The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

HillaBamaDramaRama: Both Candidates Now Dead Even Against McCain


What's happening here is inescapable: Sen. Hillary Clinton is holding her ground in a head-to-head match-up against the presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, while Sen. Barack Obama has been slipping precipitously. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday shows both Clinton and Obama at 47% against McCain's 45% and 44% respectively. For Obama, this is down from the appreciable 11-point lead he held on February 28th. And it should cause concern among all the Obama supporters who've been touting his electibility and inevitability. I'm sorry, but the latest trends are showing the momentum turning in Clinton's favor.

Are Democrats beginning to view her as the more electible of the two candidates? She's shown that she's a fighter, which is going to be a critical qualification for going against McCain and the Republican attack machine in the general election. To the contrary, Obama has appeared soft. His inability and/or unwillingness to get tough can be viewed among some voters as a sign of weakness; weakness that would be swallowed up by the GOP in a head-to-head against McCain. And as I've been writing about for a couple of weeks now, race is starting to play a major role in this campaign. Twenty percent of Dems surveyed say they'll defect to McCain if Obama's the nominee. Not a pretty stat, but a realistic one nonetheless. Let's face it, America can be a pretty ugly place wrought with racial intolerance.

59 Comments:

  • At 11:29 PM, Anonymous Wilma said…

    Polls are garbage until there is only 1 Democrat candidate left standing.

    Ostroy and Democrats are too racist to allow a black man to represent them.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Maybe it has to do with Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy, Andy. DUH!! Attacking Obama on grounds, both plausible and ludicrous, is having the cumulative effect of ensuring that neither Democrat will be able to beat McCain. Ostroy, time for you to place blame where it is due. Clinton is doing all she can to make sure voters view Obama as negatively as they view her. Nice job, but you don't seem to care much. Actually, your post seems to suggest that this is happening in a vacuum or due to Obama's inherent weaknesses. She's trying to scare the shit out of white people, and it's moderately working. New poll shows people find Obama about 10% points more electable against McCain than they think Clinton is, so Obama can still overcome the consequences of Clinton's Republican tactics...

     
  • At 8:11 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    If you haven't seen Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night, check it out here (positively Murrow-ian):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY&eurl=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     
  • At 8:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    where the fun starts,will be when,john mccain stands on stage with omama and say's MR OBAMA during your run against the former first lady any time,someone even mentioned or whispered you weren't white or said if not for the fact that you were not white you wouldn't be where you were in the race,you and your people hollered racist,so rather than saying that OUR CAMPAIN will hold a picture of you up when we talk about our opposition,will that be OK,because mr obama we realize I"m not going to get the black vote

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Can you very specifically, without baseless allegation, and with specific, verifyable examples, demonstrate exactly how Clinton has "scared the shit out of white people?" This is such a completely ridiculous claim. And as far as the new polls go, yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll has Obama/McCain at 47/44, with Clinton/McCain at 47/45. Are you really going to attempt to say that Obama has a clear edge here? Where is the 10% lead you speak of?

    As for Obama's decline being attributable to Clinton, well, you're not giving credit to voters, who are likely coming to the conclusion about Obama all on their own. And lastly, please don't keep your candidate up on that pedestal too long. It's undeserving. He's played it quite dirty as well: (1) the reprehensible accusations of racism lodged at both Bill and Hillary over their utterly twisted Martin Luther King and "fairy tale" comments; (2)the "monster" attack; (3) the attack over the Clintons' tax returns and library donations. And there's more. For anyone to think Obama and his surrogates are innocent victims against a unilaterally dirty Clinton is delusional. Go tell it to someone who mght actually pay attention to that nonsense. The simple fact is, Obama's momentum has slowed because he's showing signs of being weak and less electable against McCain.

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    clinton hasn't used those racist remarks,thats the... point....obama's people are looking for ghost's that aren't there 8;50

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Andy, watch the "3 A.M." ad again and maybe you'll figure out how it fits into the Clinton strategy to pigeon-hole Obama as the black candidate. The advert was not about foreign policy, it was about crime, law-and-order, about what might be lurking in the dark shadows stalking your children. Be afraid of the black man.

