Wednesday, May 21, 2008

It's Over. But Let's Just Hope We're Only Talking About the Democratic Nomination

"I'm never giving up, and I'm never giving in." That was the promise delivered Tuesday night by Sen. Hillary Clinton in her victory speech after having won the Kentucky primary in a 35% landslide. But as expected, she lost to Sen. Barack Obama by a solid 16% margin in the Oregon primary. The bottom-line? It's over. Chappaqua or bust. The proverbial fat lady has just sung her final note. While she may indeed fight until the very (no longer bitter) end, which she should for many reasons, the heretofore valiant campaign of Clinton, with this week's contests, unofficially comes to a close. The only thing that could have saved her was an upset in Oregon.

Welcome to 2008, the historic year in which a black candidate will represent one of the two major parties in the general election. Gives you goosebumps, especially when you think just 40-odd years ago blacks were being sprayed in the streets with high-pressure fire hoses, or refused service at "white-only" restaurants, or worse, beaten and killed simply for being black. America, we've come a long way, baby. Or have we?

Obama faces a mountainous uphill battle if he expects to become the 44th president of the Unites States. True, he has won many states, attracted many new voters into the process, and has a unique message of hope and change that's clearly resonated with many. But the simple truth is, America is still quite a racist country, as evidenced by the exit polling in Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio...states with large swaths of rural, blue-collar, white working class voters. Half of Kentucky's Democrats say they will not vote for Obama in the general election if he's the nominee. Similar numbers in the other states. About 20% say race is the factor. The other 80% are likely too embarrassed to publicly admit their racial prejudice.

Which is why Obama has a problem. A big problem. Kentucky and West Virginia are not the problem directly. As they did in 2000 and 2004, they are sure to vote red in November. But, what's significant, and can't be ignored, is that these states are a microcosm of key swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. States that Obama must win in the general election if he's to become president. Even NBC's Tim Russert, the well-respected pundit who weeks ago declared that it was over and that Obama would be the nominee, said that Tuesday's results "means Senator Obama has a lot of work to do." And the million-dollar question is, can he do it? Can he win over the so-called "Appalachian" voter? Can he pick up the white working class between now and November? Can he convince people who didn't vote for him because he's black to vote for him against the GOP's presumptive nominee, the very white Sen. John McCain, in November? I'm not so sure Obama can overturn centuries of deep-rooted racism, generations of racial intolerance, in just five months. I'm not so sure Obama will "automatically" pick up Clinton's supporters once things "settle down" after he's officially nominated...which is the picture his campaign and his supporters like to paint.

I still fear the scenario I first laid out weeks ago: that voters will give landslide victories to the Dems in the House and Senate, giving them an even greater majority, while putting the 'more experienced, moderate, battle-tested, tough-on-terrorism war-hero' McCain in the White House as a practical balance of power. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think I could stomach another heartbreaking presidential election where the Dems masterfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

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.
Thank you.


Anonymous said...

If the Dems want to have a chance in November, Clinton must be offered the VP spot. Even if she doesn't take it, the base of the Dem Party (women), need to see it offered if Obama wants their vote.

Too many women say they have had it and won't vote for Obama. (and if Obama supporters think they can win without the Democratic base, they really don't have a clue)

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

"If the Dems want to have a chance in November, Clinton must be offered the VP spot. Even if she doesn't take it, the base of the Dem Party (women), need to see it offered if Obama wants their vote."

Arguments that emphasize the base she's established tend to gloss over how polarizing she is, both within the party (by now, because of her actions in the past months) and as a motivating force for Republican turnout. I'm all for a female VP, but does it have to be THIS female?

"Too many women say they have had it and won't vote for Obama. (and if Obama supporters think they can win without the Democratic base, they really don't have a clue)"

How many is "too many"? Is there data to back up that assertion? And can that data be accurately projected forward, this far out from election day? You really don't think a vast majority of the base won't come around in the next five months, after focused outreach and pro-Obama campaigning by Clinton herself (if she lives up to her promise)?

What I don't like about the thrust of Andy's post is that yes, clearly race is going to be an issue for some Democratic voters... but is that a good reason to deny him the nomination? It sounds like a terrible reason. Not to mention that such points tend to gloss over Hillary's own electability problems, which simply are manifest in a different populace... i.e. his problem with some working class, her problem with independents. This was going to be a tough road either way, and the party is choosing which battle to fight on numerous factors... some unsavory, but many quite valid.

Anonymous said...

Ditto, 10:28. Also, I'm not sure Obama MUST win all those states in order to win the nomination (since when has Indiana been a swing state, anyway?). It's quite possible that Obama would lose Ohio and maybe even Michigan to McCain, and Pennsylvania's certainly in play (although current polling has Obama soundly beating McCain there). However, Obama picks up states that it would appear Clinton would definitely lose, like NM, NV, CO, OR, IA, WI and possibly even VA (he's also very competitive in NC, but that one's doubtful). These states get him to electoral victory as well, just in a different way. If Obama maintains his strength in these states, he'll be the POTUS without the states you've mentioned. Play around on, and you'll see how Obama could well change the map, lose key "big states," and still win handily.

Race will indeed be an issue, but I think it's a huge mistake to lump racism in Appalachia and parts of the Rustbelt with racism among whites in other parts of the country. In the Rocky Mountain West and in the Upper Midwest, I don't think it will factor hardly at all (not to say there isn't racism there, but racial politics are just not an issue). Anyway, in what universe would either Dem seriously contend in Appalachia? In what universe would KY, WV, TN or GA qualify as swing states? These are places where up to 1/3 of supposed Democrats vote GOP nearly every election. Why are you folks trying to hang that on Obama?

It's entirely possible that people will elect to split their ticket, which, if that's the deciding factor, would happen to Hillary as well. So really the job here is to make McCain seem totally unelectable, which I think is quite do-able.

