The Ostroy Report is an aggressive voice for Democrats, the progressive agenda and serves as a watchdog of the Republican Party and President Trump.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Holy Shit, What an Amazing Week for Barack Obama!
Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday lost by a 41% margin to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the West Virginia primary. By late Friday afternoon, he closed out one of the best, most exciting week's of his campaign. Ya gotta love politics.
Within 24 hours after his colossal loss to Hillary, his masterfully orchestrated endorsement by John Edwards served to erase this dismal performance in the Mountain State. Man, what a difference a day makes. And then came a mini-rush of delegates and super-delegates, including many previously pledged to Edwards.
That same day, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, in a surprise move announced its endorsement of Obama as well. NARAL had previously had a close relationhip with Hillary Clinton.
And then the unintended coup de grace came the next day, with President Bush's gift of thrusting Obama onto the world stage during his visit to Israel. Bush, never really known to actually do or say the right thing in his entire two terms in office, once again suffered from foot-in-mouth disease by comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the late 1930's British Prime Minister whose policy of appeasement allowed Adolph Hitler and the Nazis to stormtroop across Europe. That was awfully generous of Bush to elevate Obama, while on foreign soil, to a level on par with the office of the president. Talk about instant legitimization. Bush made it abundantly clear that not only is Obama going to be the Democrats' nominee, but that two months before the Denver convention he's important enough to start attacking.
Bush's smear also gave Obama the opportunity to finally strike back hard and decisively against both Bush and Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, who was all too happy to pile on this week and do some ObamaBashing of his own. It was great to see Obama come out swinging in his own defense, showing America that perhaps the toughness they've been wanting from him is actually there:
"I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain and the people of South Dakota, if they want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America that's a debate I'm happy to have any time, any place, and that's a debate I will win any time because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." Amen, brother, amen.
Lastly, to close out the week, former GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, while speaking at an NRA convention in Kentucky, responded to a loud crashing noise by joking to the gun-worshipping crowd that "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him, and he dove for the floor." Nice assassination joke from the God-fearing evangelical. Jeez, is this Republicans Gone Wild? If this reprehensible and irresponsible pandering doesn't garner heaps of newfound sympathy and support for Obama I don't know what will.
On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Posted by The Ostroy Report at 9:28 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
A good campaign doesn't guarantee a good president. Bush's handlers got him the job. You will notice that Obama's first response to Bush was "SAD that Bush ... " and went on to chastise him for introducing politics etc. It was like a Sunday school teacher's dismay over a student's behavior. Hillary came out swinging After Obama's "Campaign" noticed the weakness they wrote him speeches which he read fairly well. He's smoke and mirrors and probably will not win. If he does, we will have another term of abject disappointment in our president.
There's no convincing 8:13 of anything...He/she is just a hardcore hater who has convinced him or herself that Obama doesn't amount to a hill of beans...
So glad we have an Oracle of Delphi offshoot who can read the hearts and mind of anonymous contributors. No smoke and mirrors there.
I happen to agree with 8:13 so I expect stupid analysis of my mind, character, soul and motives to be forthcoming from the Obama screamers.
I am a Democrat and I am for Hillary after orginally being for Obama. He has made too many mistakes for me to change my mind and I remain immune to the brilliance of his campaign tactics.
Axelrod for president.
While I prefer Obama, there is no denying that his experience and abilities on the issue of national security is his weakest link. What's more, there are few people in the Democratic constellation who can shore him up. Let's face it - since Truman, we Dems have not had a good track record on national security issues.
The only guy I can readily think of who can truly help Obama is Sam Nunn. Pick him for Veep and Obama is golden - it takes the edge off of Obama's main weakness, it mitigates his extreme left voting record and it puts the South in stronger play.
Otherwise, this guy is dead because at the end of the day, people are going to default back to their sense of personal security.
Your reading of the electorate is faulty. Voters have consistently shown since 2006 that the biggest "safety" issue is not about foreign threats but bread-and-butter issues of economic survival. That's not to discount the threat of terrorism, which has been made worse by the Bush policies and can be easily countered since McSame wants little more than a continuation of what we're doing now, but when people are struggling to stay afloat economically they have consistently put that at the forefront.
But to address your thoughts about military bona fides, beyond Sam Nunn let's see off the top of my head who could boost Obama's team:
Of course there are more but I think the point is made...
Fear not. If we as Democrats do our job in coalescing around a message that is by and large shared by Obama and Clinton versus the nightmare of another 4 years of Bush policy as well as bluntly responding to Republican smokescreen attacks, we will wipe out the GOP in November.
