Sunday, March 16, 2008

The True Definition of "Party Unity"

In response to several clearly spirited comments on my message board of late, here's a little civics lesson for my Obama-supporting Progressive friends: In the United States we have these pesky little things called elections. In these contests for president, which occur every four years, both the Republican and Democratic parties hold primaries and caucuses. At inception, several different candidates typically run. Our citizens then vote for whoever they prefer until one of these candidates in each party wins, and by win we mean they reach the minimum number of delegates (elected by voters to represent them at the conventions) required by each party (not some arbitrary number they come up with when and if they happen not to reach the minimum). Then, the two winners face off in the general election, along with any Independent/third party candidates who've made it onto the ballot. And I know this is once again very annoying, but Americans get to vote for who they prefer once more. So, let's summarize how our great Democracy works: we hold elections, candidates run, Americans get to vote for whomever they prefer, and then we have a new president.

Pretty basic stuff, huh? Yeah, but our Obama-supporting Progressive friends seem to struggle with all this. Seems they agree with only part of it...that only some of us get to choose their preferred candidates. The others, they demand, should like and vote for the Progressives' choice too. But if they don't, and the election gets too close, they then demand that the other candidate drop out so as to make it easier for the Progressives' candidate to win. And what's more, even if their candidate doesn't reach the minimum number of delegates, they say that's ok, let's just give it to Obama anyway since he's ahead. Of course, we all know they'd be arguing this position just as hard if Hillary were ahead but far short of the minimum, right? And when voters don't support Obama, they get attacked for being anti-American, Republican and of dividing the party. C'mon, that's not very Progressive, is it?

And they also get angry when bloggers like me actually write positive things about our preferred candidate, as if it's our job to subjugate our own preferences and write about the other sides' candidate. Yet, the irony is, my February pieces were extremely favorable towards Obama and quite negative towards Hillary, but these Progressives aren't concerned about objectivity. It's not balance they're looking for, but consistent, unconditional love for Obama. It's not ok to merely write negatively about Hillary some of the time, they want it all the time.

If you read some of these comments you'd think I, and anyone else who supports Hillary Clinton, is a subversive, treasonous traitor. See, I look at it quite differently. I'm just exercising my little old right to vote for whoever I please in the primary. Duh. And if my gal doesn't win, like the good Democrat that I am, I will passionately throw all my support (time, blogspace, money, etc) behind Obama and help him fight like an animal to beat John McCain which, call me crazy, seems the rational, logical, sane thing to do...especially since I am against the war, the Bush tax cuts, am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-guns, and want liberal Supreme Court justices, positions which McCain does not share with me or with Progressives, for that matter. Duh again. Now the Progressives, angry that we won't support their candidate right now or call her dirty or demand she quit even though she's a hair away from Obama, threaten to vote for McCain as punishment if she wins. My way or the highway is their campaign slogan. We fight for liberty, truth, justice and Progressive values for all, they self-righteously brag, but then would freely toss their precious votes to yet another war-mongering, small government, staunch conservative if they don't get their way in the primaries. Wow. Now that makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it?

So, once again, we free-thinking Democrats say to our Obama-supporting Progressive pals....this is an election. And in these primary elections more than one person gets to run. And voters get to choose who they want, not who you want. And if our candidate wins, the sane thing to do is support her in our collective fight against Republican tyranny. And if Obama wins, we will of course back him with all we've got. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like party unity to me....


Unknown said...

Andy, I love you and everything, but let's cool off a bit. I support Obama, and strongly. I think he's likely to be more electable in the general than Hillary, and I'm tired of the politics of division and fear (not that Obama's doing a great job staying above the fray right now). I also think his ethics issues are a drop in the bucket to hers.

My comment is that I think a) you're generalizing a bit about Obama supporters, and b) demonizing the people you say are demonizing Clinton supporters.

I also think that the candidates should stop slugging it out and figure out what the party should do. Let's face it: this will not be decided by Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, and it's not going to get less nasty from here. We're looking at a divided and contentious convention, and that will definitely hurt the Dems' chances in November.

Obama and Clinton are going to need to figure it or in Denver. Frankly, I don't know what the solution is (Obama's being ahead doesn't qualify him to win, and neither does Hillary's superdelegate lead), but if the two of them can actually get together and show some leadership (rather than waiting for an incredibly-divisive, lawsuit-filled convention), it would actually create a reason for tons of people to come to the polls.

Now, who'll step up to the plate and help move this along? Al...?

Anonymous said...