    "As for Obama's decline being attributable to Clinton, well, you're not giving credit to voters, who are likely coming to the conclusion about Obama all on their own." Sounds like some serious wishful thinking. Surely you must know that negative campaigning works against both the target and the one lodging against them, unfortunately the target's negatives are driven up at a steeper pace. You miss the point that the Obama "attacks" that you raise, were all in response to numerous Clinton attacks, whereas Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy (which they explicitly said they'd attempt, as it was the "fun part of the campaign") is a coordinated effort to make Obama unelectable. Sad thing is, there's no way Clinton will win the nomination, so all she's effectively doing is ruining the Dems' chances in the fall, and pitting Democratic brother versus Democratic brother, you versus me. Clinton will leave this race hated by roughly 30-35% of her own party, talk about a uniter. Let's not engage in wishful thinking, whether you are a Clinton supporter or not, do you not see that Obama supporters now largely despise Clinton whereas most Clinton supporters have no problem with Obama aside from the fact that he may not be "substantial" or "a fighter" or "experienced enough yet"...They don't hate him, whereas Hillary has ensured an almost visceral, negative reaction from a good third of her own party (not to mention half of the population at large)...The Clintons are destroying our party...And you cheer them on...

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    "He's played it quite dirty as well: (1) the reprehensible accusations of racism lodged at both Bill and Hillary over their utterly twisted Martin Luther King and "fairy tale" comments; (2)the "monster" attack; (3) the attack over the Clintons' tax returns and library donations."

    Do you have a straight-face when you write these things? You make it sound as if both sides have been equally negative. Of the three that you mention, only the second, the "monster" comment, is legit, Ostroy. An Obama surrogate said something that she shouldn't have said, that has no part in this campaign. And she was let go by the campaign before the sun went down, all in a very classy way. Contrast with the many days Ferraro was allowed to stay on the job (also, if you watch Olbermann you'd find out that Ferraro has said this numerous times since late February). So, yeah, one of Obama's surrogates was dirty and paid for it. However, the full-on media touring blitz that Ferraro went on this week, clearly had the stamp of approval from Clinton's campaign otherwise they would have muzzled her on Monday.

    As for putative Obama attack #1: Though many in the press called Clinton's statement's outright racist, no one from Obama's campaign said such a thing. Though Clinton's remarks had racist overtones and were clearly dismissive of Obama's victories, no one on Obama's staff said he was a racist. (Again, notice how all of the so-called Obama negative attacks are in response to Clinton's negative attacks. You Clintonistas claim to want a "fighter" so badly, yet Obama should just sit back quietly and let Clinton go negative all by her lonesome)

    #3 is equally ridiculous. You would be right if Obama demanded the tax returns w/o Clinton having launched the "kitchen sink" strategy, or if the Clintons merely failed to have released last year's tax returns. However, he called for the tax returns after Hillary launched the anything goes, "kitchen sink" strategy, and, we have to admit that the Clintons have their own share of Rezko's to deal with. (Hsu, favors & pardons, marc rich, chinese fundraising deals.) Also, they haven't released tax returns for ALL OF THEIR post-white house years. Therefore, those tax returns are fair game, especially after they were able to loan themselves $5 million. Be real. If Hillary thinks that's a negative attack, then clearly she's not ready for what the Republicans have in store for her. And after all, Andy, hasn't your candidate stressed the importance of VETTING??? You apparently don't find the double standard HIllary employs to be as aggravating as I do...

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    From Ezra Klein, a paladin of progressivism....

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=olbermann_speaks

    "Remember that the Clinton campaign doesn't just need votes right now. They need superdelegates. Lots of them. But what the superdelegates need, above all, is a united party. They need an outcome they can defend as fair, that won't compel any critical constituencies to stalk out of the tent."

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    if your wondering why hillary's starting to hold her own,just look at Obama and his whining followers,they remind me of my 3 year old grandson,sob sob (HE LOOKED AT ME WRONG)america doesn't need a CRY BABY, grow up

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    S. Condorcet posts are spot on. I would amplify: Perhaps Obama's responses are "soft" because he is trying to walk a fine line between of fighting (attacking) vs party unity and general election victory.