Obama had great week mainly because the media is playing the news they want you to hear.You didn't hear the news question why in the hell did Edwards not indorse Obama before the north carolina primary,he claims he voted for him in it.On tues. when hillary cleans his clock again in kentucky.Someother Obama suck a$$ will climb out of the woodwork to endorse Obama and take his loss from the cable-news channels.You won't hear why can't he close the deal,it'll be those stupid,white, blue collar,white woman under-educated idiots don't know whats good for them.And thats why Mccain will win the white house.Because obama and his fans have lost the above for the names and way they have been treated
Does Oregon somehow not matter?
Media manipulation is part of the reason why the GOP has been more successful than the Dems on a national stage in the past. That the Obama campaign has survived the media onslaught and is back to using their cards to their advantage with the media to blunt Clinton as well as McCain is a sign of a well-managed campaign.
It's a source and sign of STRENGTH and portends well for the national race.
1:46 Our GIRL lost? What if somebody called Obama a BOY?????? AL Sharpton and a million men would be marching on Washington. Sweetie, you know I'm right. At least you haven't yet called her a "ho" like the support Obama T-shirts.
micheal,your 100% correct about Obama's use of the Media. A media that has done nothing but down grade the clinton campaign from day one.So lets face it,it's not all that Obama knows how to use the media ,the media is also using him,but why didn't you answer the problems that anom 10:50 brought up,because you can't or you acknowledging his problem in the general,when hillary's supporters stay home or vote Mccain to give her a chance in 2012
I am really starting to think that there is nothing more annoying then a Hillary supporter. Equating calling an older white woman Girl, with calling a black adult male boy, is assinine. Boy to a black man is a loaded word and you know it. Do you bitch when someone says "you go girl" to Hillary? Of course not. You were just grasping at something, anything to distract from the fact the you middle aged female candidate lost. She lost dispite starting with a huge lead in the polls, name recognition, big financial advantage, she had the backing of the beltway Democratic machine, Bill and Hill had their own machine and she still lost to Obama. FAIR and SQUARE, you can complain about the media all you like but it doesn't matter.
I am so tired of hearing this crap about blue collar workers not being for Obama. I am, and I might as well have the blue collar tatood on my neck.
If you think Hillary has the feminist vote all sown up you have another think coming. The "girls" at Firedog sure as hell don't like her.
But, hey, its a free country support who you like, I am sure you can find an excuse to vote for McCain. But remember Hillary is saying that would be insane, but again, its a free country. Enjoy you bitterness, but please keep it to yourself!
3:43 In the good old days Americans were patriotic and those who were not were told "If you don't like it here in America, leave." I say to you if you don't like Hillary supporters on this blog, don't access and read it.
As for the use of "boy" being a loaded word for blacks, this campaign has shown that almost everything is a loaded word for blacks. When Hillary said "white working class voters" whe was a racist, but Obama's crew could say, using, as did she, the poll as their source "black voters voted 93 percent for Obama" it was all right.
I guess you think it's all right to sell T shirts saying "The Bro before the Ho." but God forbid anyone should make a racial slur. Sexism is all right. Bill Maher made a cruel sexist remakr that has been ignored by everybody. HAd Obama been the target it would hav made the editorail page of the NY TImes. That's just one of countless examples.
And Hillary was ahead until a large part of the Democratic Party decided to do her in. Kennedy, was the huge turning point. Then when the black Dems saw they had a chance at winning, they deserted Hillary and Obama soared. That is until the Wright/Michelle/bitter/Rizo came out and he's declined ever since.
And you're right that all women are not for her. Especially those women uncomfortable with their identity and those young women who have never faced or recognized the discrimination against them because they're women. As they age, they will learn. In the meantime we women who have been told by the church we can't be priests, by another church to obey our husband, by corporations we've gone as far as we can go, and so forth, we owe nothing to the Democratic Party and will vote accordingly.
You will also see that the media owes nothing to the Democratic Party and they will turn on Obama as they did Gore and Kerry. This has been a ploy to make Obama the candidate. If not, why has the media now after the last two elections become in favor of the Dem. candidate?
