The Ostroy Report

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

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

There'll be "Race Riots" in The Streets?


And there you have it. The mother of all race cards. The thing that so many Democrats have quietly feared but haven't actually voiced. But one conservative pundit, Michelle Bernard, has been the only talking-head so far who's had either the bravado or the stupidity--I'm not exactly sure which--to actually say it out loud.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews Monday night, Bernard was part of a roundtable group discussing the Democratic primary battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. Near the program's end the conversation turned to the likelihood that Obama will end up with a majority of delegates Tuesday, and what impact that would have on the remaining unpledged super delegates in closing out this rancorous nomination process. Bernard boldy predicted: "Hillary Clinton's gonna become the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party. There is no way the super delegates can take this away from Barack Obama. There will be race riots in the street if he wins enough super delegates..." And with that supremely irresponsible, reckless, race-baiting comment she was abruptly cut-off by an incredulous Matthews as he closed the show.

Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative women's group founded in 1992 has, for some reason, become as ubiquitous on MSNBC as Matthews himself. She appears almost nightly on Hardball, and can also be found on the cable network's other political programs. First of all, she's a conservative, but is rarely if ever introduced as one. Next, she consistently showers Obama was such effusive on-air praise and support that one has to wonder whether or not there's some ulterior motive in play. Bernard's no dummy. She studied philosophy and political science at Howard University and received her law degree from Georgetown. It's at least fair to ask if Bernard's secret mission, suspected of so many other right-wingers in the media, is to promote Obama so feverishly because they believe they'd have a better chance of defeating him in November rather than Clinton?

But let's get back to the main issue here. The issue of Bernard's incredible race-baiting declaration. The whole primary process has driven both Democrats and Republicans mad. Many have done and said things that make absolutely no sense, that is of course unless race is the underlying factor. Let's take the whole super-delegate issue, for example. As every student of politics knows, the super delegate system was implemented 25 years ago to give party leaders and officials the power to decide the election if no candidate obtains the required minimum delegates; to choose a nominee if they felt that the people were sending an unelectable candidate into the general election. This was prompted by the weak campaigns of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. The responsibility of this elite group would be to ultimately decide, in extremely close elections exactly like the current Obama/Clinton battle in which neither candidate will reach the required 2209 pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination, who gets to represent the party in November. Dems da rules, kids. I ain't makin' this stuff up.

But something very strange has happened in 2008. People are forgetting the rules. People are forgetting why super delegates exist. People are saying that Obama should get the nomination simply because, on the last day of primaries, June 3rd, he'll have more delegates than Clinton. Wouldn't life be grand if it were that simple. If all a candidate needed was "the most" delegates we wouldn't have a 2209 minimum; we wouldn't need or have super delegates. We would simply just play out all the primaries and award the prize to the one who leads the delegate count at the end. No need to assess momentum, popular vote, overall electability or anything else.

Now, I'm going to go out on a very big limb here and say that race is at the root of this 2008 willful forgetfulness. That the rules are being overlooked because Obama is black. Because Democrats, as a general rule, are so insanely obsessed with being politically-correct that they cannot stomach the thought of how they'd be perceived within the black community if Obama's anticipated coronation were to be overturned. That yes, in the incendiary words of Bernard, there might even be...ssshhhh...get closer, I don't want to say this too loudly..."race riots in the streets" if this happened. So as a result, we have a legion of Democrats, Obama supporters, party officials and pundits declaring for months now that "it's over" and that Clinton should exit and let Obama assume what's rightfully his....rather than go about the process as the party intended 25 years ago when it created the super delegate system.

Now I know the above supposition will not make me popular. In fact, some might even say I'm crazy....maybe even call me a racist for it. But ya know what's really crazy? It's the ridiculous notion that the super delegate system wouldn't be operating as the party leaders planned had this year's tight battle been between two white men such as Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Would we be pounding the table in absolute, unconditional support for Dodd if perhaps he led Biden by 150 delegates at the end of the primaries, but well short of the 2209 minimum? Would all the media's talking heads be saying... "Dodd's ahead by 150 delegates...how could the super delegates overturn the will of the people...that's unjust!" Would party officials and the media be rushing to get Biden out of the race early so that the "rightful nominee," Dodd, could declare victory? Hell no. There'd be all sorts of back-room analyzing and maneuvering to decide which of these old white guys would be best to send into the general election against the other side's old white guy. And that would be it. Just as the party planned it 25 years ago. And there'd be no rioting in the streets. Unless of course, had Dodd lost, the Connecticut Starbucks crowd took to the streets and started pelting the police with their grande double-decaf whipped low-fat mocha lattes.