    I am still waiting for your take on the Ferraro comments, HRC's response and how this has affected the polls and Democratic "unity". I think I know where you may be headed.

     
  • At 7:32 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    To reinforce my point:

    John Chait blogging for The New Republic:

    "As I said, Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."

    Full link here:http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/making-obama-unelectable.aspx

     
  • At 7:32 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    To reinforce my point:

    John Chait blogging for The New Republic:

    "As I said, Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they're tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain's message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."

    Full link here:http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/making-obama-unelectable.aspx

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Prius said…

    With all of the negative talk about Hillary, all with no warrant, she is right there in the race. I have never seen the media, all of them, so negative about a candidate. No matter what paper you pick up, even our once liberal St. Pete Times has nothing but anti-Hillary and pro Obama articles. Watch the news and you will see that this is true. Where are the negative comments about Obama and McCain, are they without fault?

    What has and is happening is the RACE card is being used by the Obama camp and it's BACK FIRING! We're going backwards in black/white relations and the white people are having their fill. As Andy mentioned, look at the Mississippi ratio of voters, plain black and white. When it comes to the national election the whites will stick together and vote their race, be it Obama and McCain, McCain will win.

    It is said people have short memories and by November the party will be united, don't count on that, it will not be. Playing the race card is opening old wounds and taking this country back 50 years.

    I am tired of hearing the Obama camp going after the Clinton's and others because they are speaking the truth about the one sidedness of the media. Where does Keith Sloberman get off going after Hillary? I wonder how many viewers, like me, that have tuned him out, will he be another Tucker Carlson, we can only hope. That kind of talk is not needed against any candidate.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Prius,

    You think that the media is so heavily weighted in Obama's favor do you? A little thought experiment, if you don't mind. Imagine roles were reversed, and the Unsinkable Molly Clinton had roughly 700,000 more popular votes than Obama, an INSURMOUNTABLE pledged delegate lead to lord over Obama, and was close to catching up with Obama in terms of superdelegate support. Do you honestly believe the media would still allow Obama to claim he's still viable? Not at all. If the roles were reversed, this battle would be over in the media. The media, as much as they tacitly loathe the Clintons (I don't dispute that...then again, they're mirroring a large swath of the public), also love the narrative of the Clintons' as political wizards and comeback kids'. If it wasn't for the media's embrace of the comeback narrative vis-a-vis the Clintons, Obama would be the presumptive nominee since his lead by next to every metric cannot be overcome by Clinton.

    This is ridiculous. I'm tired of Clinton campaign (and her supporters) stringing the media along. This game is over, and all that results from Clinton's quixotic quest is the undermining of Democratic prospects in November. It's time for Clinton's supporters to start thinking big picture: this game is over, Obama has won, let's focus on getting a filibuster-proof Senate, and futher gains in the House and state legislatures. Time to band together, rather than hopelessly backing a dying candidacy. The house lights are on, the music's stopped, it's time to either go home or come join the party Senator Obama's campaign is throwing....

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is Friday morning and it's over for Obama and for our country if he becomes the Dem. candidate. McCain will surely win. I saw the clip of Obama's "spiritual adivsor" and the minister of the church Obama has attended for twenty years. That means he has sat in the congregation year after year and heard the anit-white, anti-America, black separarists comments preached from the pulpit. Jimmy Carter left the Baptist Church the moment it adopted an anti-female doctrine Obama did not leave when he heard the anti-American remarks after 9-11. Even if Obama does not agree and even if he now rejects them, it is too late for him to beat McCain because the Republicans will win on this issue. For years the Republicans have said Dems (especially liberals Dems) hate America. That's one way Bush got elected. And the fact that the preacher is retiring is too little too late for an Obama presidency.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Fist Michelle is proud of America for the first time and now this from her and Obama's preacher. Not good.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney -

    Re: The popular vote count. If you add in her votes in Florida and Michigan (and give Obama ALL the uncommitted votes from Michigan), it's about a tie. You can't say he's up so much more in the popular vote. It's just not true.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Actually, even if you add the results from Florida and Michigan (where Obama was not even on the ballot, so the results from Michigan are dubious...), Obama is still ahead by a little more than a quarter of a million votes.