Andy ...... Stop Whining. You are better than that. It is not becoming. Neither of these candidates are perfect, and for each style points you object to, there is one for your candidate that is equally offensive. Even you can probably think of faults in Clinton's tactical approach to Obama. Let it go and get back to the issues, as should both candidates, where you and they will be far more effective.

Anonymous said...

Obama needs Clinton, Clinton needs Obama

If Clinton and Obama want to behave responsibly to make sure one of them actually makes it to the White House, they both need to stop flinging dirt at each other. Here’s the way to make that happen:

Both publicly pledge that if are nominated for President, the other candidate will be their first choice for the Vice Presidential spot.

This immediately puts a stop to personal attacks or calling their rival’s ability into question - you don’t dis you choice for second-in-command.

They can and should debate the issues and clarify their differences. But they are now free to direct their shared anger and outrage where it belongs, at Bush’s policies, and at the policies of the man endorsed by Bush.

For either Obama or Clinton to win his fall, he or she needs to lead a unified party. And this requires the enthusiastic support of the other.

Clinton needs Obama, Obama needs Clilnton. That’s just the way it is.

Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama – either “dream team” is McCain’s worst nightmare. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can make that nightmare a reality for him now.

Anonymous said...

Most Clinton supporters are under educated die hard Democrats that will vote for anyone with a D next to their name. Think about it, who in their right mind, would want Hillary Clinton as our Democrat candidate for President. I can't imagine having to look at her and listen to her for 4 year, let alone 8. She is corrupt, she never answers a question, and she jumps right to blaming everything on the 'right wing spin machine'. Do we really believe this bullshit ??

Obama is a chance to break the establishment control of a political party. If you want to change Washington, do you think its better to elect the establishment puppet or the new guy that has no/less favors to payback ?


Anonymous said...

Ostroy is right ; Ostroy is always right. But his point today is moot.

You are all overlooking the fact that now, after the revelation about Obama's ties to a treasonous, anti-white, anit-american church/organization/pastor, he cannot win. It is as simple as that. Imagine if it had been Hillary instead of Obama and you'd realize the gravity of this situation. Now, you Dems can either accept reality or subject yourselves and the rest of the country to four more years of "bush" politics. The preacher said "GOD DAMN AMERICA>" Who wwnts a man or woman who attends such a "club" to be president? You will soon find out the majority of Americans don't

Anonymous said...

10:49 is the kool-aid speaker we have come to know and learned to overlook,because he was lucky enough to go to higher learning look down on the rest of the world,that's the reason the OBAMA BUBBlE IS BURSTING,they think they know whats best for the rest of us.sorry I'm not in a hurrah for me and #$%^%^$ everyone else mode,go ahead and drink your wine or cocktail,I'll drink my miller,and i will be happy,your post shows you don't really belong in the democratic party.ANDY"S RIGHT AGAIN

The Ostroy Report said...

Hey Doug, how come, amid all the trash talk on this board directed at me and Hillary's supporters, we don't get cries to "cool off" from you? Intersting how the expectation is for me and others to take whatever's thrown our way but when we answer back we're met with "'cool off." Pretty much the overall philosophy of the Obama campaign's double-standard: we can do/say what we want, but when you fight back it's "dividing the party." Thanks for proving my points.

I suggest you and all the other super-sensitive Obama supporters focus on what's really important: winning. Stop obsessing over what Clinton does/says, or even what folks like me do/say. Just ensure that you and your candidate do what it needs to do to convince voters why Obama deserves to win. Attacking Hillary and obsessing over why she doesn't won't get your guy elected.

Anonymous said...

I'm a long-time Liberal Democrat and have been unable to even watch Bush on TV. But, I see now I was naive about my own party. I actually got sick to my stomach like I'd been punched when I saw the clip of Wright and his congregation cheering his remarks about whites and America. I am deeply deeply hurt - may sound over the top -- but I am. I had no idea the black pupulation felt like they do about white people, especially Democrats who have always worked so hard for their benefit and safety. We who are living now did not enslave them and most of us have tried to make amends. What has gone so wrong?

Whatever, I cannot vote for Obama now. I'll stay home and not watch McCain on TV for the nest four years and suffer economically and every other way from his reign. Stupid, yes, but the heart wins over my good sense.

Sidney Condorcet said...

I'm glad you decided to cease the ad hominem attacks and focus on winning. Your condescending junior high civics lesson aside, you've brought it back to solid Obama ground: winning. You and your fellow Clinton afficionados can keep cheering on your candidate as the final nominating contests roll on, but Obama is still winning. It's an incontrovertible fact. I take issue with your commentary only because you don't seem to contemplate or generally appreciate the fact that Obama is the likely nominee. Clinton can keep raging against the dying of the light and keep this contested until June, as the competition will only make Obama a stronger candidate. I'm all for it. I just hope the overwhelming negativity toward the very idea of an Obama candidacy, which you've demonstrated in post after post, will be easily disregarded should, as it still seems likely, Obama be the Democratic nominee in the fall.