To those of you who are trying to decide who can help Obama run the country as his v.p., I'd like to point out Hillary will not need any help from a v.p. in running the country. She can handle national security, the economy and any other problem we may face. She doesn't need anyone to help her beat McCain, either. She has a majority of the women, a majority of the "working" class; a majority of those over fifty-five and a majority of hard-core Democrats representing all categories. And, if you who have berated the women who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the candidate, must be relaxed in your knowledge that the 93 percent of the black voters who have supported Obama, would never be so disloyal or "stupid" to vote for anyone but the Dem. candidate, Hillary. Surely, never for McCain.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Hillary is not winning because she is shameless, pandering, has no core and brings far too much baggage (and Bill who forgot that an ex-President does far more good in statesman mode than attack dog mode)? This is not about gender. I would support a woman in a heartbeat - just not this particular woman. Hillary supporters should at least try to understand that some independent-minded, reasonable people might not support Hillary and it has nothing at all to do with her gender. CB
What a well presented and civil argument. Yet, since we have only two choices I consider that your argument against Hillary could be made as the same argument against Obama. He is a shameless panderer (the flag pin the latest); he has no core (he threw over his spiritual adviser after twenty years, his voting record is "present", and has flip flopped a number of times); and, no one can deniy he has baggage. The obvious difference is that his spousal Albatross is Michelle, not Bill.
Thus, all things being equal, the only reason left for not voting for either of these candidates would be their differences: race and gender.
Since you're for Obama, and unless you're black, your only reason for choosing him, since all things are equal, is that he is male.
If you're black the only reason for choosing him, again, since all else is equal, would be his race, if as you say, you're not a sexist.
7:42 - what a sad, pathetic post. your premise is painfully flawed and it is clear you are not a serious person. Vote for whoever you want to vote for. We get the leaders we deserve.
Yes, CB is quite rational and makes his point intelligently. He's got a good, big head on his shoulders clearly.
Quite the backhanded compliment of a post Ostroy. Certainly seems designed to set the stage for a big "why can't he close the deal" rant from you and your fans when Obama will probably experience what has been long predicted and loses Kentucky. I hope I'm wrong but with lines like this I find it hard to believe that the tired close-the-deal line won't be trotted out again:
"If this reprehensible and irresponsible pandering doesn't garner heaps of newfound sympathy and support for Obama I don't know what will."
Here's to hoping that every honest commenter here is smart enough to realize that "former Obama supporters" are lying trolls just stirring the mud.
Here's also a toast to the impossible herd of cats that is the Democratic Party with our crazy rivalries and consternations - and also a toast to putting those elements to pasture when it comes time to get a Democrat in the White House this November!
If you believe what you say and those are the reasons you don't support Obama, then by all means don't vote for him. It's possible to not support one of these candidates for reasons other than race or gender, isn't it? They are not otherwise identical despite many policy similarities.
October Surprise? Not good.
I did not reply to the other issues because I found them to be specious Clintonian arguments.
You realize that this rumor is coming from the same dirty tricks operative who pushed the whole "madrassa" line of garbage, right?
Let's assume it is true, though. Remember that Michelle Obama is not running for President and contrast with the following:
After the Dems suffered humiliating defeat in 1994 blamed in large part on the loss of working class Southern whites, Hillary Clinton gave the following advice to her husband - "screw 'em, we don't owe them a thing."
During his Senate bid in 1992, John McCain called his wife a "trollop" and a "cunt" in front of three reporters and campaign staff.
Now, when you hear Barack Obama himself calling out "whitey", let's talk.
Hey 1:26 -- I didn't hear those remarks out of their mouths, but I sure take your word for it. That's why I'm voting for "the bro before the ho." I did heard Hillary called a bitch on TV at a McCain rally - but who cares -- right?
Do a simple Google search and you will find the quotes from Clinton and McCain from witnesses who remember well the comments and their context. What you will not find are the words "bro before ho" or "that bitch" (meaning Hillary Clinton) out of the mouth of Barack Obama. Nor will you find anyone who claims such words came from him.
I do, in fact, care that the GOP supporter of McCain called Hillary a bitch and McCain laughed it off. I don't think there's any place in politics for foul language. However, Senator McCain has become Yoda Master level in the art of the f-bomb.
Speaks to his temperament and qualification as Commander in Chief and leader of the free world.
343 "You go girl" is like "Atta boy" and neither should be offensive to anyone. However to call a presdential candidate or any mature woman "girl" is a demeaning, disrespectiful appellation.
The use of "ho" to refer to Hillary on the T-shirt supporting Barack is also demeaning, as is "bitch", and a number of ugly words referring to the female anatomy.
Hillary has been the subject of this humiliation. When she continues to fight despite such humiliation, a Nutcracker was designed as a putdown of her strength.
Michael. Geraldine Ferraro was chastised publicly, threatened with bodily harm, and had to leave the campaign because she made a comment about Obama that was the parallel observation Matthews made about HIllary. None of Ferraro's remarks were out of Hillary's mouth, but she and her campaign suffered accusations of racism. Hillary did not say what Bill said, but her campaign suffered serverely of the charge of racism. She was held responsible and paid the consequences.