If Hillary isn't offered a VP post, would Obama still attract the allegedly disaffected white female voters if he asked Sebelius or Napolitano to be on his ticket?

Unknown said...

Did you see the NYT today/ First time I've seen important fact that since 1972, when modern exit polls began, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white voters. Obama needs to unify party--as he began to last night with his message of change AND RESPECT for Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as a candidate, a Senator, a woman...and his campaign is launching major registration efforts in key states--we will see a new Democratic map. i'm not being rosy--Deep South --with possible exception of Georgia--out of play/ but there is a new map being created ...and a new role for what has so well defined this race: democratic spirit--record breaking turnout/ registration/ new ways of engaging small donors--in April Obama netted 31.3 million and the average donation was $94--I am still for public financing but of he would adopt $100 limits/ or small small donor limits/ he could create his own form of public financing.katrina vanden Heuvel

Anonymous said...


Yes, Obama has work to do and he can be helped TREMENDOUSLY by a gracious Hillary Clinton, whom I believe will give every bit of her support to Barack. It's also my belief that both Bill and Hillary will campaign vigorously for Barack because it is in the best interest of their legacy within the party to do so. I go back to what Rahm Emmanuel has stated, "how the loser loses this nomination battle will go a long way toward determining if the winner wins in November."

But I also think it very important to note that our GOP rival has some serious problems of his own. Despite months of trying to curry favor with evangelicals and the far right, he has yet to consolidate or motivate that incredibly vital segment of their traditional support. Without them, he does not stand a chance. Recall that Karl Rove in the 2004 election identified millions of evangelicals who did not participate in the 2000 election. He used the wedge of gay marriage to motivate that segment of the electorate and it played a HUGE role in Bush's defeat of John Kerry.

Well, the Obama campaign has identified that there are tens of millions of Democrats who have never even registered to vote (ex. there are an estimated up to 500,000 African-Americans in Georgia alone who have never registered to vote). Down here in Texas, the Latino community is all kind of upset with the state party regarding delegate allocation. They feel they have been ripped off. The problem is, they have only hurt themselves by not participating in high numbers. Yes, Latino districts vote overwhelmingly Democrat. But they don't turn out in numbers and have low registration rates. There's a move afoot down here to remedy that situation and it bodes well for the Obama as well as our Senate candidate, Rick Noriega.

Getting people involved who've never been active in the past is a major strength of the Obama campaign and it's why we're involved in massive national registration drives. Getting Hillary, her supporters and those candidates on the Dem side running for office working together to get people involved for the first time, regardless of age or ethnicity, will go a long way to ensuring not only that we beat McCain but to ensure the party's base is expanded and the brand grows a whole lot stronger.

I know you are committed to the cause, Andy, and hope you will rally those who read and take the time to comment on this blog to work together. We may have our differences on our choice of candidate to represent the party, but our common ground is that none of us is likely to claim that this country should be forced to endure a continuation of Bush economic or foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

Well it appears that some folks above do not understand how elections are won.

Without the Dem Base (women) they will lose. It's obvious folks above do not visit Pro Hillary blogs either.

Don't be an Obama kool-aid drinker. It isn't pretty with the Bush supporters and is sure isn't pretty with Obama supporters.

Sidney Condorcet said...

11:11am has lost his/her marbles. Once Hillary embraces Obama and campaign hards for him (or even becomes his VP) the vast majority, though not all, of Clinton's female supporters will come back in the fold.

And even if you were correct, 11:11am, what's your solution? Giving the nomination to Hillary, watching the other part of the Dem Base (blacks) sit out or vote for McCain, and Hillary will lose? So you're saying we're screwed either way, huh?

Well, I guess we'll just have to put some hope in both Obama and Hillary that together they will do all they can to repair the breach...

Anonymous said...


I have a question for you:

If Hillary Clinton gives her full support to Barack Obama and says her supporters are making a mistake by sitting the election out or by supporting John McCain will you accept her reasoning and vote for Obama or will you defy her?

The Ostroy Report said...

Fierce....Thanks for the Indiana catch. That was an inadvertent mistake.

Michael, you're missing the point. Hard-core racists are not going to vote for Obama simply because Hillary tells/urges them to. These people don't see this election being about blue and red. It's all about black and white.

Sidney Condorcet said...


I believe Michael was referring to Hillary's ardent female backers, generally, not the racists, who surely represent a minority of her base of support.

Anonymous said...

Andy and Sidney,

Sidney is correct. If Hillary has any sway over a segment of voters it is with women, not racists.

In fact, I agree with David Gergen. Hillary Clinton should stand up and say to those who voted for her and will not vote for Obama based on his being African-American, that she does not want their support.

Anonymous said...

"Michael, you're missing the point. Hard-core racists are not going to vote for Obama simply because Hillary tells/urges them to. These people don't see this election being about blue and red. It's all about black and white."

But your point is something of a half-point. Are you suggesting that we take an entirely pragmatic approach in the name of the progressive cause, cater to the "hard-core racist" wing of the Democratic party (or is it independents that you're worried about?) and hope the super-delegates grant her the nomination? When will it be okay to nominate an African-American? Is there some kind of metric we can keep an eye on that will let us know when racism wanes to the point that Barack's candidacy will be more viable? Where your logic leads is a little depressing... and again, overlooks many of Hillary's inherent negatives.

Anonymous said...

Read my lips. It doesn't make a rat's ass who wins the primary or the general election. The policies set forth over the last 60yrs have us headed for the rocks. None of these three stellar candidates are going to challenge Israel. And until that happens, we will continue to bleed until we are dry.

Anonymous said...

Wow, so many folks here have no clue when it comes to winning elections.