Also, as to the preacher issue: I'm an attorney and have read the constitution and much of the controlling case law on the subject: saying "God Damn America" is not TREASON. If you're one of the loony people who think that America has never done a single wrong, that every person on the face of the globe must declare undying fealty to America, even when our beloved United States commits a wrong (see: Iraq War), then you're one of those blind fools who will never recognize how far we have fallen in the eyes of the world (and in the eyes of many of our own people...see Rev. Wright). Everything looks good when you wear the rose-colored glasses of nationalism and imperialism that parades as patriotism.

Anonymous said...

Lemmings. I admire you're willingness, Andy, to support Obama if he wins the nomination. I will not support him or his lemmings that continue to shove him down our throats as the next best thing to God. His blatant disregard for all Americans is evident in his choice to remain in an anti- american fueled church and closet racism. He has no business running for president with those attitudes and beliefs.

Some Obama supporter asked me yesterday what it was the Wright had said that was anti-white. I replied, "Tell me what he said that was pro-white."

Of course, just like when asked about Obama's accomplishments, they couldn't come up with anything.

I have never missed a presidential election and so it may be a first for me, if Obama takes the nomination, to sit this one out. I cannot in all good consciousness and higher learning support a man who doesn't represent all of America.

Sidney Condorcet said...

For the full text of Rev. Jeremiah Wright "Audacity of Hope" speech see the following link:

Doesn't seem like a fire-breathing, hateful preacher, does he? The simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be true. Rev. Wright is the leader of a proud african-american church. He's a good and proud man. But just like many of his congregants or for that matter congregants at churches, synagogues, and mosques across this nation, he can occassionally say something off-color when he is filled with righteous indignation at the historical and contemporary instances that continue to demonstrate our nation's inability to measure up to both God's law (golden rule, etc...) as well as the secular faith represented by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Few men are categorically serene or hateful. Rev. Wright, like many of us on these boards, are more complex than we might seem at first blush. He and his congregants also have a right to voice their criticism. Are people not entitled to be angered by Katrina? By the Iraq War, and how those in the poorer quarters of our nation carry a larger share of the burden to fight our wars than the privileged or middle classes? Are people not entitled to be enraged at the increasing, gross inequality of incomes, and how our society is being increasingly stratified by class? Are we not allowed to be indignant that our public schools are failing our children, that it's easier to get a gun than health insurance in our country? If I were a Reverand, responsible for a flock of urban worshippers who are interested in social justice, well I would be far more controversial on a far more regular basis than Reverand Wright. Cut the guy some slack and stop painting him as some modern day John Brown...

Sidney Condorcet said...

Hey now!! I'm not the douche who posted at 2:10pm, Mr. Anonymous!

Anonymous said...

No, Sidney. You're the douche who would DAMN your children if they were not perfect and made mistakes. Or, rather, you probably do. BTW I attended a revival at Riverside Church in NY and had to leave when the Rev. Wright, the visiting guest preacher, started his racist rant against whites. It's a multi-racial church that normally has little conflict. I also had to walk out of a Wednesday night prayer meeting at another church in NY when the preacher started his rant against women and non-believers, or rather non-evangelicals. If something is repupulsive a sane person leaves.

2:10 We who have benefited by Ostroy's blog for years have known that Rebulicans have read it and participated for two reasons: one to see what the Democrats were saying and use that information to their advantage; and, two to do what you say you do. It doesn't matter because we get insight into how the enemy is thinking and we can also let the "mole" know how we feel about the Repugs. If you're one of those who have ranted that they will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, you only echo the thought of some Dems so it is helpful. Or, even, the other way around. And as far as who you are: it really doesn't matter. Anonymous or a name -- it's still not an identification. To tell the truth, I'm beginning to think Sidney is Obama or his long-lost father back to try to cash in.

Anonymous said...

McCain is in Baghdad today supporting the troops.

What are the Democrats doing besides trying to elect a man who is friends with a 70's pentagon bomber and a "GOD DAMN AMERICA" preacher versus a woman who has close & illegal financial ties to the Chinese and Marc Rich ?

Democrats could be trying to end the financing of the war OR supporting the troops. Unfortunately, they are doing neither.

Anonymous said...