    Taking into account Florida (where she beat him by 294,772) and Michigan (where she beat uncommitted by 90,141), he would still be up by between 220-300,000 votes (taking into account caucus states is why there's an issue with accurate gauging of the popular vote).

    Either way, Anon 11:38am, there is still no way for Hillary to overcome his pledged delegate lead. The only way for Hillary to persuade the superdelegates is to trash and slime Obama as much as possible, thus tarnishing the character of a young, intelligent, eloquent Democrat, who has a loyal and large following within the party.

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    sidney has a problem now with a revote about to happen in michigan and florida,how obamas preacher is now outed,and obama's been taking it all in and kept goimg there shows his true beliefs for the last 20 years,when they do revotes obama will recieve the % of votes which the % of african americans in those states are. nothing like shooting yourself in the foot

     
  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Wrong. I have no problem whatsoever with a revote. If somehow Clinton should pick up 80% of the vote in those states and overtake Obama, then the entire calculus will change. If she beats him 55-45 or thereabouts, then nothing changes at all.

    As for Obama's preacher, again, I have no problem with that. 1) the media has cherry-picked his statements; 2) Obama has never echoed the controversial statements, and in fact has consistently distanced himself from them; 3) I don't think one can judge a man by what their preacher, professor, uncle (etc...) has said; 4) I think Obama would be best served by asking Rev. Wright to resign from his religious outreach committee; 5) I actually have no problem with most of the "controversial" statements. I imagine the world, and the United States in particular, would look much different through the eyes of a proud, black preacher than it would a upwardly mobile, white man. I don't believe in homogenized thought, but apparently you do. I forgot, we should be proud of America at all times and no matter what our actions may be, and in disregard for the consequences of our actions. You must be a republican or neocon, Anon 12:32, to so completely embrace America's exceptionalism.

     
  • At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Rob said…

    Prius,

    If, as you posit, the Dems need to nominate HRC because whites will not vote for an Afro-American for President in 2008, then a Democrat will NOT be elected in 2008. It is clear to me that HRC is ALSO unelectable, and for two simple reasons --one disgusting and one understandable. The first is that I believe that because of sexism a woman cannot be elected in 2008, and the second is that because of HRC race-baiting sludge, Afro-Americans might not want to vote for her.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    micheal moore was right 5 or 6 months ago when he said it's the dems. election to loose, but watch them screw it up anyway, he's right, the extreme-left took it on themselfs to run obama and shove his election down our throats,never,mind he's not qualified,his race has nothing to do with it,if his race had something to do with it,you should of ran Charlie Rangle,he could of been elected, Obama's like Bush, is someone you would'nt mind having a beer with,not as president,WE BEEN THRUOGH THAT,hopefully not again

     
  • At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Obama's preacher is his SPIRITUAL ADVISOR -- you know, the minister/rabbi/guru//priest/ who comes to your house and tells you what to think and how to behave according to your religion. Obama was not a casual audience member at his church. I can't stand to even listen to Bush's speak on TV -- How could Obama listen to the hatred from his minister Sunday after Sunday? And how can "it's America's fault" be different in varying contexts.

    And if those tapes of Wright's sermons aren't enough for the Repugs, the smear and lies will continue. The INQUIRER this week and THE GLOBE several weeks ago printed stories the Repugs will jump on and circulate if Obama is the candidate.

    And, why, why, why didn't Obama see that his association with Wright would certainly be a problem for him and distance himself when he decided to run for president. So much for his judgment.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    If Obama was a white Republican, and his Pastor made anti-gay, anti-jew, anti-catholic, misogynistic, xenophobic remarks (like McCain's spiritual advisor, like GW Bush's assembled ecumenical coterie, ect..) this would be an ephemeral issue. Looks like being black doesn't really make Obama so lucky after all, Ms. Ferraro....

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mr or Ms. condorcet,we exspect that out of a republican or their friends and supporters.but when your running on the democratic ticket and claim your for change and have one of the worst racial bigots as your spiritual advisor,and after 20 years of going to that church you'ld know what he is. and now that we know what type church he likes ,maybe he's not quite the uniter he claims

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    It's Mr. Condorcet...
    I've never been religious, so I can't speak to this as well as the following commenator:

    Over at TPM Cafe, MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum makes a great point about the separation that should exist between congregation and congregant:


    "I've been a member of a conservative Jewish congregation for 25 years. I love the rabbi but not his sermons on Israel and the Palestinians. He is a total Israel hawk. To put it mildly, I am not. I am all about the two-state solution (the so-called Clinton plan).


