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.
Wilfred
Wow, just wow. They are really starting to panic, aren’t they?
4tehlulz
Shorter Fournier: Know your place, boy.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
“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.
Punchy
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.
paradox
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.
Gus
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
Jen
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.
orogeny
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.
zmulls
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…
Zifnab
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.
Shygetz
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.
myiq2xu
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.
I guess he has bigger plans than the Presidency after this.
Delia
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.
zzyzx
This is good. It means that the Wright thing is failing and they need a new attack.
Billy K
Well, can’t let THEM get to thinkin’ too big. If one of THEM becomes President, what’s next!? Could be something actually IMPORTANT!
myiq2xu
I can’t block quote for shit today.
That’s what I get for starting my St. Paddy’s day celebration last week.
John Cole
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.
orogeny
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?
Zifnab
He won’t lose the race, but instead transcend the office entirely.
Agsrue
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.
myiq2xu
Big O took a 5 point hit since last Thursday. Hillary edged into the lead.
So sayeth George
Jake
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.
zzyzx
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.
myiq2xu
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.”
orogeny
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.
Sasha
On a related aside, what would you catagorize the explicit opining of Obama as “intellectually lazy” as?
orogeny
myiq2xu…great minds think alike.
;-)
Pooh
Except in votes, states won and delegates. But none of those things count right?
orogeny
Obviously a racist attack, just as it is when they say the same thing about Bush.
Zifnab
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.
myiq2xu
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.
John Cole
I guess I just missed the pieces on Mitt Romney and John McCain by Ron Fournier that decried their “arrogance.”
orogeny
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.
Mr Furious
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.
myiq2xu
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.
wingnuts to iraq
“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.
p.lukasiak
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.
Sasha
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.
orogeny
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.
myiq2xu
They’re arrogant too, so what? You said Obama wasn’t arrogant.
Jen
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.
LiberalTarian
NO!!! Not hibblots and omobates again!!! MAKE IT STOP.
orogeny
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.
Tom Hilton
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.
Zifnab
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.
myiq2xu
From the linked article:
Fournier says those statements were tongue-in-cheek. But standing alone they look arrogant as hell.
cbear
.
Assholism?
orogeny
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?
Davis X. Machina
“His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”
William Herndon, on his law partner, one-term US Rep from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.
Mr Furious
I’m not seeing the racist angle myself… It seems more ageist if anything…
Well, that at full of shit.
cbear
Depends on where you’re standing.
C’mon myiqey, you not even really trying with that one bro.
myiq2xu
If it’s racist it’s sexist too:
Jen
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.
orogeny
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
myiq2xu
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.
Sasha
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.
orogeny
Now that’s arrogance!
myiq2xu
Yes they do. You are clueless.
orogeny
Problem is, that could be (and has been) said of virtually any criticism of Obama.
Zifnab
Your mom is clueless.
Jen
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.
Jen
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.
Sasha
Sorry, should be
with no strikethrough.
Jen
She’s probably a perfectly nice person who raised her son better. Behold the sunshiney nature Obama has bestowed on me!
Sasha
Dammit!
myiq2xu
You obviously have no sense of humor
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?
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?)
orogeny
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.
The Other Steve
This seems to be a case of pundit trying to discredit himself.
Billy K
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…
Pb
myiq2xu,
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.
Billy K
Unlike some other candidates, who get as many do-overs as they want.
Seriously, WTF?
The Other Steve
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.
Dennis - SGMM
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.”
dnA
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.
jenniebee
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.
Jen
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.
Stoic
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!
myiq2xu
Irony isn’t dead:
Mark Penn says Obama can’t win the general election. John Cole says:
Ron Fournier says Obama is arrogant. John Cole says:
Wilfred
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.
Jen
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.
Sasha
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.
myiq2xu
Why, because I pointed out that those statements, standing alone, look arrogant?
What was intellectually dishonest about that?
Now I know you’re not talking about me.
prm
Yeah, well … winning elections tends to do that to people.
orogeny
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.
empty
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.
Jen
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.
myiq2xu
How about his from earlier today?:
empty
Fixed.
Billy K
I second. You do not even seem to be the same person when you start talking about Hillary.
Dennis - SGMM
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.
Jen
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.
Punchy
In other news….
OT: Lieberman makes it all but official.
Apparently “I” is the new “R”
myiq2xu
As usual, you run away to avoid facing proof you are wrong.