McCain is in Baghdad today to lie to us like he did the last time he went there with his security guard that protected him from all harm. He told us how safe it was there. Or maybe he crossed his fingers and since he was safe, he felt that he was not lying.

Sidney Condorcet said...

3:47, you got me. I wouldn't DAMN my children if they weren't perfect,you putz. I'm not even saying I agree with the Pastor's remarks. I'm merely trying to understand where he would be coming from, can you dig that? Or are we all supposed to have the same opinions though based on different life experiences? I disagree with his most controversial remarks, but until someone proves that these remarks are a constant refrain in his weekly sermons and/or that Obama has made similar remarks or acted in a way that is consistent with those remarks, then I suggest you put your head back into the sand and shut up. If Obama and Obama's pastor were white, and the crazy statements that the Pastor said was anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-jew, and xenophobic, I guarantee you that Obama would have distanced himself and that would have been the end of it. But this will persist precisely because most Americans have been so loaded up with images, whether on the local "scare" news and or through film and television, of the scary black man, that our default position is to be afraid of all black people unless they are bland, uncle tom types like the Gumbel brothers or Wayne Brady. Apparently Obama would have been better served if he would have limited his friendships to whites and professional, elite african-americans...

John Callender said...

Quoting from Mark Kleiman's New Math:

"HRC has no real path to the nomination. All she can do is make Obama unelectable and hope that the party elders turn to her in desperation."

Numbers don't lie. Hillary can't win. Andy's whining aside, the nomination is going to go to Obama. It's just a matter of time now.

Sidney Condorcet said...

For laughs:

The Ostroy Report said...

Sydney, for a lawyer you seem to be having a hard time grasping what should be a very simple concept. Because I appreciate your readership and respect you as an individual, I will attempt one last time to 'splain somethin' to you, Lucy:

Is the only thing you truly want from me and other Hillary supporters is to acknowledge that Obama's nomination seems inevitable as of this moment? Sure. Done! There, you have it! But this is nothing that I haven't posted several times last month. So what's your point? That "inevitability" is justification for the contest to be over now? That Hillary should drop out because it looks like Obama might very well win? By your convoluted logic, umpires should call all baseball games before the 9th inning if one team trails by a few runs. The old expression, it ain't over till it's over exists for a reason, Sydney. Obama's luster could begin to dull if this week's controversies build instead of die. Or, another scandal could sink him. My question to you and all the other Obama supporters is this: if you're so sure of his inevitability, why not just sit back and enjoy the ride? According to you guys, you have such a meaningful lead (meaningful enough that you brag of his inevitability). Why are you all so worried? Why are you all pushing so hard to end this thing now? Why are you all so afraid to re-do Michigan and Florida? Because you fear Hillary might win, and win big in those states and throw a wrench into his inevitability?

Another question is, why not just live and let live? Do you see me or any other Dem spending our waking minutes and hours trying to deny you your right to support Obama? Do we say you're anti-American, a Republican or divisive simply because you don't support Hillary? Are we pushing to end the race now instead of letting it run its course? No, no and no. I respect your right to support whomever you want, and wish you and your candidate the best in this campaign. And if your guy wins, I'll support him with everything I've got so he can beat McCain. Why is it so
hard for Obama supporters to do the same? Why are you all so hellbent on attacking those who don't support your candidate?

Listen, Obama's got some serious issues challenging him right now. issues that don't involve Hillary: (Rev Wright and Tony Rezko). He also has 10 state races aead of him, and a case to make to super-delegates who'll be making this decision since neither he or Hillary will meet the party's required 2025 delegates to snag the nomination. Focus on that my friends, because bashing never got anyone elected. Not even Bush. Somehow, that fool convinced a majority of Americans that he was better than Kerry


Sidney Condorcet said...

I appreciate this response from you, Andy.

You ask:
"Why are you all so worried? Why are you all pushing so hard to end this thing now? Why are you all so afraid to re-do Michigan and Florida? Because you fear Hillary might win, and win big in those states and throw a wrench into his inevitability?"

I'm not afraid of what the results will be in the coming races. I'm afraid that a contentious race that stretches until August, which is not focused on the actual issues, but on overblown scandals and nonscandals, on divisive race-based language, on character assassinations will lead to one of two things: a) Obama limps into the general election race, and has been so "blackened" that white voters become turned off; or b) Clinton manages to win over the superdelegates after making Obama seem unelectable, which would leave us with Clinton, an unelectable candidate herself, who is already steadfastly opposed by nearly half of the voting public. So what I'm afraid of is simple, Andy. It's being left with an unelectable candidate, either way. What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of President John McCain crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war upon Iran.