Obama will not win without Hillary supporters. It's state by state.

Insult me all you want, but I know politcs and so many of you sound clueless. Too many racists will cast their votes for McCain and you want to continue to insult the Demmocratic base (women)?

Anonymous said...

I agree with 1:07. Obama supporters are so naive.

They don't have a clue.

Anonymous said...


Wow? What you get from reading the responses to Andy's blog today is "Wow, you all don't have a clue" and "you want to continue to insult the Demmocratic (sic) base"?

How in the WORLD do you draw this conclusion? Who here is insulting women? How is it that we have no clue? Please show us your mighty grasp of the political landscape and provide evidence that conclusively shows your grasp of the electorate.

BTW, you might want to take a look at the following:

Anonymous said...

I agree with the two above posters-All 20 million or so Obama supporters are naive and don't have a clue. We should put Hillary in as the nominee, a woman who cannot raise any money, whose campaign is $31 million in debt. That's Presidential.

Hillary's supporters arent naive...They are fratricidal and suicidal...

Anonymous said...

First, are all of Hillary's supporters really going to abandon Obama? ALL of them? What for? Lemme ask AGAIN: why in the hell would you vote for McCain?

Second, how is it that support for Obama, or debunking patent bullshit (like the "popular vote" nonsense), is "disrespecting" the "Democratic base" of women voters (leaving aside the millions of women who support Obama)?

Let's talk a little bit about disrespect, Clinton supporters:

* Only big states count
* Whoops, I mean, only big states that go for Hillary count
* Red states only count if Hillary wins them
* Caucus states don't count
* Landslide victories for Hillary in Appalachia are delivered by "hard working Americans", while landslides victories for Obama in the West are delivered by "the Starbucks crowd" (72% by those latte sippers in Idaho)
* Reactions against demeaning comments made by Bill and Geri are "race-baiting"
* The pledged delegate vote, the popular vote, the majority of states, etc., should all be overturned because of Obama's "baggage" (i.e. his inability to get racists to vote for him)
* Hillary has no baggage, and if she's given the nom, Republicans will flock to her because they'll finally see how smart and dedicated she is (Barack is after all neither smart nor dedicated, nor is he persuasive)

And so on.

I grant you that there are a lot of Obama supporters out there who've said demeaning things, who gloat, whose behavior is reprehensible. But you folks have ZERO claim to the high ground.

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Base is comprised of women and has for decades.

Obama can't win without them.

All the racists aren't dead yet.

Obama will lose in November and it upsets me to no end to say it.

But the above poster is right.

To insult the Democratic base of the party is plain stupid and very naive.

Wake up.

Anonymous said...

From Conference call with Hillary
Yesterday afternoon

1 Sen. Clinton sounded absolutely, 100% committed to staying in this race. I got no sense of her giving up. In fact, she spent several minutes thanking us, the blogging community, for continuing to make the case for her with the public.

2 Her new ad running in Oregon captures her current attitude about the situation: the pundits and Sen. Obama can say she’s out, but she’s still very much in — and still working hard to win votes.

3 She said, “Finally! We have acknowledgement that we are actually ahead in the popular vote!” And she feels that she’s on track to continue to perform very well on that count through the remaining contests.

4 She gave us a quick rundown of the argument she’s making to the super-delegates: it’s the map, not the math. Her strength is in the swing states, boding extremely well for the general election. Obama’s pattern of support, in contrast, makes him a weak bet in the general. (See Bringiton for a masterful presentation of this argument.) The supers need to exercise their judgment to pick the strongest candidate — and that’s Hillary.

5 She’s absolutely committed to getting Florida and Michigan seated, and commented on the irony of the Democratic Party disenfranchising its own members in those states.

6 The May 31 DNC rules committee meeting is very important, and the more press and public attention we can develop around that, the better.

7 She said how much she regretted all the vitriol and hostility and sexism that’s been thrown at her supporters. She herself is impervious to it by now, but it distresses her that so many of her supporters have been subjected to this. And she took time again to thank all of us for standing up for her and being courageous.

Taylor Marsh has the whole call on her site.

Anonymous said...

1:52: She's ahead in the popular vote ONLY if you count Michigan and Florida without given Obama ANY Michigan votes, and only if you throw out four of his caucus states. Stop it, it's absurd. Secondly, she absolutely doesn't do better than Obama in swing states other than Florida, and she does WORSE in swing states like CO and NM. The polling simply doesn't bear out what she's saying.

Incidentally, she was quite happy to disenfranchise MI and FL before she won them and needs them.

The only part of her arguments that makes sense is whether Obama's a greater liability, and even that is not clear cut. As Ostroy suggests, it's time to face the music and figure out how to get Barack elected instead of McSame.

Anonymous said...

If white racism were as bad as Ostroy suggests and many of you believe, we would not now have so many black people in so many important positions; and, they got there because so many white people were appalled at the cruelty they had suffered, and so they worked and died for the black victims' cause. White racism is not the problem.

Remember Obama had a smashing lead until Rev. Wright. White people were shocked, offended, hurt and afraid of what was coming out of the black community's churches and mouths. That's when Obama lost me and others.

Then with the continued sexism and unfairness toward Hillary, that's when the Democratic Party lost me and others. I will not vote for the Democratic ticket with or without Hillary as the vp. I would, still, if she were the presidential nominee.

Geraldine Ferraro, after death threats after her first remarks about Obama, had the courage to say that she will not vote for Obama. She speaks for a large number of women. The sexism (hatred) has been palpable. Couple that with the racism and sexism coming from Obama and the black community and a sensible person would ask why would women masochistically accept such treatment. A woman who identified herself as black recently posted on one of Ostroy's blogs that she won't be happy if Obama is not the nominee and since she has endured unpleasantness before, she can endure four years of McCain. I and others have made the same choice coming from a different perspective. I will not vote for Obama because Hillary asks me to or because she's on the ticket as v.p.