    Even worse, the congregation has become the favorite of Washington's neocons including the worst warmonger of all: Douglas Feith. The idea of communing with God together with a thug like Feith is sickening to me. Then there is Charles Krauthammer who, in 2001, disrupted Yom Kippur services by bellowing at the rabbi for expressing, in the most general terms, the desire for Middle East peace. The worst moment I've ever had at my congregation was when a visiting rabbi from Europe (he comes every year for the High Holy Days) devoted an entire sermon to the value of hate. "To everything there is a season. This is a season for hate." He was talking about the Palestinians. I almost puked.


    And yet I am a member of this congregation and will remain one. Why? As I said, I like the rabbi (the regular one, not the annual visitor) despite disagreeing strongly with many of his views. More important, this is the congregation that my kids grew up in. This is where their Bar Mitzvahs took place. The people there (not the war criminals though) are kind of like family. It's home. Probably how Obama feels about his church.


    The bottom line is that I am not discredited as a strong supporter of a Palestinian state and the end of the occupation because my rabbi has a different view. Pro-peace Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs do not refuse to work with me because I go to the "neocon" synagogue. My writings on Israel/Palestine are not disregarded because my rabbi is a Likud guy.


    Of course, not. My rabbi's views are his views. He is my spiritual adviser not my political adviser."

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    good try sidney,but this wasn't a visiting minister,this was the paster of the church,the only good thing is people now see you for the cool-aid drinker you are. obama could kill a woman right in front of your eyes and you'ld find him not guilty

     
  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Haha...You are a joke, 5:37. That last line completely renders any argument you make ineffective as it clearly comes from an irrational coot...

     
  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    In this country, we have plenty of catholic politicians. Are they asked to disavow the Pope and the Catholic Church if they themselves believe in contraception or are pro-choice? What if they are pro-death penalty and pro-Iraq War? Do they have to disavow their Church since the Church has stated that the capital punishment is a sin?

    Spare me! People, I assume, go to church for community and for spiritual edification. Not for political mobilization. Jeremiah Wright may be a good spiritual advisor, he may have taught Obama the compassion of Christ, etc...So what if on occassion the Pastor voiced his political views? Though the Republican Right may have fused the two in our minds, political ideology and religious/spiritual identity are not necessarily merged, my friend. He can teach congregants how to be good Christians every Sunday, while occassionally ranting about the plight of blacks in America or the perils of American foreign policy. So what? No congregant is forced to believe everything their pastor, rabbi, reverend, imam happens to say.

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    as you can see sidney also utters racial slurs,2 peas in a pod

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Rant, all you want Sidney, but no Rabbi, Priest, Guru, or Pope has ever publicly said "God damn America." I heard Wright on tape say that less than an hour ago on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He blames America for 9-ll, by having committed autrocities against other countries. The Hiroshima bombing is mentioned. And he said America had no remorse. Wright hates America and white Americans, apparently. Obama was married by him and has attended that church for twenty tears. Yet, some dumb Obama supporter said to Bliztzer that OBama didn't know his minister had made these remarks. His supporters are becoming as untrustworthy as he is. However, since the tapes are on sale for the public to buy I'm sure it would be easy to research his sermon history over twenty years.

    Romney got the religion test; Kennedy had to swear he wouldn't call on the Pope for advice; and no one wants a president who listens to damnation of our coutnry week after week for twenty years. There is -- there can be no excuse. Even if Obama doesn't agree with Wright despite his continued attendance to listen to his sermons, his bad planning and judgment allowed that connection to rise to this degree of outrage among Americans. That is certainly not bringing us together or inspiritng hope in his abillities.

    Blitzer even quoted a Times article in which Wright told Obama several years ago that he might have to distance himself from Wright. Obama did not follow that good advice, as we all know.

    And despite all of this and Dems still elect him as the nominee, it will not go away because the Republicans would win with this issue.