This contest will go on until June, at the earliest. So be it. If I initially came off as brow-beating you into backing Obama wholeheartedly or else, then I apologize. I just would prefer you attacked Obama on issues, rather than engaging in the same character assassination which I've come to expect from Fox News, particularly in light of the fact that he will likely be our nominee. I just would hope that you and other Clinton supporters would recognize that Obama's really not so terrible, and that his "ethical" issues and "electability" issues are still far more favorable than those that arise with Clinton's candidacy.

35th 'n Shields said...

As you become more strident you become more boring. You're now part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

I would like to be removed from your email update list. I don't need your nonsense cluttering up my box. One BillO is enough in the world.

However, I will continue to contribute to the Adrienne Shelly foundation. At least you're doing good work in that aspect of your life.

Prius said...

This was in yesterdays paper. Bill Maxwell is a black person that has it right.

Phony black friends ditch Sen. Clinton
By Bill Maxwell, Times Columnist

Published Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:09 PM


Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be leery of ever trusting the word of another black person, especially the word of elected officials, celebrities and other elites. She most certainly should never again trust the word of black preachers.

Too many blacks have betrayed Clinton. They have been disloyal. They have lied to her, many to her face.

From the moment she entered public life after graduating from law school and before her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, started to move up in the polls and won some major caucuses and primaries, Clinton worked with blacks and supported their causes. She was mostly popular among blacks nationwide and was treated as a trusted friend because she was a trusted friend.

To wit: While Obama was still wet behind the ears, Clinton was advocating for the Children's Defense Fund, an organization that improved the lives of countless black children in urban and rural America.

When the U.S. Supreme Court of John Roberts last year rejected integration plans in two major public school districts in Louisville and Seattle, Clinton showed her disappointment in a speech shortly after the decision.

In part, she said: "Today, the court turned its back on the promise of Brown vs. Board of Education that students of different racial backgrounds deserve an opportunity to attend school together. At a time when our nation's schools are increasingly segregating, we should be championing local efforts to pursue integration and reduce racial inequalities in schools."

Whenever members of the Congressional Black Caucus needed extra clout to help them with black-related legislation, they turned to Clinton. When black leaders needed a powerful voice to add weight to a symbolic gesture, such as the commemoration of a civil rights cause or an event, they called Clinton. When they needed a keynote speaker for this or that gala, they called Clinton.

She had no way of knowing that reality would be turned on its head and that all of her good deeds and generosity would be forgotten and that many blacks would one day paint her as their enemy. She misjudged her supporters as did the character in Shakespeare's play Henry VI, who said: "In thy face I see the map of honor, truth, and loyalty."

What Clinton saw was the face of Judas and a map of dishonor, duplicity and betrayal. The ugly irony of the betrayal is that Clinton is the same as she always was. She has not changed. All of the votes she cast for urban policies that aided blacks remain in the Congressional Record. That has not changed.

Blacks, worshipful of Obama, have changed.

Elected officials, including a growing number of superdelegates, who were committed to Clinton and had told her so, now support Obama. Blacks who once eagerly took Clinton's telephone calls are now magically unavailable. For most, incumbency trumps loyalty. To get re-elected, they will throw away a decadeslong friendship.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. epitomizes this group. Referring to black Clinton supporters, he said: "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position."

Not all blacks have betrayed Clinton. Some have honorably, and courageously, stayed with her. New York Rep. Charles Rangel is one. Ohio state legislator Eugene Miller is another, telling the New York Times: "I believe in sticking to my word. … Some people call me an Uncle Tom. There's a lot of pressure to switch sides. There's a lot of emotion. All I can say is thank God it's winter and no one is outside, because there would be more than angry words on the street."

New York political consultant Basil Smikle told "This is all about loyalty and the strength of relationships that the Clintons have engendered over the years. It's going to be hard to look them in the face and say, 'I can't support you.' "

Win or lose, Hillary Clinton has earned the right to never trust the word of another black person. Somewhere between the Bible and the pseudo-wisdom of the barbershop, many blacks abandoned any sense of loyalty and betrayed a woman who has been a friend.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Ostroy for again explaining the truth. I hope they get it this time.

Anonymous said...

I hope every American understands today that "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID." We're on the brink of financial disaster. Already thousands of Americans are suffering -- some living on the street. We have simply got to get Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House. Any other choice is insane. Time for sweet-talk after we save our lives.

Anonymous said...

Obama's Preacher's GOD DAMN AMERICA speech is just the tip of the iceberg for Democraps.