You all will undoubtedly ask "Who cares"? Who indeed? It's my own choice for my own sense of integrity.

Anonymous said...

Lumping in all blacks/black churches with Wright's comments, perceiving all attacks on Hillary as sexist (though obviously many are, by no means all or even most), having no similar sensitivity toward racism against Obama, willing to work to condemn our nation and the world with a third Bush term by proxy all because your feelings are hurt...yes, that's integrity, all right.

Anonymous said...

Not to mention, that you're willing to ensure Roe v. Wade is gone, and this is "for women" apparently. You're positively oozing integrity.

Anonymous said...


You realize, of course, that in your scenario your candidate does not conform to your sense of integrity - the very thing you complain does not allow you to vote for Obama.

What I do not understand, and help me to try, is the supporters of a candidate carrying a deeper grudge or claiming a higher set of morals or integrity than the candidate himself/herself.

I'm not saying this is isolated to Clinton supporters. I'm saying whenever it occurs it seems somewhat bizarre behavior to me.

Rick said...

Give me a break. I haven't seen any sexism from the Obama campaign and I defy you to point me to an example of it.

I am not opposed to HRC because she is female.

I am opposed to HRC because she supported the invasion of Iraq and continues to fund the occupation.

I am opposed to HRC because she threatens to obliterate Iran.

I am opposed to HRC because in a time when we needed real leadership in this country, she pandered to the right by co-sponsoring a flag-burning bill.

I am opposed to HRC because she proudly aligned herself with Wal*Mart while it fought tooth and nail against organized labor.

I am opposed to HRC because she has shown herself, like her husband before her, to be a Republican in Democratic clothing.

In this campaign, she has consistently taken the low road; she has in fact campaigned on Obama's race and insinuated that she's not sure he's a Christian. It irks me to no end to have her supporters accuse me of sexism for not supporting her.

Anonymous said...

You can oppose HRC all you want, but you will lose without her supporters.

Don't be so naive.

Wake up!

The Democratic base is comprised of women.

We vote.

Don't tick us off.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 2:47.

Obama can't win without Hillary supporters.

They have already ticked us off.

Anonymous said...

Okay, ticked-off Hillary supporters:

Why hold Obama accountable for unaffiliated his supporters in the blogosphere? What specific instances from the campaign itself are sexist? Why vote for McCain because of real or perceived slights? Why (hypocritically) hold everyone hostage because (quoting Hillaryis44) "our girl" won't be the nominee, yet chastise the very mention of blacks being pissed that Obama would be denied the nomination despite his now insurmountable lead?

Are there really any offenses you've seen/heard/experienced that are worse than prolonged war, the end of legal abortion, worsening healthcare, crumbling infrastructure and education, and half-steps on climate change?

I have no intention of "ticking you off," but first you have to show some sign of being reasonable.

Scott Fox said...

Obama and Hillary are both owned and controlled by the elite.

Ron Paul Revolution please.

Jamilah Kolocotronis said...

I want to respond to the comments about women in the Democratic party. Are you aware that a large number of women, many over the age of 50, support Obama? I'm one of them.

We want party unity no matter what the demographic, but don't lump all women together. In fact, most self-respecting feminists reject Hillary's methods.

Anonymous said...

When you all scream about the women's vote you always seem to overlook the fact that some of those Democratic women are black and they are voting 93 percent for Obama. So, not ALL the Democratic women are for Hillary.

Most self-respecting women reject sexism.

Anonymous said...

If you think that this black bi-sexual is going to solve your problems you had better wake up. First of all he is a tool of Brezinski and has been for many years, He is also involved in the unsolved murder of the gay choir director of Rev. Wright,s church and is involved in some very shady financial deals in Chicago plus much more.

Anonymous said...

Nothing but class, 6:52.

JJ Berg said...

and...cue the crazies

Anonymous said...

"If the Dems want to have a chance in November, Clinton must be offered the VP spot. Even if she doesn't take it, the base of the Dem Party (women), need to see it offered if Obama wants their vote."

Yeah, that's just what we need. There's been a f***ing Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1981. Obama's going to bring "change" (which sounds like the same old Socialist claptrap in a new package with a shiny ribbon and a new name) by returning that crime family to DC? That's rich. A nation of 300 million people, and we get the same refuse every four years? What's it going to be in 2012 -- Chelsea vs. Marvin?

Not to mention the fact that if McCain were to win the election with Lieberman as his VP, or Obama with The Hillaroid as VP, it's even money that somebody would suffer JKF's fate, and fairly quickly. This has been advanced by many people in this country. The Terrorist State of Israel would have their man in Joe "Jews for Fascism" Lieberman in the White House, or the Demorats would have the continuation of the Bush/Clinton White House swap, because somebody has to keep the CIA's drug-running into Arkansas, which really picked up steam under Bush '41 when Bubba was governor of Arkansas, under wraps.

This may sound stupid, but I still believe that Bubba is going to work some magic or other to get the superdelegates to swing the nomination to The Hillaroid, and if that happens, expect to see it hit the fan nationwide. (Even the Village Idiot could figure out that the only reason Hillary was even able to stay in the race was because she stole New Hampshire. It's truly amazing. She turned an 8-point deficit into a 9-point victory overnight, the exact same thing that Bush's old man did in the same state in 1988.)

If anybody either than a Bush or a Clinton gets in there, it probably won't be long before the lid gets blown off the drug ring that Bush's old man was running from inside Reagan's White House.

Stay tuned . . .

Anonymous said...

P.S. to my comment including the drug running into Arkansas:

Why is anybody paying attention to any of these three candidates? Why do people act as if they have to vote for ANY of this criminal refuse, much less vote at all?