Like Hillary, Obama would never be caught making such blatant putdown. The way he works is more subtle. He subtly (code words) attacked McCain's age by suggesting he was showing signs of his senility. He made the same kind of suble allusions to Hillary's "losing it" because of female hormones being in play. He's very good at those catty putdowns that women have been accused of for centuries. It's safer, and smarter, of course, than coming out and saying "bitch" or "mosnter" as did one of his advisers. And, although he, himself did say there were "57" states no one accused him of having Alzheimer's.
Remember when Bill said Jackson didn't win after S.C.? That's when the word RACISM reared its ugly head in this campaign and all the outraged blacks decided from then on they were for Barack.
Hillary DIDN'T make those remarks but it cost her - perhaps - the nomination.
So your argument that it has to be said by O.B. himself holds no water.
However, you and the other OB supporters will get away with it because of the doublle standard. Just don't tell us that there is no double standard and gross unfairness in this campaign.
Double standard??/ I think so.
You all are missing the point.
The person I responded to asked me "who cares?" regarding the McCain supporter calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. I responded that I cared about it and stated my belief that cursing another person has no place in politics. John McCain should be ashamed of laughing it off and owes Hillary an apology.
That said, surrogates for Hillary Clinton, including her husband, John McCain and Barack Obama have been busted using inappropriate language in the heat of a campaign. It sucks that the campaigns suffer for the comments of others, but this is hardly new and nearly inevitable. As stated earlier, though, you all would be hard-pressed to find the kind of wholly inappropriate language used by Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the past used by Barack Obama. Though some may want to discount this fact, I think it important.
Further, that some seem to think there is a double-standard at work flies in the face of reality. Supporters of Hillary jump at every available opportunity to slam perceived "sexism" (witness Bill whining about the boys teaming up against the girl or Hillary complaining that she always gets asked questions first in debates). Supporters of Obama will jump on perceived racist commentary and John McCain supporters, well, they are just delusional. Take off the blinders, folks. Myopic views of the candidates and assigning them the role of martyr is not in anyone's best interest.
I recognize that Hillary's supporters are passionate about her candidacy and rightfully so. The fact of the matter is that she has lost this nomination not because of sexism or the MSM but because her campaign was poorly conceived and executed. She ran on an aura of inevitability since she had the best brand name in Democratic Party politics, most of the institutional support within the party at the start of the campaign and more money than any of the other candidates. Flat out, she misread the landscape and is paying the price.
Does her mistake make her evil, stupid or a bitch? In a word, no. What it does make her is second fiddle in the race for the nomination.
Michael: You present your opinions as facts and your style is condescending. It has no significance.
Pot... meet kettle.
Anon2:46pm - your comment is a cheap shot thrown from behind your mama's skirt. Stand up and identify yourself consistently as something other than "anonymous" and then your comment might be worth something, but definitely not until then. This blog is almost 90% anonymous postings. Assuming there's more than one of you, why don't you take a stand for yourselves, be accountable, choose a screenname and start having a real debate here instead of hiding behind anonymity.
Hi, My name is John and I'm an Anonymous. I have to tell you it really feels good to finally reveal my identity. I'm so glad not to have secrets anymore and to meet all my new friends on this blog. Let's have a beer bkln. I think you're super. I like you when you're Sidney and Micheal, too. I don't mind that you have a mutliple personality. You're super no matter who you claim to be.
I don't know how but you, Blkn and Sidney guessed my real name It's Troll. I still sign in as Anonymous hoping you won't always know it's me and bash me to pieces like you always do if you think I've been dumb. I guess from now on I'll sign in Troll. Will you let up on me then? sometimes you call other people by my name Troll and they get bashed too. I laugh when you think they're me.
Hi John. Hi Troll. Too bad you still don't have the courage to post as anything other than "anonymous" at this point. I certainly welcome anyone having the stones to post using a consistent screenname. And Troll, you shouldn't take it so personally that I or others may call people "a troll" every now and again, just like I use "a john" when I have to take a leak. You don't see John getting worked up about that, do you? John may be getting irritable because he doesn't like that Michael and Sidney and I are three different people, but he's not upset about his name's common vernacular use as referencing a toilet. I'm hoping that since you spend time on blogs that you already know what "a troll" is. If not you can look it up here:
Still, I don't know what you both might still be afraid of here. Oh that's right. Afraid of having to be associated with having taken a stand on anything and then have anyone actually be able to associate it with any other posts you've ever made.
You should try it. It's empowering when other commenters can call you by name and reference your prior positions on things. Ostroy does it. You can too.
8:29 Hi -- It's John again. John is my name --thanks for making fun of it. But I do want to tell you that I'm surprised and pleased that you use a toilet. As vulgar as you get sometimes I was afraid -- well -- you know.