     
  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger jbc said…

    Obama has posted a great response to this: On my faith and my church.

    Obama is the genuine article. Those who make the point that HIllary and he are almost identical in terms of policy proposals miss the fundamental truth: HIllary is adopting whatever position she thinks she needs in order to win, even when that means adopting contradictory positions within a 24-hour span (I'm honored to be running against Barack Obama. Oh, wait, no; _shame_ on Barack Obama! Shame!). Obama, meanwhile, is just being true to himself, delivering the same message he has delivered from the start of the campaign.

    In that sense, it's the same as their respective positions on the original AUMF in October 2002: Hillary put her finger in the political wind and decided that she needed to give Bush authorization to invade. Obama, facing the same choice, was true to what he knew (and what I knew) at the time: that Bush was making a dishonest case for an ill-considered and immoral war.

    I thought it was really funny when Andy accused me of psychoanalyzing him and projecting my own attitudes on him rather than dealing with objective reality, and in almost the same breath characterized all Obama supporters (including, presumably, myself) as harboring an irrational infatuation with the guy.

    What do you know, Andy, about what motivates Obama's supporters? Where do you come off denigrating our support for him as somehow being less-rationally-arrived-at than your own support for Hillary? How do you know how much or how little research I and other Obama supporters have done before deciding whom to support?

    The fact is, you don't know. But that doesn't stop you from spouting off.

    It's just another example of your willingness to make categorical statements without supporting evidence. Which, given the nature of that particular charge (that we Obama supporters have chosen him without considering the evidence), is pretty amusing.

    You're so funny when you try to talk smack, Andy. Keep it up! :-)

     
  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Apparently the term "irrational coot" has now been deemed a racial slur. My apologies for all who took offense.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    jbc -- You were accused of projecting because you were inferring things from the article that were not even implied, much less stated. Simple as that However, the psychiatric problem with projection is that the one doing so has no insight into his own problems; if he did he would not project them.

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Obama and Spitzer are two of a kind who practice "magical thinking." They thought harmful facts about them would never be discovered.

     
  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Anon 6:46, harmful facts like what? Keating Five, violent temper for McCain? Fundraising scandals, sex scandals for Clinton? Every politician has "harmful facts about them." They're human. I'm sure we can find a "harmful fact" or two about you if we had the time and inclination. If we require our elected leaders to exist on some higher moral level than us, we're begging to be lied to. All of us are imperfect.So it's all a matter of degree, basic integrity, and a candidate's chosen priorities. Obama, in terms of both style and substance, seems far more ethical, honest, rational and temperate than either Clinton or McCain.

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Anonymous Cheeseburger said…

    Sidney you ass wipe, of course Obama 'seems' more ethical, honest, and rational than Clinton or McCain. YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM.

    Please tell me 3 things Obama has accomplished that makes him worthy of the most powerful position in the world.

     
  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger jbc said…

    Obama gives 3 examples every _day_ of why he deserves to be elected president. Look, for example, at how he has responded to the various shady attacks he's been undergoing. The guy rings true every time.

    Just picking three to give you something to research, after which you'll be in a stronger position to assert that people who support him don't know anything about him:

    1) His speech on October 2, 2002: Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq. (You can contrast it with the speech Hillary gave 8 days later: Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.)

    2) His speech to the Call for Renewal Conference in June 2006: Call to Renewal Keynote. For those playing along at home, it was this speech that first convinced me that he was worthy of being president.

    3) Hilzoy's list of Obama's accomplishments during his first two years in the Senate: Barack Obama. It summarizes how he worked as a freshman Senator to achieve real accomplishments in important, non-glamorous areas like nonproliferation, avian flu, regulating genetic testing, and reduction of medical malpractice suits. For bonus points, you can also read Hilzoy's description of Obama's work as a state legislator to build bipartisan support for videotaping of police interrogations: Obama: Actually, I Think We Can. Anyone who doesn't see the applicability of that particular experience to our current national nightmare vis-a-vis state-sponsored torture hasn't been paying enough attention for the last several years.