Jen
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.
empty
He isn’t. He is his evil twin – the boy toy of the post menopausal crowd.
orogeny
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.
Jen
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.
myiq2xu
You were here Friday night too?
TZ nearly choked on his virgin margarita when I said that.
orogeny
I’m on Central time and I’ll be leaving in about 15 minutes…I swear I’m not running away, except from work.
dnA
I do that every time I lose at DICEWARS
Jake
With JoLie in the room people will realize that McCane might be barking mad, but at least he isn’t creepy.
You suck?
No one likes you?
Scared Nancy Pelosi will ask you to step outside?
The list is endless.
Sasha
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.
cbear
Join me and myiq just about any late nite if you want to see some “monstrous evil”.
myiq2xu
Jen is gonna have to eat crow:
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.
cbear
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?
Tim
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.
Zifnab
Do you think Connecticut would be interested in running a recall election?
Svensker
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!
The Populist
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.
Rarely Posts
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.
cbear
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”
The Populist
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!
The Populist
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?
Wilfred
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.
cbear
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.
DougJ
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.
Jen
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.?
myiq2xu
I keep telling people I am not emotionally invested.
It’s just sex
Martin
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.
myiq2xu
How quickkly you forget:
And I’m intellectually dishonest.
Ted
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!
4jkb4ia
LHP at FDL
examines whether charges against Spitzer will stand up. This is the same person who thought there might be something to Rezko.
myiq2xu
Another site I’ve never been to.
Why do so many of you spend so much time at sites you hate?
4jkb4ia
“Arrogance” is in the eye of the beholder.
Pooh
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?
DougJ
Didn’t you also way “I’d hit that” about Dana Perino?
myiq2xu
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, criticize.
Temple Stark
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
Zifnab
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.
The Populist
I don’t know about Perino…she’s pleasant looking enough but I am not into cold fish.
scrutinizer
I think myiq is actually a closet MUPpet. His pro-Hillary comments wind up being more reasons to go for the MUP.
Pooh
What about those who try, yet fail?
Dennis - SGMM
Dana Perino Lies about everything. I know because when I was with her she kept saying “Go ahead, put it all in.”
cbear
cbear
blockquote not work good. Sorry me.
myiq2xu
Not out loud.
ThymeZone
Just helping you out.
So to speak.
myiq2xu
They comment at Balloon Juice under the name of a bear from a kid’s story.
ThymeZone
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.
cbear
Is that you, Pooh? Is your hand still stuck in Hillary’s “cookie” jar?
Temple Stark
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 (
myiq2xu
I got my hand caught in her honey pot, but you weren’t supposed to tell everyone!
Pooh
Alright, that was well played. First time for everything.
myiq2xu
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.
LiberalTarian
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. ;)
Temple Stark
The rest of my comment after my last line above got cut off, making it all the funnier.
Accidental humor only strengthens my point :-)
LiberalTarian
I just figured it was one of many inside jokes I was never going to get, and can never personally say to anyone anyway.
myiq2xu
The survivors will discuss the GOP after the nomination is settled.
Assuming there are any survivors.
ThymeZone
The metaphor police called. They are evacuating the neighborhood ……
Dennis - SGMM
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.
cbear
DON’T TASE ME, BRO!
Sorry, somebody had to say it.
John Cole
Did you even read the God damned post? Like this part:
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?
LiberalTarian
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.
Brachiator
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:
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.
On the Stephanie Miller radio show, she is referred to as the Lying Sack of Cute.
cbear
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.”
myiq2xu
I read and responded to this:
“Uppity Negro Alert”
and:
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?
LiberalTarian
See? See? Fucking obnoxious, isn’t it???
LiberalTarian
Ok, off to drink as if I’m Irish!!
Happy St. Pat’s Day!!!
myiq2xu
I didn’t come in here and “start popping off the mouth about Hillary.” My first comment in this thread:
I even quoted from the post you don’t think I read.
The Other Steve
Obama is clearly arrogant, and John Cole’s post is proof of that.
This will be bad for Democrats.
dslak
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.
Ninerdave
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?
myiq2xu
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.
Dennis - SGMM
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!
dslak
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.
dslak
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.
The Other Steve
Calling people surrogates is sexist.
4tehlulz
It’s Zogby; I’m not worried.