The way I know you're all the same is you're not clever enought to assume different characterizations in your "roles."
And this is the last time I participate in this little joke. The times are too serious and this space too valuable to have these little sophomoric exchanges.
I and all those who particpate on this blog will continue to be Anonymous if we choose to. In fact many are grateful to Ostroy for allowing that kind of freedom of expression without fear or repercussions. We won't be bullied by you, Bkln. If that frustrates you, whoever you really are, think of us "anons" as one person representing "Everyman."
Ostroy I apologize fo my part in this waste of time and space. My only excuse is I'm only a freshman in college and haven't been away from home and supervision very long. I should be more serious. Sorry.
I wasn't making fun of your name John. Being a college freshman I'm surprised that you missed the obvious distinction I was making between proper names and nouns.
"As vulgar as you get sometimes"
Talk is cheap John. Please back up your charge and quote some of my vulgarities with their thread and time stamp. Good luck with that.
And you see John, that's my point. You can actually go and search my posts for hypocrisy and inconsistency or vulgarity while you and those like you can make any comment you like without taking any responsibility for it. That's not freedom of expression - that's cowardice. Being that you only have a few more years of college left, I hope that you grow up soon and realize that being responsible is something to be proud of and something to be taken very seriously.
I can't stop you from deluding yourself that Sidney, Michael and I (and whoever else you don't agree with) are the same person, but I assure you we are not.
It's true that Ostroy is very generous in allowing people to post without registering, but that doesn't make you or any collective of you anonymouses representative of "everyman" - not by a long shot. Still, it's is your choice to want to associate yourself as said "everyman" with the logic and fact-challenged commenters here who intentionally dissemble and inject venom into this dialogue. That being the case I guess we can expect another Wicked Witch or Rodney King-type gutter comment from you soon. That's sure something to be proud of.
Good news on Morning Joe this morning. Hillary is not even thinking about getting out despite the pressure. They still know they will win. Mika made a sexist remark: "Is Hillary going to get out and take it like a man." There are still women in the world who are prejudiced against other women. We need a woman President to elevate their self-esteem. Not that gender has anything at all to do with the ability to govern. But as a black mother on TV said she was for Obama so her son would know he too could be president; I'm sure a female would serve the same noble purpose for daughters.
And James Carville suggested that Hillary Clinton had three testicles...
The Clinton campaign, rightfully so, is going to publicly say they are staying in the race. Yet many, many of her surrogates have stated to very reliable journalists and commentators that they realize their probability of winning the nomination is nil and that there are already discussions about how to unite the two camps.
Michael,your last post shows why putting the party back together will not work,you just had to respond with a jab at carville and hillary with what is a distasteful coment.Can't you just keep your comments to yourself,ever heard of being a graceful WINNER,you and alot of Obama supporters are why Mccain will have a good chance in the fall against OBAMA.When you people win a war you should remember not to burn the bridges you will need to win and govern in the next fight
Don't be ludicrous. Michael wasn't being distasteful or disrespectful toward anyone. He was merely saying that it's absurd to attack someone for saying Hillary should take it "like a man" while you have surrogates alluding to the fact that she has greater "testicular fortitude" than other candidates. So it's alright for her to question a male candidate's masculanity but a news anchor can't say "take it like a man." Please, you want it both ways...The vast majority of Hillary's supporters will support Obama and Obama will be our next President. Quit tilting at windmills and raging against the dying of the light and every other literary cliche regarding the inability of people to admit the cause has been lost and it's time to move on...
And yes sidney your one of the other reason's the party will never heal
Oh, and you're not, 10:52am? You are the great uniter, ehh? Taylor Marsh and the rabid Clintonistas who say they'll vote for the pro-life warmongerer are the people responsible for fracturing this party. Quit being a sore loser, 10:52, get your priorities straight and get on board the Democratic Party's unstoppable train.
It's infuriating and myopic beyond belief how Hillary supporters constantly drag out sexism, ageism, classism, etc., as the "reason" that Hillary is all but done, while they insist that Obama supporters continue to exhibit these traits (some of them do, it's true, but by no means all or even most). Apparently there are no women, no working class, no old people who support Obama, eh? Apparently the more than 70% of people in Idaho who voted for Obama are all the rich, young, well-educated black men who live there?
OBVIOUSLY sexism has been in play against Hillary in this campaign, just as racism has been in play against Obama. However the relative merits and demerits of either campaign cannot be reduced to this, nor are these the primary motivations behind why people have voted for either candidate (though I'm sure they factor). There are notable and important differences between these two beyond policy, each have their strengths and weaknesses. And ultimately what doomed the Clinton campaign more than anything was their utter lack of ground game after Super Tuesday. One wonders what the landscape would be like if Obama hadn't crushed her that month, now that he's ahead by less than 200 delegates, despite that long string of (in most cases overwhelming) victories.