    If you find the above enlightening you can go on to listening to the archives of Obama's podcast. As I said before, it was his Call for Renewal speech that first made me think he deserved to be president. But it was listening to his weekly podcasts, in which he talked for hour after hour (and seemingly extemporaneously, though granted, he's a politician, and as such his remarks are always considered carefully in advance) on subjects both mundane and momentous, built my level of trust to the point where I really have no doubts about the guy at this point.

    Obama is the real thing. Maybe to an outside observer the faith in him that his supporters exhibit looks like blind infatuation. But for those who can step back from their cynicism for a moment, there's another possibility you should consider: Maybe he inspires that kind of excitement because he really is that good.

     
  • At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Today Obama said on TV, in his defense, THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WRIGHT MADE THOSE "GOD DAMN AMERICA" REMARKS OR THAT WRIGHT FELT THAT WAY. Obama went to that church for twenty years, Wright was his spiritual advisor and pastor all that time. He converted Obama to his form of Christianity and yet Obama didn't know how Wright felt about America. Either Obama is lying , or, he is too dense to be aware of what goes on around him and what affects his life. Either way he is not qualified to be president.

     
  • At 11:40 PM, Blogger jbc said…

    Bull. Obama wasn't there the day Wright made that comment. You're requiring him to be clairvoyant as a condition of being president. Get over yourself, do some research, and, if you're willing, engage in an actual discussion of where this country needs to go and who is (and who isn't) qualified to lead us there.

    This schoolyard b.s. in which you try to claim that Obama is responsible for statements made by someone else when he's not there that he's consistently repudiated and that his public record overwhelmingly demonstrates he doesn't agree with is just... lame.

     
  • At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I saw the CNN Anderson Cooper program when the replacement as preacher for Rev. Wright was interviewed. He was hand picked by Wright to take over the church. When asked if he felt the same way as Wright he explained that blacks have a different world view than whites. In fact, even Obama had said during his interview that some blacks felt the same way Wright does - although in the same interview Obama said he hadn't known Wright felt that way.

    Then after the new preacher gave that answer about the way blacks feel and to answer the question of how he felt, he said that the BIble says - he then quoted Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I come not to send peace, but a sword." This is the quote from the Bible that the NEW preacher gave as his answer as to how he feels. This is the preacher that Obama said he would welcome and that he would continue to attend that church.

    I am white and I know a large number of blacks. I had no idea this kind of hatred was going on among them toward me, I guess althogh I'm not rich and I don't therefore, as Wright says, run the country. These militant comments and hatred scare me.

    And, of course I wonder how OBama intends to CHANGE his fellow church members into feeling peaceful cooperative and benevolent towards whites.

     
  • At 12:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    jbc -- Obama did not put words in Wrights mouth. However, he has attended that church and listened to him for twenty years. He has surported the church financially and spiritually. Wright is his spiritual advisor. Are you so naive that you believe a man as smart as OBama is supposed to be didn't know Wright's core beliefs? Of course he did and he suuports them else he would not have his children exposed to that hate-talk or listened to it himself. Someone has pointed out that Jimmy Carter left his beloved Baptist Chruch as soon as it adopted its suppressive rules toward women.

    And, Obama barely has a public record because of his short time as an legislature and because of his many "present" votes.

     
  • At 12:19 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    "Are you so naive that you believe a man as smart as OBama is supposed to be didn't know Wright's core beliefs? Of course he did and he suuports them else he would not have his children exposed to that hate-talk or listened to it himself."

    All of this assumes that the little snippets of Wright's preaching that has been the subject of criticism represents the vast bulk of his weekly preaching. From what I have read the last year about Wright, these comments are not representative of the week-to-week message. If every Sunday Wright railed against America, then I would have serious reservations with Obama and how he has not distanced himself completely from Wright. However, if these instances are rare occurences (such as after Katrina, when Iraq was at its lowest low, etc...) then I don't think Wright, let alone Obama, should be chastised for these controversial moments.

     
  • At 12:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Obama needs to stop whining and pointing fingers everytime someone looks at him. The crying wolf tactic has long outlived it's usefulness. His 20 year relationship with Wright, an obvious bigot, should be reason enough to turn away from Obama, now. If people don't care about his lack of political accumen then being looked down upon by Obama and his 'spiritual' advisor should be reason enough to give him the walk off the plank. Obama can only drag the DNC down now. He needs to go - fast.