If people don't completely withdraw their support from these "two" crime organizations, this country is doomed. Look at all of the problems facing this country. Haven't these "two" political parties been running the show since the end of the Civil War? Good God, even a monkey could have figured out a century ago that these people, and I mean specifically the federal government in toto, are the main source of almost every problem this country faces.

Anybody who would vote for any of these people is an a**hole who is helping to drive the last nails into this country's coffin. A country with this many stupid fools voting for people who make laws and start wars can't survive in the long run, and doesn't deserve to.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy - why did you emphasize "'more experienced, moderate, battle-tested, tough-on-terrorism war-hero' McCain" in your post?

McCain is NOT moderate.
McCain is NOT tough on terrorism.

And what's with the post title? I realize you're disappointed that Obama beat your candidate (and he did it fair and square, no back room deals, no dirty tricks, with the majority of Democrats choosing him as their standard bearer) but your post title is unduly pessimistic on a day when polls show Obama easily defeating McCain in the general election.

If you want to help put a Democrat in the White House in November you have to get a realistic grip on your narrative. The Dems masterfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when they tash their own, or don't fight but instead boost Republican candidates over their own. Get on board Andy.

As you yourself once said" Start winning".

The Ostroy Report said...

Bkln, don't you understand what it means when someone puts something in quotations and itallics? What they're doing is emphasizing a sentiment or statement or position of someone else, not them. What I wrote was what others are saying about McCain, not how I feel about McCain. Thought that'd be pretty obvious, but I guess not.

But the bigger issue is your blind, unconditional Pied Piper-rat-like support of Obama. There's a lot of people paid a lot of money to analyze politics who are talking about some of Obama's weaknesses and challenges in a very objective way. That you choose to stick your head in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

As for "getting on board"...this is not a game, and there are no teams. This is about winning the White House in November. It behooves us all to contantly assess our chances of winning, as well as whether or not our candidiate is up to the task. And if he's not for some reason, it should be discussed in the hope that there's time to help turn things around. My job as a writer/blogger is to give an honest, objective view of the campaign. My site is not an unapologetic Obama campaign site, like Buzzflash. If you don't want to hear/read some objective opinions, then stick with Buzzflash.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ostroy for your 8:24 comments. I hope blkn and the others finally understand what you've said and I hope that they do go to Buzzflash.

They have no respect for your success as a writer/blogger who gives honest, objective vews of what'a happening, and they blast us who don't agree with them. They clutter the space with the endless repetition of the same old "line: for Obama. No objectivity with them.

Anonymous said...

This lively discusson is a good sign of political interest. But as a Democrat-leaning Republican - one who would have proudly voted for Al Gore and who also would have proudly voted for Hillary because I think she knows world politics so much better than Sen. Obama - I am astounded that the Democratic party will give up the office of Persident to make sure they are politically correct. Despite the message of hope of Sen. Obama, despite the fact that it would be incredibly wonderful to have a Black president, he needs to be more tested. This is NOT a Senate seat, this is NOT a popularity contest, or even an inspiration contest. This is the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President of the United States - this is the person who will profoundly affect our lives and our position in the world over the next four years and probably longer. America does not seem to value wisdom, experience or concrete ideas. We are a give-it-to-me now, inspire me, feel and sound good society. And that is what is most alarming about this election. If Sen. Obama wins, he needs Hillary as his close advisor.

Anonymous said...


Why would you assume Hillary, as VP or as Senator from New York, would not serve as a close advisor to President Obama?

As to your other point about being ready for the office - without question the most tested, the most experienced, most "qualified" person to hold the office of President of the United States in the last 40 years was Richard Nixon. The next most qualified was George Herbert Walker Bush.

I kinda doubt most here would judge their time in office as successful on most fronts.

Anonymous said...


"There's a lot of people paid a lot of money to analyze politics who are talking about some of Obama's weaknesses and challenges in a very objective way. That you choose to stick your head in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have to."

Who are these great monied objective analyists of politics to whom you refer? The gangs at CNN, FOX and MSNBC?

bkln is right. You've declared the nomination process over. Those were your words, not those of a rat-like follower of the Pied Piper Obama (should I accuse you of some sort of "-ism"?). If you do believe that the nomination is in fact sewn up, it IS time to bring the various constituencies of the Democratic Party together.

What better way to assess our chances in November than to measure how effective we are at shoring up our base and appealing to those independents and disaffected GOPers who may come to our side with the help of bloggers like Andy Ostroy?

Anonymous said...

9:24 Well-said. You said really all that can be said. He is not tested and there are growing numbers who fear that. I don't think the voting population will be willing to take a chance on Obama. The Dmocratic Party can be a politically correct as they think required, most Americans won't agree with them on what's important.

Anonymous said...


Please substantiate your claim that there are growing numbers who fear Obama is not tested. Not a single poll reflects this notion.

BTW, what's most important to you and why do you think the American people will choose McCain on those issues over Obama?

The Ostroy Report said...

Michael, you're in love with a candidate, and I'm not. I know that's really hard foryou to grasp...this crazy notion that not everyone agrees with you choices. I know it must be very painful to keep asking your self why not everyone else is so blindly in love with Obama like you are, but hey, that's America, right?

And again, I must remind you, my job, and the role I want for myself, is not to be some kool-aid drunken Obama cheerleader with my thumb up my ass. I leave that to Buzzflash and the rest of the Obamacans. I consider myself a journalist; someone who, despite having personal preferences (who doesn't? You think Matthews, Russert, Blitzer, Olbermann, Abrams, Mitchell, Gregory, etc don't?) doesn't "take sides" when writing and reporting. If I see warts, I write about them just as I write about all the good. I think sites like Buzzflash, and Obama supporters in general, should be asking the hard questions about Obama and forcing the candidate to reassess the campaign so that there's time to make tactical and strategic changes between now and NOvember so that we CAN win this thing. Pretending that he's some messianic-like figure void of negatives doesn't help our cause.
That's my last word on this subject...