Will super delegates abdicate their ultimate responsibility and send into the general election someone who they might feel is not the best, most electable candidate because they fear the repercussions of the black community and the PC police? Will Democrats simply close their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for the best this November? Is losing in November more palatable perhaps than being labeled a racist, who overturned the "will of the people" or who may have even caused...race riots?

The simple truth is, Hillary Clinton, for all her warts and unpopularity, has certainly given super delegates a fairly compelling narrative. Technically, she leads in popular vote; she has won most of the big, core blue states; has captured the critical Democratic base of white working class, women, seniors, Hispanics and Catholics; and, since March 1, has racked up more delegates and popular votes than Obama. Now before the Obamacans start frothing at the mouth, I'm not saying that these facts should make her, not Obama, the nominee. I'm not saying it should materially change anything. What I am saying though, is that these factors should rightfully give pause to the super delegates, and the media, so that the process, and both candidates, can be fully flushed out and vetted before anyone is coronated. That we should at least let the system work as the party leaders planned 25 years ago before we have a rabid chorus of "quit" from everyone. Again, would all this be happening if the names were Dodd and Biden instead of Clinton and Obama? I suspect not. And that's a damned shame.


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.

46 Comments:

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    This entire post, Andy, rests on the specious assumption that if the superdelegates were to decide solely on the basis of electability then they would vote for Hillary Clinton. Sure, she has done better than Obama with the DEMOCRATIC white working class. But Hillary does pathetically with independents in a hypothetical match-up with McCain. She'll also lose plenty of Democrats as well. Also, many african-americans and young people would sit out this election. (just as many Hillary voters vow to sit out and vote McCain if Obama is nominated) Maybe Hillary is marginally more electable than Obama. Who knows this far out? But what has been a consistent factor is that Hillary is unliked by 50% of the population.

    Trust me, superdelegates take that into account when judged "electability." Your entire post rests on a fault premise. It is entirely possible for superdelegates to vote for Obama for both reasons: a) that they can't take it away from the first credible black candidate who has also energized the usually moribund youth, AND b) that they think he is actually more electable. (Don't forget that due to Clinton's being the underdog, the media has barely focused on the myriad presidency-era and post-presidency Clinton scandals. If she secured the nomination, the Republicans would not hesitate drudging them up and her numbers would suffer horribly. Superdelegats are aware of this, Ostroy.)

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger VennData said…

    I'm looking for sex riots in the streets if Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nomination. Then, if McCain loses in November, 'Gray Panther' terrorism against icons of youth: MTV, GTAIV sales outlets, dorm food service poisonings etc...

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Hey Sydney...what are you, Wayne? Have you lost your comprehesion skills?! Here's what I wrote:

    "I'm not saying that these facts should make her, not Obama, the nominee. I'm not saying it should materially change anything."

    Yet you write....
    "This entire post, Andy, rests on the specious assumption that if the superdelegates were to decide solely on the basis of electability then they would vote for Hillary Clinton."

    I think you're spending too much time on Long Island.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Michael said…

    Andy,

    Your contortions are hysterical.

    "Technically" Hillary Clinton leads in popular votes, only "actually" she doesn't.

    2209 is not the number of delegates necessary to win the nomination, no matter how often you now claim it to be. Michigan and Florida's delegations don't count in the nominating process at this point and this was agreed to by Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates at the time the decision was made by the DNC. The number of delegates necessary to clinch the nomination is 2025 and Barack Obama is about 110 delegates shy of that mark while Hillary Clinton is about 310 shy.

    Most importantly, do you think that the superdelegates have not considered Clinton's "compelling narrative"? Do you HONESTLY believe this?

    Seems pretty darn arrogant and dismissive of those who have made their decisions.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    I suppose I should hang w/ Millie and start spouting Hannity talking points....

    But, seriously, what's the thrust of your post if not for superdels to overturn the will of pledged delegates and go with Clinton. AFter all you say "What I am saying though, is that these factors should rightfully give pause to the super delegates, and the media, so that the process, and both candidates, can be fully flushed out and vetted before anyone is coronated." The assumption your making is that superdelegates have not had ample time now (at least a month) to make these considerations. Any further drawing out of the process beyond June 3 is a boon to the McCain campaign and a strike against the Democratic nominee (Obama). How much beyond the last primaries in Montana and South dakota, which are only in 2 weeks time, should superdelegates "pause" and consider?