     
  • At 1:05 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Ain't going to happen 12:41...He's not going anywhere, he's a political force who has inspired a generation of up-and-coming Democratic activists, so you'd better quit your own whining and live with it.

    Also, don't know where you get that he's been "pointing fingers" or "crying wolf". Clearly you don't understand the meaning of those terms or you expect Obama to leave criticisms or negative comments of him to go unanswered. Obviously you prefer a John Kerry-type of candidate who allows himself to be defined in the public eye before responding to outrageous and specious assertion by his political enemies. Thank the good lord he isn't another Kerry.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    527 groups are going to have a lot of fun with this,on hard ball last night obama said he can not rebuk his mentor,but he rebuks his remarks ,527 group runs the part of clip him saying he does not rebuke him and runs the sermon,and just think you can't call it swiftboating because it's the truth

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    knock-out punch,by his own side WHAT A TEAM

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The TEAM seems to be divided beyond, perhaps, repair. When you learn that half of the team hates the other half of the team, you know there is serious trouble.

    I am white and I am not responsible for the horrible history black people suffered in this country. I have done all I can do to fight the injustices I noticed since I was old enough to recognize them. I was for Obama and yes, partly because he is black. Now to find that the group of people he identifies with and the others he mentions as feeling the same anger and hatred toward me and all whites really depresses me. ANd, worse, the new minister, whom Obama supports was on TV quoting the Bible saying they have picked up the "sword" because of their anger. He made no apology, does not promise reconcilliation, and Obama is for him. How can there be a coming together and a healing?

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    News at 11, a lot of african-americans feel that America has historically screwed them over. I am SHOCKED that Obama has not shunned every one of his brothers and sisters who feels that way, including the select few that chose to express their dissatisfaction vocally. Oh wait, now I remember that I'm liberal, rational and I believe in pluralism, so I recognize that Obama shouldn't be judged based upon the statements of an influential member of his community. Maybe he should reject and denounce all oppressed peoples who dare to speak out in frustration or anger? How dare that uppity Jeremiah Wright? He should thank god to have been born in the wonderful, candyland that is the United States, a land that has placid and unnoteworthy history with respect to race relations? And for the smartass who'll come along next and say how african-americans have plenty of opportunity now and that the field is leveled (b.s.), deep wounds take generations to heal....

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    HELP.Now, if Condorcet represents Liberals, we have that segment of whites hating all other whites in general. Obama, Michelle, wright, the new pastor OBama supports, Jackson, Sharpton and all the blacks in the country have the freedom to feel rage, hatred, resentment and any other emotion they may have but I do not want them to become the President of the country they hate wielding a "sword" in order to perhaps "get even."

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If Michelle was so underpriviledged who paid for her very expensive education? She did not get a scholarship. For that matter, who paid for Barack's. He was not on scholarship either.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy this is beginning to look like the Sidney COndorcet Report. Could we please hear from you?

     
  • At 6:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Michelle and Barack have Affirmative Action to thank for their educations and acceptance into whitey's world. Now, they bite the hand that helped them up.
    They are only seen a veiled bigots themselves now.

    How much is a one way ticket to Kenya?

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yeah, Sidney Condorcet is a french ass wipe.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey, Sidney, you're evidently not a Christian and don't know what to expect from a Christian minister. It is forgiveness 70 times 70 for starters. Then its "do unto others ... " Then it's reliance on prayer to improve things and on and on and on. These statemens were made from a CHRISTIAN church - not the local bar.

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    "Yeah, Sidney Condorcet is a french ass wipe."

    Who let Fox News reporters on this website, Andy?

    "Michelle and Barack have Affirmative Action to thank for their educations and acceptance into whitey's world."

    Another knuckle dragger, eh? So you're saying that Obama and Michelle did not or could not get into college and lawschool if they had been white? Because black people are naturally inferior? I'm shocked that Andy, a self-avowed, liberal (and a fundamentally decent human being) has not responded to such inhumanity. I hope Andy is as insulted as I am.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Sidney Ass Wipe said…

    Andy is a racist and supports that statement.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home