Anonymous said...

The reason Obama is not fairing as will as in the beginning,is repuks are taking a play right out of liberal bloggers hand book.It was used against the clinton's and it work.It'll work against Obama the same way.All you do is take 10% fact mix it with 90% bull-crap and post it and keep posting it.After a while it becomes the truth because people point to other blog's as posting it and it's got to be the truth.It's still lies,but the image gets passed as truth so long IT becomes the truth.Now liberals who thought it was a good way to get hillary out ou the way,will have to deal with what they have created.It's going to be a great election year,as far as garbage being passed around,the shame is we had a great chance of change,that got blown out with all the garbage.

Anonymous said...


What you've just exhibited in your little screed is a classic case of projection. Pathetic, but I hope you feel better.

The very masthead of your blog suggests that you "take sides" and my suggestion to you had ZERO to do with Obama v. Clinton and EVERYTHING to do with your stated mission to "help Democrats regain the White House and Congress".

That's the only "side" I care about.

Anonymous said...


Go to and you will find a handy-dandy chart that tracks the average of polls. It shows Obama is doing as well against McCain today as he has at any point this calendar year.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy --Thanks for your 11:11 comment. All of your readers except Michea/Sidney/Blkn, whom I think to be one person, know you speak the truth. If they/he made a better argument one would wonder if they're on Obama's payroll. Those folks are persistent -- I received about four calls nightly from Obana here in my state although the race is over here, These are real people, too, and not recordings. Now they're working on the general. Those calls are so annoying. I hang up on them and they call back in about an hour. Once after I hung up on them they called back (I have caller-ID) and hung up on me. Must be those elite young college supporters doing the calling. Maybe these three on thisblog are some of those kids,too.

Anonymous said...

I bet Michael swoons when he watches Obama on TV. There's real love there, for sure.

Anonymous said...

I'm an Independent, more often than not leaning Republican -- I'm pro-life, I support small government, and I support only a limited welfare program. I hate George W. Bush, his war on freedom at home, and his war on innocent bystandard abroad.

My choice for president -- even though it is a poor one -- is Obama.

Yes, he has flaws. He doesn't share a lot of my views, and he doesn't have a lot of experience (not that he can't make up for that with good advisers in his cabinet).

Yet I think he is less evil than the others.
Let's take a quick look:

McCain will turn out to be Bush's third term. On anything that matters, McCain's position is the exact same as Bush's. He wants to escalate the Iraq war, attack Iran (he went as far as singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" on stage -- I wonder what McCain would have done if Ahmadinejad was singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb the US" in some place?), he wants to continue torturing people who have been arrested without warrant, and he supports the same anti-freedom measures as Bush. The only good thing (in my opinion) that could come out of President McCain would be a strong pro-life decision. That's not enough to support a war criminal.

Clinton is somewhat less radical, but she, too, has voted for the Iraq war, promoted "obliterating" Iran, and refused to sign the pledge to restore the constitution (a pledge signed by all other Democratic candidates, as well as Republican Ron Paul) - I wonder why, if she had any plans to reverse Bush's atrocious policies.

Obama is a bit of a blank page, but his stance against the Iraq war is more credible, he wants to give diplomacy a chance in Iran, and he signed a pledge to restore the constitution -- while I don't trust him to actually live up to it, among those with any chance to win, he is the best chance get the country back on track.

I'm hoping for a 1-term Obama presidency and a candidate I can give my full support to in 2012...

Anonymous said...

Ostroy - you are not objective, and one clear measure of that is that you have never once mentioned a single "wart" (your word, not mine) that Clinton has. And there are plenty.

You're not as bombastic a cheerleader as Taylor Marsh but you eagerly thrash Obama and his supporters on a regular basis.

I'm sick and tired of so-called Dems like yourself calling me and others delusional "messianics" or Pied-Piper dupes - especially after stating time and again that we (and Obama himself) realize that he is not a god or superhero that is going to solve every problem that has ever existed in the history of the world.

Get a clue. Wake up. Take off your rose colored glasses and actually read what people are writing instead of projecting your opinion all over them.

As for your "McCain quote"...... just how do you think that BUYING and PROPAGATING their narrative is going to help us put a Democrat in the White House in November? Let me answer for you: it won't.

It wouldn't help Hillary and it won't help Obama.

Anonymous said...

My thinking went along the lines of poster 12:09 until so many upleasant things have come out about Obama. Since he totally fooled us for so long about his close connections with Rev. Wright and his church and we still dont' know about his real estate deals, I'm afraid to feel confident that I really know what his motivating thoughts are.

Hillary has said she favored diplomacy - she just believes in "carrying a big stick". Obama wasn't on the "hot seat" with Americans about a nuclear bomb threat when he made his no-war decision about Iraq.

As for the laws and abuses of the Consitution Bush is responsible for, I have full confidence that Hillary would not continue them. We do have her husband as an indication of how she would govern. we also have Michell Obama as an indication of her husband's views. They attended the same church.

It's always interesting to see how people make such different decisions looking at the same evidence. That's presuming no prejudices of any kind are working.

I do predict that immediately after this post, either "Micheal", "Sidney" or "bkln" will post something That's part of their strategy which is so obvvious and tiresome. They absolutely have to have the last word/post on this blog. It's part of their campagin strategy.

The Ostroy Report said...

Bkln writes:

"Ostroy - you are not objective, and one clear measure of that is that you have never once mentioned a single "wart" (your word, not mine) that Clinton has. And there are plenty." when I write things like this: "That brings us to Clinton, who is way too untrustworthy, untruthful and disingenuous to way too many people, including this writer," as I did 4/22, I suppose you just consider this more of my biased praise of Clinton?