Obama's wife is just NOW proud of her country

Ted Kennedy rejects plans for renewable energy wind farms near HIS house, yet he was CAUGHT dumping diesel fuel from the bilge of his yacht into the same precious waters that he wants to 'protect' from the wind farms.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton's campaigns were caught accepting illegal campaign contributions from China.

Democraps don't care about the environment. Saving the environment is the new commie cause meant to destroy capitalism.

Anonymous said...

Pruis -- Thank you so much for calling this article to our attention. I have longed for someone to point this out. Now, everytime I see a black person on TV I know who's side he is on. I'm appalled that racism is so rampant; this whole betrayal has been an eye-opener. I know however that Hillary and all of the many white people who have earnestly longed for and worked for racial equality and harrmony will continue to do so despite this betrayal. I'm not so sure Obama will do the same -- his "hope" and "new politics" seem hollow in light of the behavior of the Afro American community.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last commenter. The Afro American community are a bunch of racists. They should be grateful for the many brave sacrifices white people have made on their behalf. They'd be much worse off if they were still in Africa, yet all they do is complain about the government and white people in general.

African Americans need to support the Clintons, because white people know best and Obama, though articulate and clean, is acting all uppity. Blacks cannot be trusted with the power of the presidency...unless you count Bill Clinton, our first black president.

Anonymous said...

this country is 30% republican,35%democratic and 35% independent,with Obama's people using race baiting as a tacktic in the beginning,they set themselves up for the back-lash which is about to begin,republicans in the red states crossed party lines in the primary to help elect OBAMA.hoping he would be the person they run against,hoping they could use the underlying race card,even if dems can some how pull the party back together(which is unlikely).obama and his racist preacher of 20 years have takin all the independent voters and threw them at the republicans, you can't win with 35% of the vote.

Anonymous said...

An example of how devious and divisive Republicans are can be seen in the racists comments the Republican mole 10:07 is making to cause trouble between white and black Democrats. He is so obvious but there are those who might be fooled. He uses the old sixties remarkss made by whites during the civil rights conflict decades ago: Obaba is being "uppity"; whites know best; blacks belong in Africa; sacrifices of whites; blacks just complain; and on and on. Of course there is the possibility he's a throwback and really believes those remarks like Trent Lott proved to believe, but if he does, he is not a Democrat but a rotten Republican.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Excellent article on Obama's minister "problem". It's pretty obvious that this situation is being talked about as a disqualifier only b/c it brings to mind the much-feared vision of the angry black man. If Obama's white preacher said the same controversial statements, this issue would have died within 2 news cycles tops.

Anonymous said...

the last 2 paragragh's of the posting sidney is trying to send you to read,is nothing more than a smearing of clinton,the only positive thing you can bet the bank on is.Sidney does not sip the OBAMA kool-aid,he drinks it by the gallon

Sidney Condorcet said...

Sorry 11:50am, I forgot that the Clintons are as saintly as they come and have never been tarnished by scandal. Maybe we should just give them the benefit of the doubt at all times, right? If I drink Obama's kool-aid by the gallon, as you say, then you're still being fed the Clinton Kool-Aid intravenously.

Anonymous said...

I think it's actually a good thing that Clinton did not drop out. Imagine if Obama were already officially the candidate and then all this stuff from Obama's past came up that could hurt the Dems in the GE. Also, I am not sure I can handle a President where any disagreement with him gets branded as racist. Fours years of that will get old real fast.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Also, I am not sure I can handle a President where any disagreement with him gets branded as racist. Fours years of that will get old real fast."

If you have been paying any attention to this campaign, you would have noticed that disagreements as to the issues (health care mandates, whether or not to directly negotiate with our enemies, the Iraq War, etc..) have not involved recriminations of racism. As such, there's no reason to believe that policy battles with an Obama administration would involve accusations of racism.

Race has only been an issue due to the poor decisions that have been made by surrogates and staffers (Bill Clinton, Robert Johnson, Shaheen, Kerrey's madrassa comment, Mark Penn's "coke, coke, coke" mantra, Geraldine Ferraro, making Obama blacker in an advert, the dissemination of a picture of Obama in the garb of a Somali elder, etc...)

When they've debated the issues affecting the country, race has been thankfully absent. So don't think that four more years of this can be expected. Once Obama clears the final hurdles and is sworn in as President, the only thing that will matter are his policies...

Anonymous said...

what you have to watch out for in the fall,will be,how many coat-tails will Obama bring,we in the democratic party were hoping to take even more of a majority in the senate and house, if Obama is the pick,how sure are we that we will pick up seats.what if the voters do not show up at the polls because of a afro-american shizster(someone who would steal the teeth out of a dead mans mouth) being our pick. then we lose all the whitehouse,the congress and the senate

Sidney Condorcet said...

