Letters to the Editor
-
@ KcM: It Wasn't Intended As A 'Straw Man'
What I get from many Obama posters is *that* very idea. At the same time many of Obama's folks do the dichotomies: evil/good; bad/good; right/wrong.
And I provided information about Obama's State Senate career. If you've seen the articles, fine. We agree to disagree about his influence. And, BTW: I believe I have noted elsewhere -- awhile ago -- Obama's accomplishments, in the State Senate and the U.S. Senate.
Finally, in response to your posts about racism/race-baiting. I suspect you've read these, also.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328
http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/01/10/jesse-jackson-jr-brings-up-race-and-clintons-tears-in-support-of-obama/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
-
Random Musings (& reactions)
That's precisely what bothers me. That Joan Walsh and her cohorts are using that need to know as an attempt to both -
1) Inject their bias (conscious or otherwise)
2) Use our need to know by being deliberately controversial in order to spike readership and web traffic.
-- MVPOnline
As I have stated before, I am moderate democrat, not a liberal, and the utter outrage at Salon for having the unmitigated gall to actually want to stay in business is one of the reasons why.
Speaking of Fear and Loathing '72 . . . I just reread it recently, and I must say that the parallels are disturbing. If you read about McGovern's road to the nomination, the weird semi-brokered convention and then the inexplicable collapse against a Nixon campaign that simply managed not to fuck up too monumentally (or at least didn't get caught in time), you will see a lot that McGovern had in common with Obama.
-- EMStoveken
I worked on the McGovern campaign and you are right, the parallels are disturbing. The grass root (no netroots back then) organizing, the highly motivated youth vote (1972 was the first presidential election in which 18 year olds could vote), the wresting of the nomination from the party regulars, the idealism and excitement over "something new", I see it playing out all over again. And, if Obama is in fact the nominee, I unfortunately see a similar result. Inexplicable collapse? I don't think so. America has a center-right majority. It was true then and it is still true. The best that democrats can ever hope for in a national election is to move them center-left, and even that is not easy.
It's Republicans who will get all upset about Barack's pastor, for chrissakes, not rank and file Dems. The uptight types, who never did trust those black folks too much anyway, will continue to vote their distrust. We don't need them this time. You'll see.
-- Renegade Iconoclast
And it is this type of cogent analysis that hands the presidency to republicans election after election.
***
On a somewhat lighter note, in concert with the Astrology prediction:
Michelle Whitedove, the winner of Lifetime Television Top Psychic Contest, predicted that John McCain would be the republican nominee. She made that prediction Dec. 14, 2007 when most pundits were considering McCain roadkill. The rest of her bizarre predictions?
Republican ticket : McCain/Giulianni (or Rice)
Democrat ticket: Clinton/Edwards
Winner: Democrat
I'm not particularly a psychic believer, but.....
-
Not all Obama supporters want Hillary out
Hey ya'll.
Fellow Obama supporters who want to insist she step down consider some positives that could come from her staying in:
First of all, this needs to be a fair and square nomination. Why not let it run its course? If she does poorly in PA and NC and supers start to choose, it is what it is. Her dropping out would be just as 'lopsided' to her supporters as Obama his conceding right now would feel to us. As lopsided as, barring serious electability issues, the supers choosing Clinton even if she went to convention with fewer delegates, pop votes, etc.
You want her to be graceful and classy, we should be too. Obama is ahead. Chill.
But she's ruining the party you say. No. ALthough we will all have our preferences, anything that creates the illusion of unfairness will be just as detrimental (which is why FL and MI cannot 'change mid-game from the rules they set over a year ago. Because other than a full re-vote - which the states cannot afford and the DNC won;t pay for, there's no fair way to solve it).
Second, even if her campaign drags up some real dirt on Obama, that's OK. It gives us time to mount our defenses against the republicans in the GE. IF those negatives don't hurt him or don't sustain any damage to him, we know they are issues that can be effectively dealt with in the GE. If they do damage him irreparably, Hillary has a case for electability.
So don't fret over the Hillary. Let her run her campaign, let her try. If she gets beat fair and square... well, it'll be easier to win over her supporters in the GE. As a comparison, think of how you might have felt had she won the nomination by getting the FL and MI delegates seated despite the rules that were set last year? See how sour your would have felt? Well, that's how Clinton supporters would feel if she dropped out. I KNOW the numbers don't add up but again, this is where CLASS and DIGNITY come in. Let her keep going. No big deal. It'll be over soon enough.
-
Definition of "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"
Clinton supporters voting for McCain in the general, thus fulfilling their prediction that Obama cannot win the general election.
That is the type of candidate you are dealing with in Mrs. Clinton.
-
Or, maybe she's just hoping some nut case will assassinate Obama
...because that's the only damn way she will overcome his leads in delegates and popular vote. She's tried everything else, including bald-faced character assassination, and it hasn't worked. Maybe she can click her heels 3 times, or try to find a ringing phone that she can answer and be transported, or perhaps Dr. Who can arrive in the Tardis and take her back to before Iowa.
When are we all going to stop treating Clinton like everything but what she is, the female version of Mike "I'm not leaving yet" Huckabee?
-
@ Festering sore
Since virtually your entire post is based upon spin and does not match reality, there is not much room to argue over this:
“She put Obama and MLK into the dreamer camp and LBJ and herself into the doer camp.”
That is not what Hillary Clinton said. Though you have apparently been influenced by the spin yourself.
“They're not a bunch of lemmings ready to boil off the cliff when somebody yells ‘racist!’.”
There you go again. Nobody said that any group was more susceptible to media distortions than any other. If the media and surrogates and campaign advisers and other spinmeisters had no affect they would not be paid so much money.
"Obama's pathway to the nomination then, as now, is to [pretend to] run on a change mandate, a "throw the bums out, post decisive politics" message, campaign in all 50 states, harness the youth vote and build 21st a century ground game."
I agree that Obama pretends to present himself as a different type of politician, but his actions belie the message. That is my basic complaint and why many Democrats have difficulty supporting him.
Bottom line is that Obama’s act is becoming transparent. The problem for the Democratic Party is that it may be too late to stop him from getting the nomination.