogant’: The New Uppity

    by matttbastard

    dnA’s broadcasting on the same frequency re: Ron Fournier:
    You know, if there’s anything that can keep Barack Obama from being president, it’s the downright smoldering resentment some people feel at seeing a black per…

  2. I’ll Let John Say It » Oliver Willis says:
    March 19, 2008 at 12:42 am

    […] But yeah, I did get the sense that Ron Fournier was looking at the Obamas and thought that they’re too uppity. […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Christopher Mathews - Iceland: Season's Fleeting 3
Image by Christopher Mathews (6/13/25)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

We did it!

We raised the 25,000 for The Civics Center, and with the external matches, that gives them $60,000 for this Spring effort!

You guys rock!

Recent Comments

  • Steve LaBonne on Friday Night Open Thread (Jun 13, 2025 @ 9:23pm)
  • dnfree on Friday Night Open Thread (Jun 13, 2025 @ 9:22pm)
  • zhena gogolia on Friday Night Open Thread (Jun 13, 2025 @ 9:18pm)
  • Ohio Mom on Here I Am Again, With Another Positive Message (Jun 13, 2025 @ 9:18pm)
  • Dan B on Friday Night Open Thread (Jun 13, 2025 @ 9:18pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!