Incidentally, the MSM goes wherever they smell blood. They tore Obama to shreds over Rev. Wright, and now that they sense Hillary's done for, they're piling on. That's not bias, it's just how they work (unfortunately, and I'm not saying they don't exhibit bias in general, because they do).
It's perfectly understandable that ardent Clinton supporters should feel anger and resentment at the end of this campaign, but posting the sort of hate-filled drivel on "the internets" that I continue to see is really beyond the pale. Barring Obama getting caught in bed with a dead girl or live boy, this race is all but over. Spend some time to grieve over your preferred candidate, then move on. And for fuck's sake, don't vote for McCain (or try to take down Obama) out of vain spite. Don't be stupid.
10:27 is right of course.
11:43 According to Drudge, quoting the guy publishing inthe GLOBE and Enquier, Obama HAS been caught in bed with a boy. Wait to the Repugs start using that.
I see there's a new Obama supporter who has given his name. And, I'm amazed to see that he's a rerun of the same old same old we've heard from blyn, michale and sidney. It reminds me of the first Bush election when everytime a Rpubican apepared on TV they were all using the exact same words. Same now with all the Obama supporters. This last one, just like the other three, is so understading at our support and passion for Hillary. Pa-leeze. Let's see you condescending understading in the fall when we vote for McCain.
Please understand, my response was meant to show that surrogates from all the campaign camps make unfortuate comments that have been construed as alternately sexist, racist, ageist or whatever.
Now, as to uniting the party, I and others who support Obama have stated that we would support Hillary should she have been the nominee of the Party. Andy has stated his preference for Hillary but acknowledged he will support Obama when he becomes the nominee. What has been painfully prevalent among the "anon" Hillary crowd here and on other sites is that they will not accept to this point any fault of hers for losing this campaign. It's all the fault of the black people, sexists and the MSM. Can you imagine the scorn you would feel for those who objected to Hillary winning the nomination on the backs of white racists? My guess is you'd feel plenty of it.
My sincere hope is that those like yourself who have probably been Democratic Party loyalists for years/decades and strongly support Hillary will do as your candidate has pledged to do - work her ass off for Obama because this country cannot afford another 4 years of Bush policy.
so what your saying micheal is it would be wrong for hillary to of won on the backs of white racist.But it's well OK for Obama to have won on the backs of black racist.DON'T WORRY WE GET THE DRIFT OF WHAT YOUR SAYING, OBAMA WON AND THATS ALL THAT COUNTS
Michael is wrong about the conflict between Obama and Hillary voters. Aside from the obvious sexist claim, the major, MAJOR reason so many are for Hillary is that Obama lied about not knowing what was going on in the Trinty Church and what was going on is racist hatred toward all whites - living and dead. And that Theology teaches the damantion of America. Can you even think of a thinking people putting a man in the most powerful office in the world who has those beliefs??????? And if he didn't know what was going on and being taught to his wife and children, he is stupid. Michelle sure got the message.
And, even if you lamely claim he doesn't have those beliefs - who can prove what's in his heart? It's the old "birds of a feather flock together.? Or, "if you lie down with dogs you get fleas."; or "You're known by the company you keep."
With all his faults George Bush at least loves America.
Do you GET it??
12:34: I was an Edwards supporter. His endorsement the other day has not changed my opinion about this candidacy.
Here are the facts: Obama has more delegates, more votes, more states. This remains unchanged even if we count Florida and Michigan. Therefore, Clinton has lost. I am technically an independent, but lean Democrat (actually I'm further left than either Obama or Clinton). To this end, I support the candidate who wins, while rooting for the candidate(s) I think have the best policies and/or have the best chance of beating McCain.
As for condescension: oh my, how the mighty Hillarites have fallen. You folks are worse than Pats fans, going on about destiny and treating this whole thing like a coronation. Then you lose a close contest and blame it all on the refs and the nasty tactics of the other team. It's pathetic (and infuriating to the extent that you'd threaten to vote GOP). Nothing was worse than Hillary acolytes at the beginning, and that hasn't changed.
Now, why in the HOLY FUCK would you vote for McCain if you're a Hillary supporter? Are you a cult member or a citizen? Grow up.
1:07: Not that I defend Obama on that score, but what's he gonna do, put Farrakhan in cabinet and wage war on whitey? Gimme a break.