Hey look...don't let me spoil your fun. I gather it's much more fun to make wild assertions and judgements about me than to actually read my blog consistently to actually see just whose "warts" I write about and when. Why let facts get in the way of your uninformed opinions, right?

Knock yourself out, pal. Whatever gets ya through the day...

Anonymous said...

Ostroy, from what little I've read here, I think you do your best to provide balanced coverage, but that's not at all the same as "objective". Further, you demonstrated repeatedly in the comments if not the blog that your disdain for Obama supporters extends well beyond the Obamaniacs and whatever cult-like assessments they provide (pro-Clinton hysterics never get that treatment, I see). This is of course your prerogative: it's your blog and you support(ed) Clinton. However please spare us your claims to "objective" "journalism."

To this end, I agree with you that we need to point out some Obama weak points and work to get the campaign to move on them, and we should also be working hard to help make McCain unelectable. But that's not the sort of thing you've provided in the last two posts at all: it's merely a sloppy re-hashing of the racial politics meme. Appalachia's not where Obama should be expending resources; instead, he needs to focus on people he might actually get to support him, like rural folks in the Rustbelt and Midwest, or Latinos (particularly Cubans) in Florida. Let's talk about Obama's strengths and weaknesses THERE, shall we?

The key to electoral victory this time, if trends hold, will be NV and MI, possibly VA, NC, TX (yep, crazy) and maybe FL, though that's looking more and more out of reach. If he holds what he has now and adds 1-2 of those states, he'll be the POTUS.

There are real reasons to support Obama, there are real reasons to oppose McCain, and Clinton really is finished barring divine intervention.

Anonymous said...

fiecepika,how you say Obama's not going to spend resources in Appalachia.The only problem I see from that manuver is,I lived in w. virgina,People in appalachia will tell you to your face what they think.They won't lie to you.So if they say they'll vote for you they will.If they say they won't,they won't.They won't tell you something just to impress you.In the rest of this great united states people will lie to you and smile at the same time while their slipping the blade in deep.And your list of states in play need to be exspanded, to also include. Penn.,Calif.ohio,And whether you want to believe it or not,new york(only because hillary supporter there feel she got robbed)and mass.You can claim race only matters in appalachia if you want,but it's a fantacy

Anonymous said...

I think the damage done to the Democratic Pary as a result of this campaign is possibly beyond repair. In my history as an adult I have never seen the party so shattered. Every group that exists in the party has been demeaned by another segment of the party.

Those who make under fifty thousand are now called the "lower class". Single mothers making under forty thousand are singled out to be included in the "lower class." Women in general have been kept in/or returned to second-class status. Poor working men and women have been called "bitter" with only their narrow interest in guns and church to sustain them. Whites in general have once more been called racists. Blacks have been called racists. The rich are called "elite" with more refined tastes than the "lower class" and have more interests and abilities thus they are snobs and "out of touch" with mainstream America.
Men are called mysogynists. Women are called "hos", witches, bitches and told to "iron my shirt" at rallies.

And the final blow is that the DNC is not going to allow the vote of thousands of voters to count in the primary. That is truly demeaning.

There is not one Democrat that has not been demeaned because of identifiction with one category or another. I have to say I think the new "lower class" is the most offensive labeling. "Lower class" implies lack of refinement, lack of values, lack of the finer sensibilities and other unpleasant qualities. The truth is $40,000 a year is tne National Average and none of these "lower" class qualities apply to the majority of "lower class" Americans. I find the use of "lower class" particulary offensive when used by the pundits on cable TV.

And we call ourselves "Progressives".

We were wiser and nicer when we were "Liberals". The Republicans are appearing more "democratic" than the Democratic Party.

Anonymous said...

The "hard-core" racists (who voted in the Dem primaries) would mostly vote for McCain (or any Repub) in the general election as they have at least since 1980, regardless of who the Dem nominee is, unless it were Zell Miller. Even if pandering to racists was not a disgusting tactic (which Repubs use well); it seems highly unlikely it can work for a Dem nominee.

Anonymous said...

It appears to becoming more and more obvious that the Democratic Party cannot win this election if Obama is the nominee and perhaps even if Hillary should be the one. The comments by 7:33 presents some good reasons why a "win" won't happen for the Dems.

As for Obama, he is getting crushed by McCain's accusations; and, now the Jewish vote seems to have been lost. I don't believe having Hillary on the ticket will help; she will not be the one making the decisions. I won't vote for Obama if she's the v.p. and I'm a Hillary supporter. It would be unwise for her to accept the offer if given because she will be on a losing ticket and it will be harder for her to rebound in 2012.

I also find it hard to believe that the Dem legislatures actually failed to include thirty pages when it had a chance to prove themselves adequate and secure a real victory.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe Hillary asked Bill to stick his nose into her business and try to get her the v.p. slot with Obama. Maybe the rumours that he's tried to and possilby has sabotaged her campaign because he didn't want her to be the president are true and this is one more shot at it for him. Why should she get out now when OBama is looking weaker and weaker everyday. A tinge of jealously maybe and the old "the woman shouldn't outshine the man." No matter -- I agree with others - she should not take that slot. And the idea of Obama offering her a supreme court appoint is absurd. When Obama's not elected, she will have nothing. This whole mess is depressing.

Anonymous said...

Some one posted that Dems haven't won a majority of white votes for a long time. As if that should be a surprise.

For so long our party has been parsing the society into distinct sub-groups, imubing them with a sense of victimization so that we can pose as their only saviors and harvest soviet style majorities in their niches.

But the truth is that the backbone of this country doesn't associate with those "victims".