Dennis - SGMM
Calling people sexist is sexist – unless they’re black in which case it’s racist as well.
dslak
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.
Asti
NoIQ, take your wetdream somewhere else.
Dennis - SGMM
If this does kill Obama’s campaign, Clinton will lose to McCain and then go on become this century’s Adlai Stevenson.
orogeny
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.
chopper
don’t insult stevenson like that.
Dennis - SGMM
Just like Bush 2000.
Dennis - SGMM
Sorry, in my haste to make a point I glossed over the facts that Stevenson was an actual progressive and an actual Democrat.
chopper
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.
orogeny
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.
jag
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.
Asti
You played Poker with Dana Perino? ;)
orogeny
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.
Asti
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).
Dennis - SGMM
If
BushClinton had succeeded in doing this without using apartisanbought and paid for vote by theSupreme Courtsuper delegates to subvert the actual result of the election, we wouldn’t have a legitimate com-plaint.orogeny
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.
Asti
If it works the way it was supposed to, I think it will be the fault of Miracle Max.
Dennis - SGMM
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.
Asti
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.
orogeny
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.
chopper
show me the rule that says that you can’t.
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?
Dennis - SGMM
Because armed revolution in the Sixties failed. As lamentable as it is, this is the only system we have.
Asti
Keep dreaming, it’s gotta turn around sometime soon, eh? It’s just gotta! Hmmm, what are you drinking?
orogeny
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 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%.
Asti
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?
Asti
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.
orogeny
You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.
Dennis - SGMM
Because they’d prefer a Democrat who didn’t vote to hand a loaded gun to an idiot? Twice.
Martin
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:
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.
orogeny
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.
TR
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?
Dennis - SGMM
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.
myiq2xu
That is not my “wetdream.” You speak from ignorance.
Asti
Suggest DC gets statehood before Denver?
Asti
Thanks, I needed that visual. ;)
myiq2xu
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.”
Asti
I clearly remember you saying the reason you were pushing Hillary was for the sex, don’t lie!
myiq2xu
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.
Sasha
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.)
myiq2xu
Name calling is not a cogent argument. It’s also rude, and a sign of intellectual poverty.
Dennis - SGMM
Who it is? Who it is? Now I can’t decide whether to accuse you of racism or sexism.
Asti
Clearly NoIQ is falling into the realm of “ITism” now.
myiq2xu
Anthropomorphism.
Asti
Namecalling? Oh, because I don’t believe your IQ is 2x everyone else here? Sensitive? Awwww, have a tissue!
orogeny
So… Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Reid, et.al. are all lying about their reasons for voting for the AUMF?
Asti
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!”
myiq2xu
As long as Obama wins it’s okay?
Dennis - SGMM
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.
Gus
I think anybody who doesn’t see “uppity negro” in “Obama better watch his step. He’s bordering on arrogance” is a bit naive.
cbear
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.
myiq2xu
It looks different with the WHOLE quote:
Fournier was clearly saying that Obama needs to be careful he doesn’t cross the line between confidence and arrogance.
Asti
That ruse would have never worked. You apparently don’t know my weakness. ;)
orogeny
It was.
cbear
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)
Asti
You mean like she did with FL? That’s too bad that she won’t be getting those votes now.
Tax Analyst
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.
Dennis - SGMM
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.
orogeny
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.
orogeny
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.
Tax Analyst
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.
Dennis - SGMM
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.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
[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.
Asti
Absolutely!
myiq2xu
“Danger Will Robinson!”:
Martin
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?
Asti
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:
p.lukasiak
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….
myiq2xu
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.
Asti
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.
Tax Analyst
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?
Martin
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.
myiq2xu
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)
Asti
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.
Martin
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.
TenguPhule
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.
dslak
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.
dslak
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.
p.lukasiak
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.
dslak
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.”
p.lukasiak
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.
p.lukasiak
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.
4tehlulz
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.
Sasha
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.
myiq2xu
Strange, when GOPers were voting for Obama, he was “widening the party’s base.”
Wilfred
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.
dslak
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?
orogeny
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.
Wilfred
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.
bootlegger
Anyone know what time OBH is speaking today? How about on-line broadcast?
Gus
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.”
ThymeZone
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.
Sasha
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.
orogeny
You might want to read this before you say that with too much conviction.
Sasha
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).
jennifer reed
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.
Martin
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.
Martin
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.
TenguPhule
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.