OMG we have yet another Sidney impersonator who has as much time as Sidney does to respond immediately to a Hillary fan. COuld THEY be one and the same If not the similarity is startling. The immeidate condemation of any worthy traits for the Hillary supporter and vulgar, crude language looks suspicious. There must be a secret club for slugs for Obama that hasn't hit the news yet.
I don't know about the person to whom you posed the question about voting for McCain if you're for Hillary, but I tell you I will be one who does just that. . McCain loves our country. I agree with nothing else, but at least his heart will be in the right place if not his head.
No, the fear is not that Obama will wage war on whitey -- but that he will wage war on AMERICA by undemining our democracy, even as Bush, in his ignorance has done. We Dems are lucky the Repulicans picked a candidate who has some liberal points of view and is a devout patriot.
If you think McCain has "some liberal points of view" I think you're gambling mightily. His record speaks otherwise. Secondly, I'm not really sure where you get the idea Obama doesn't love his country, but in any case, I have difficulty understanding how you would claim to be a Hillary supporter if you're arguing along these lines: dissent and "America-bashing" is in fact sometimes crucial to asserting a progressive vision of America (at least in my view). Read Wright's comments again in their context: I don't think it's a big deal to say "God damn America" when talking about foreign policy or other aspects of America's sins. By couching this in terms of "devout patriotism," you're buying into a right wing view of America, wherein America does no wrong, has no need of reform, and where "service" must be exclusively (or primarily) military. Keep in mind, this is not a defense of Wright; I'm saying, "So what?" in the context of the VAST differences between McCain and Obama on policy.
So: if that sort of America-loving is more important than anything else, again, why do you support Hillary? You should be advocating the takeover of a benevolent general who loves this country, policies be damned. Or, do in fact vote for McCain and see the war prolonged, too-small steps on global warming, worsening national debt, worsening health care, continued bad foreign relations....the list goes on.
Can you explain to me why a vote for McCain is better than a vote for Obama, other than merely out of spite?
I'm just starting to to get a drift of what sidney and people like him are saying Obama has a better chance of bringing the black voters out in force for Obama and give him the office of president.But with all of the post sidney has made he's always blamed the white man for everything thats wrong with the black comunity.If sidney is right about it's the black vote that will give him the office,by coming out in greater numbers than in the past.Then blacks are partly to blame for their own past because they didn't vote in numbers they will.Now you know what happened in 2000 and 2008,blacks didn't have a good reason to vote
"If sidney is right about it's the black vote that will give him the office" 2:09pm...
I never said anything of the sort.
By the way, I worked for McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. At that time I was a moderate, College Republican. I have a great amount of respect for Senator McCain. However, he is not, nor has he ever been, a liberal. On some issues (campaign finance, global warming, immigration) he has been a reasonable Republican who at least attempts to find middle ground. It's a testament to how unreasonable and pathetic Republicans have become that his occasional reasonableness has led him to be considered bipartisan, liberal, and a media darling.
But McCain WILL appoint conservative judges. McCain will NOT do anything on health care (to the dismay of Hillary and her supporters who have thankfully been pushing Obama on mandates). McCain will likely lead us to another failed war, this time in Iran. It is time for Hillary's legit supporters (as opposed to the many repug trolls who frequently post on this site) to wake up to the reality that McCain is not what America and the world needs at this perilous moment. Sure, you may have reservations with Obama, but McCain's policy prescriptions are anathema.
maybe you should go back and read some of you prior posts ,sidney.That is the idea most people get who can read, get from you
Haha, what are you, clairvoyant? Have you done a poll? "That is the idea most people get who can read, get from you"
Maybe that's what you get from my prior posts, but that's not what I have ever suggested. Clearly you cannot process the written word because I've never said anything of the sort.
Yes, Sidney, 2:52 IS RIGHT. That's exactly what you've done for post after post. You've said how dare we not consider voting for Obama after what the white people did to his ancestors. How dare we call their block vote "racist" when they're only trying to getwhat's due them for the malice they've suffered.
You stupidly ask 2:52 to be a clairvoyant which would mean reading your mind. Your questions impoies that that's what he would find in your mind --exactly what he charges you with.
You have savagely attacked those of us who weren't for Obama and called US racists, as well as Hillary, Bill and mostly all white people.
And don't come back as bkln. and scream your little drama. "Give me dates, times and quotes you Troll."
We who have endured you for so long well-know what you've said.
Thanks for endorsing McCain. I feel better now by voting for him should it come to that.
Whatever, loser...Keep 'em coming, you anonymous freaks. At least i have, to steal from the Clinton campaign, the "testicular fortitude" to post with a screen name. If I didn't then none of you would have any idea that my posts came from the same person. There would be absolutely no accountability. You must feel very secure, wrapped in your little blanket of anonymity, where no one can attack you personally.