They naturally hesitate when people shove same sex unions/marriage down their traditional throats - and don't kid yourself, apart from the activist base, most Democrats are still traditional Americans.

How do they react when a guy like Ed Rendell seeks to stack the deck by trying to put voting booths in prisons? Does he not realize that people look at that and say to themselves "hmmmm - do I really want to put people in the White House who consider criminals to be part of their natural constituency?" And let's not kid ourselves - the overwhelming proportion of criminals (and their families) tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

These are the people we go after? These are the people we want?

You wonder why Americans of a traditional stripe - and more white Americans hold traditional American values than other sub-groups - don't vote for us?

We fight against monstrous procedures like partial birth abortion and think we are moral? Most people HATE that. But we suck up to the activist womens libbers in the base, lest they bombard us internet funded ads.

We fight to legalize illegal aliens because we think they will vote for us, forgetting about the fact that in doing so, we basically abandon any sense of national identity (let alone borders)?

More and more, our party is the party of the flotsam and jetsom and less the party of people who hold close to their hearts traditional American principals.

Anonymous said...

The fat lady has sung. She actually sung a long time ago. Both Hillary and Obama are flawed candidates who ought not to be close to the levers of power. The best candidates we had - Richardson and Biden - unfortunately didn't have the branding, the new physical attribute (melanin or ovaries) to win the nomination. Unfortunately, all they had was ability to do the big job.

Hillary is one of the most polarizing people in our lifetimes. Add that to a novice like Obama who is making mistake after mistake, who possibly (probably?) harbors deep seated black racist views (Rev Wright) and there will be enough reasons for reasonable people to look kindly on McCain as a maverick not beholden to the Republicans we've learned to hate (yes, activist Democrats don't dislike their opponents, we hate them and want to destroy them).

Obama is weak. He made a huge error in his comment about unconditional talks with our mortal enemies and can't/won't admit it. At least Edwards owned up to his mistake on Iraq. Like Hillary who refused to do that, Obama can't admit he misspoke under pressure.

He has big problems with his preacher because he probably does subscribe to many of his views - no rational person would have sat there for 20 years and lapped that crap up, let alone put him in an advisory position.

Bottom line? A lot of people won't vote for either a black man like Obama, a polarizing woman like Hillary or both.

Putting them together is like putting together non lethal doses of alcohol and barbiturates. Neither may kill you, but toghther both surely will.

Anonymous said...


The last two posts in this thread are the biggest evidence I've seen why Democrats may snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

If these anons are really Democrats and not a pair of paid McCain trolls, the party truly is fractured and whomever the candidate is has some serious work to do in bridging the divide.

A recognition of flaws in our candidates is one thing (and there's no question all three of the candidates remaining in the race are flawed). The supposed faithful resigning the party to defeat is completely another.

Anonymous said...

Here is a perfect example of why this country is probably doomed in the long run. It's a priceless commentary on the idiocy of the average voter in this country.

"Obama is a bit of a blank page, but his stance against the Iraq war is more credible, he wants to give diplomacy a chance in Iran, and he signed a pledge to restore the constitution -- while I don't trust him to actually live up to it, among those with any chance to win, he is the best chance get the country back on track."

'Nuff said.

Anonymous said...


I posted BOTH of those anon posts. And I assure you I am not only a Dem, but a life long, multi-generational Dem. My dad met Harry Truman and they actually corresponded for a while after he left the White House. Yet he didn't vote for years, because working two jobs, he couldn't take the chance of a jury duty notice (which were, at the time, drawn from the voter rolls). Yet in 1980, he gave the Popeye quote "it's all I can stand, cuz I can't stands no more" and registered to vote again as a Dem, just so he could vote for Reagan.

Our party - for far too long - have concentrated on the fringe interests instead of the heart and soul of America.

I've been involved in Dem politics for 35 years, have been a party official, and still find the direction of the party, pulled far left by the "base" to be so at odds with what this country truly stands for.

Anonymous said...


I will take you at your word.

But I do have two questions for you.

1. The list of items deemed offensive to "American values" are hardly new and so it begs the question of why you have remained loyal to the Democratic Party?

2. Have you read either of Senator Obama's books?

Anonymous said...


Why have I remained loyal? I'm still a Democrat, but I think my recent voting patterns would lead people to doubt the loyalty. I vote for the best of my choices as I perceive them, not soley on party. I am first and foremost and American, not a Democrat.

So, for example, fed up with Clinton and all that he/she entailed, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gore. So I voted for Bush. But I didn't make that mistake twice......

I have remained a Democrat much the same way my Catholic friends remain Catholics even though they may not like their current Pope. It's not really up for consideration.

I'm not like Reagan who famously responded that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him and thus he signed on to the GOP.

Well, let's say I am like him up to a point. I choose to stay and fight.

I ask my Congressman - to his face - why we exploit blacks for their votes and do so little to improve their lives? He says any Democrat who goes into the inner city and lectures blacks about the damage of single parent hood, drugs, disdain for education and intra-ethnic violence is gonna lose his next election.

See - that's what its all about....

Why look for power if you have so little intention to use it for what it can productively do?

Why look to be President, gaining the office on the strength of certain constiutencies like labor, gays and blacks and then compromise your values on things like NAFTA, don't ask don't tell and welfare reform?

This party needs to find its soul - it needs to imbue people with inspiration not victimization. WIth an uplifting message of hope and opportunity, not anger at others who have succceeded by playing by the rules and doing well.

Anonymous said...


I mean this will all sincerity - outstanding response!

I beg you to read Senator Obama's books (particularly The Audacity of Hope). Within I believe you will find someone who has identified a good number of your concerns and addresses not only a personal quest to find his base, or soul, but the need for his party to do so as well.

It's ultimately why in the face of being called "Judas" a man like Bill Richardson now supports Obama.