Markos at DailyKos weighs in:

"First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.

Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.".......

"Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.

And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late."

Anonymous said...

Quite the bunch of scared pathetic white folks that have amassed here Andy, and unfortunately you've been serving up a full buffet for them to gorge on lately. It's sad to see that you appear to have lost the ability to discern a trouble-making troll from a sincere Obama supporter.

Your civics lesson is condescending and juvenile, no different from the many troll posts here. What is the point you're trying to make and to whom?

No sincere Democrat or Progressive wants McCain in the Oval Office. Duh. Looking at it today, that means that there will be a bunch of people grudgingly pulling the "D" lever in November because their first choice won't be at the top of the ticket. So be it. I was a Dean guy who felt from day one that Kerry would lose the general election. Sadly I think my sense was more prophetic than cynical, despite working my ass off for the Kerry campaign once he had the nomination. This same sense is one of many things that has brought me to support Obama.

Your prior post was pretty naive to posit that Obama's current issues are any more substantive in the "electability question" than Whitewater-Lewinsky-impeachment-etc and the rabid Clinton-hatred that has been boiling since 1992 and will unify the fractured GOP like nothing else will.

And so far, the only reports I've seen has been that Clinton supporters are threatening to withhold contributions to the DNC (some have already demanded and received refunds) if they don't do exactly as Clinton wants and seats the FL-MI delegates with their flawed results. How's THAT for Party unity?!? No Obama supporter is AFRAID of a re-do in either state. We welcome it. Problem is the question of who will foot the several million dollar bill in the midst of a major presidential campaign? C'mon Andy, don't be so simple. It's unbecoming.

I could go on and on but won't because hopefully you're getting a chance to clear your head on this. Neither Clinton nor Obama was my first choice this time around. Some things that brought me to support Obama is his ability to motivate the masses and what appears to be unscripted sincerity - two traits I find missing in Clinton. Obama does the vision thing well, and that is very much what people appear to be wanting after these many years of Bush. He is bringing many new people to the Party. The same cannot be said about Clinton. If basic trends continue (which Obama predicted), he will arrive at Denver with the same lead he has now in terms of delegates, states and popular vote. When will it make sense to try to unify the Party for the general election battle?

If you want sniping to stop, take your complaints to Mark Penn and other top Clinton spokespeople (not advisers) who regularly trash-talk Obama. Seriously - name one Obama official that has invoked someone like Ken Starr or other such boogeyman about Clinton?

Anonymous said...

And PLEASE don't forget that Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and many other troglodyte talkers have been SUCCESSFULLY egging on Republicans to "cross over" to vote for Clinton in the recent MAJOR primaries of Ohio, Texas and Mississippi.

Don't downplay or forget to mention that a quarter million votes that she just tallied up are insincere, monkeywrench votes that Clinton absolutely will not have in November.

Anonymous said...

Now in my prayers I not only say God BLess America, I ask that Sidney soon gets a job so I don't have so skim through his endless entries which are repetitive, meaningless and boring.

The Ostroy Report said...

So, Markos says: "People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line."

Wow. "Civil war?" And here I thought she was simply running for office in an election. Those darn Clintons!

Sidney Condorcet said...

Anonymous 3:19pm, rather than complain about the opinions I've expressed, why don't you share with Ostroy and his readers your own opinions? Meaningless and boring, eh? We can't really say that your post was meaningful, insightful or lively in any way, can we?

Anonymous said...

Obama has blown it. If his judgment is so astounding he should have foreseen the consequences of merging with a racist mentor, pastor, and friend. He should have known that his saying after twenty years of attending the church he did not know the preacher's policies makes him appear to be lying or appear to be stupid. He should have known that it would be revealed that his big supporter Oprah is a member of that racist church. He should have told Michelle to watch what she says.

I was for OBama and I am an Oprah fan. However, I do not want a president who hates me. And, who knows, as someone suggests, whom he will appoint, or how he will legislate should he win. He has fooled us for this long.

As for the civil war comments -- the ones who would be seceding are the blacks. They hate America.
They seem already to have seceded mentally and psychologically

Anonymous said...

"And here I thought she was simply running for office in an election."

How duplicitous of you. You couch this in terms of "battle" and "war" and then belittle those who do the same. And that doesn't even touch on the foolishness of belittling the damage this battle is doing to the Party.

I hope the Ostroy Report isn't going to further devolve away from thoughtful debate.