You're pathetic...and all because your preferred candidate could not anticipate Obama's strength among the young, blacks, affluent, educated professionals...You can argue all you want about Obama's electoral weaknesses, but clearly Clinton has her own weaknesses, as evidenced by her colossal LOSS in this campaign despite her advantages of near-incumbency, her universal name recognition, her support among the Democratic establishment, etc...
Yes, Michael, because the media has supported Obama whch makes that statement untrue.
Of course there are white racists. But the entire voting population of the white race is not racist. That's what's been so shocking about the discovery of Wright's church, what's preached there and the voting record of 93 percent of black Americans. We now know for sure that hey are also racists, something for which heretofore they have not been blamed or held accountable.
So now it's fair game to examine their attitudes and comments as those of white people have been examined and to be aware of their bias. Imus was fired for being a white racist. Now that double standard should end and blacks included in the examination of racist behavior.
Al Sharpton should have to share his power with -- say -- Pat Buchanan if he'd take on the responsibility.
Valiant support for a candidate along race/gender lines is not necessarily racist or sexist, although it's a really stupid thing to do if there are policy differences or electability issues that should factor first. Don't forget that when this race started, Barack's support among blacks was actually much lower than Clinton's. He earned it, and was helped along with a bit of Bill's mis-statements in SC, and Ferraro's absurd statements later on (which were pounced on by the Obama campaign, sometimes in a highly disingenuous and unfair way, but that's hardly different than Clinton pouncing on "bitter" and Wright).
Now, is some of what's going on among black voters racism? Um, yeah. Just like the folks in Appalachia are clearly voting against Obama due in part (large or small) to racism. Sexism against Hillary has hurt her, but so has sexism for her in the form of white women (particularly the second-wave feminists) worked for her. Alas, that's part of the equation. But only a part: overwhelmingly the electorate hasn't panned out like that. And in case you've forgotten, Hillary got CRUSHED in the overwhelmingly white and not particularly rich states of the Upper Midwest and Mountain West (where Obama will do well in the general).
10:42, what you're exhibiting in your comments is clear-cut racism: you make wild generalizations about black people based on snippets of Wright's sermons. Clearly there is a lot of racism in the "black community," and obviously this needs to be confronted. The thing is that while we know about racism among black people, you can't make this judgment based on Wright. See how this works?
So assuming Obama gets the nomination, he will pick up states (like Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, maybe even Virginia and North Carolina) that Clinton couldn't dream of. However he may need help in PA, MI, FL, and OH (as usual). Get with the program, Clintonistas, help a Dem win, or embrace stagflation and probably war with Iran.
Baracks support was much lower because the black community wasn't sure he could win. After they effecitvely turned Bill's observation about Jackson into a racist remark, they decided together as a group they could get the Democrat support that has helped them so many years, in a "Bro" so they dumped the "Ho".
And the tired old defense that Wright's remarks are "snippets" signyfying nothing is worthess as a defense for Obama's position in that church.
Ferraro saud Obama was where he is because of being black. The earth shook and the blacks and media screamed "Racism".
Chris Matthews said Hillary was where she is because her husband Bill had sex with Monica and others. The "Silence" from everybody including the media was profound. It indicated the depth of mysogyny in the country and the collusion by the media.
If black people are inherently racist, which is the thrust of your argument, please explain the following:
The 2006 Pennsylvania Governor's campaign featured the following two candidates:
Ed Rendell, a Jewish man in his 60s who was connected by some in the African-American community of having orchestrated the police bombing and raid of MOVE headquarters in the mid-80s.
Lynn Swann, a popular African-American former wide receiver for the beloved Pittsburgh Steelers.
Ed Rendell got 90+ percent of the African-American vote.
Cling to the tired, old, meatless bone if you must. But know that your argument is not historically factual or based on any sound logic.
9:37: I was saying that it was racist to assume that based on those snippets, this is what black churches/black people are like (which you almost replicate with "decided as a group"). I do not defend Barack's time there, except that to me Wright's remarks are not deal-breakers by association. The association doesn't reflect well on Obama at all, no question there. It's just that for me it's not as big a deal as it clearly is to many of you (meaning, Wright's remarks are not a big deal, not Obama's flip-flopping on that).
I would agree with your inference, btw, that misogyny/sexism is more pronounced and less talked about than racism. And in my book, Matthews' comments and Ferraro's comments were more or less on par: ugly and demeaning of the numerous qualities and accomplishments of the other candidate that each possess, above and beyond their respective race/gender.
Post a Comment