Anonymous said...

"I was for OBama and I am an Oprah fan."


Sidney Condorcet said...

Rev. Wright's controversial, but to an extent understndable, remarks are reminiscent of Frederick Douglass's 1852 essay that follows in part:

"What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

Sidney Condorcet said...

Bill Clinton: Obama Mugged Me

No one knows how to employ racial codewords better than our boy Bill...Surprised he didn't say he was "carjacked" or "lynched"

Anonymous said...

Sicney has come out of the closet. By implying that Bill is a racist for saying Obama "mugged" him, and registering surprise that Clinton did not also say Obama "carjacked" or "Lynched" him, Sidney is implying that only blacks do those things, else it would not have been the racial slur that he is accusing Bill of having made.

Anonymous said...

There will be no redo in Florida. If there is no redo there is no satisfactory answer to the mess Dean has gotten us into. The only good realization is that Dean was not our USA President. He was against the war but his judgment sucks. The damage is going to be compounded when that ineffecitve Nancy Polisi and Al Gore, who flunked his own campaign, step in to settle it. What tell me do they know? Al is good a the enviorment but outside of that -- well, he caved when he could have been president. Unless the Democrats left to vote don't realize that if they vote for Obama who can never never survive the mess he's gotten himself into, McCain will be presdient. Obama simply cannot win now.

Anonymous said...

What's your point bkln? That the contributor who likes Oprah is probably a woman and therefore is not to be considered? wouldn't it be interesting if Hillary had a preacher screaming hate anr ranting because of the injusitces women have gone through. Like only how recently they got the vote, for example? Like when they finally had control over their own bodies. Like their not being allowed bo be a Catholic Priest (although black men are.) Like the Southern Baptist and other protestant churches demanding they obey their husbands. Like their not being allowed to own property until only a few decades ago. Like some women still have to shave their heads, wear wigs and walk behind their husbands. Like that spousal abuse of women is one of the number one crimes in the country. That contrary to young girls, very few college men are murdered. There has been no college man raped by a woman that has ever made the news. And very few women get off on watching sexual torture in prono movies. Gangs are forcing women into sex slavery -- yes they are slaves. And the prostitutes not the 'Johns" are arrested. The condition of Mulim women is atrocious. They aren't even allowed to show their faces which would give them some individuality. Reminds me of the old "just put a bag over her head."

Wright screamed that Hillary doesn't know what it's like to be brought up by a single parent. Obama's father abandoned her and left her with a child. Is that America's fault? Women are abandoned daily to raise their "man's" children alone. When is it going to be the time for a woman to have a population sympathetic to women and the monumental abuse they suffer? When can someone like Ferarra say to a woman candidate that there's so much sympathy for the plight of women that she's lucky to be in a position to benefit and advance on that surge of support?

Every night since this race started either, Matthews, Olbermann, Carlson, Abrams and their guests have made sexist remarks about Hillary and many times they have lied about what she's said. "SHe wouldn't be running if it wasn't for Monical" Matthews said with no reprimands.
The list of verbal abuse for Hillary is long on all the networkds and in the press.

Anonymous said...

What the hell is in the water in Albany?? Now, the new NY Governor has just admitted to an affair. He's only been the Governor for two hours!!

What is wrong with Democrats?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 8:17 (ask me how much I loathe "anonymous" posts) and all other oblivious commenters and terrified whites and closeted Republicans posting here:

The point is that the person saying there were "for Obama and is an Oprah fan" is a liar. Read their post and convince me otherwise. The rest of your screed is a bunch of rambling misspelled confused nonsense not worth the time of a response.

To Anonymous 7:38 - don't blame Dean for the mess in FL and MI. It was the state parties and legislatures who decided to violate already agreed upon rules (yes they themseleves voted to accept these rules) for the primary season. Are you just a Bush-loving tool who thinks the rule of law is something to be ignored whenever you want? I'm guessing yes. Why oh why do I waste my time with trolls?

And finally, something for our new hypocrite-in-residence, Anonymous 9:57.

Do the names Giuliani, Gingrich or McCain mean anything to you as regards extramarital affairs?

Anonymous said...

Does the name Kennedy mean anything to you in regards to Mary Jo Kopechne or how about the dumping of diesel fuel into the 'prestine' water he is trying to block the wind farms?

Anonymous said...

Wow. You need some serious help. Or at least a horse tranquilizer.

Anonymous said...


The correct spelling is "COMMENTATOR"

There are other errors but they are not worth the time required for a response.

However, thank you for identifying yourself. I'm sure those who agree with you will mail you a thank you note.