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy your right,that's what it going on,people do see blacks rioting in the streets if obama is not the pick.And sidney needs to watch a little MSNBC,CNN,ABC and fox if he really thinks the media hasn't brought up clinton scandle's.Chris Mathew's of hardball wails on her every night.Otterman can't sleaze her enough.So if you want some one to believe you(SIDNEY)how about first telling the whole truth and not just what you like

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    I agree, 10:49am, that Olbermann and Matthews have shown a pro-Obama bias. Keep in mind, however, that these guys are not journalists. They provide opinion-based analysis and new coverage and opinions tend to be innately biased. However, the "MEDIA" (newspapers, all of cable news, blogs, radio, network news, etc...) has, by and large, either covered the horse race, inside baseball campaign issues, minor policy differences, and Obama's character issues. The media has almost exclusively focused their scandal coverage on Obama, and largely IGNORED the myriad Clinton scandals.

    Why, you may ask? B/C there's no point covering the Clinton scandals as the media (rightly or wrongly) has assumed, since the February, that Obama would be the nominee. So you may wish to tell the whole truth yourself, 10:49...and not the small sliver that supports your argument...

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I may be the first to say this, but here goes: If female Democrats who support Clinton vote for McCain over Obama simply because Obama dared to challenge Clinton in this contest and won (which is what they really mean by calling him sexist. How dare he beat a woman? He should have held the door open for her like a gentleman and allowed her to waltz into the convention unopposed), if female DEMOCRATS do this, well, maybe we did make a mistake by giving women the vote.

    If these female (taylor marsh reading) clinton supporters really cannot deal with the loss of the candidate in a fair and open process, then they are soo irrational that they should not be allowed to vote at all. So vote for McCain despite the fact that he will appoint conservative judges who will take away your right to choose, who will destroy environmental regulations, who will empower the powerful at the expense of the meek....all because you hold a grudge against Obama for his audicity in beating your preferred candidate...

    If McCain wins on the backs of these scorned women, then our democracy will have been replaced with a GYNOCRACY....

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Anonymous Michael said…

    11:25,

    I respect your right to say what you want, but will you not agree that even if this is what you honestly think and feel there are some things that just should not be said?

    Getting things off your chest can be helpful. But it seems to me your rant only fuels the fire of some of the more strident instead of winning them over with logic and righteousness.

    Maybe I'm out of place in writing this reply but es mi dos centavos, amigo.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Loonies have turned out in full-force totally missing the point of Ostroy's report.

    It's about RACISM. IT's about the THREAT of RIOTS in the street if the blacks don't get their way.

    It's about White Dems being so spinelss and fearful lthat they'll forfeit the rules, and the election, IF IT COMES TO THAT AFTER THE PRIMARIES, rather than be called Racists or risk racial animosity or violence.

    Get it through your heads. A prominent black leader said on a mjor TV network on a top-ranking show, Hardball, that if OBAMA DOESN'T WIN THERE WILL BE RIOTING IN THE STREETS>

    Do you not get the significance of that?????????

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    OSTROY IS BRILLIANT AND BRAVE BEYOND WORDS. SOMEONE HAS FINALLY SAID IT LIKE IT IS. THS THREAT HAS BEEN 'ON THE STREETS' FOR SOME TIME. I LIVE IN A SMALL TOWN AND A NIEHGBOR HOPED THAT THE WORST WOULD BE A THOUSAND MAN MARCH LED BY SHARPTON. I HOPE OSTROY DOESN'T GET DEATH THREATS LIKE G. FERARRO DID WITH HER CASUAL OBSERVATION ABOUT OBAMA.

    HOW ABOUT OSTROY FOR PRESIDENT.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A prominent black leader, 11:48? Are you fucking kidding me? She's a conservative television pundit. She has zero clout with the black community.

    Man, you are soooo afraid of black people, 11:48. They are your boogeymen. It's really quite sad.

    If Obama wins, some Hillary supporters will be pissed and wish to riot.

    If Clinton wins, some Obama supporters will be pissed and wish to riot.

    The difference here is that Obama will have more pledged delegates and more OFFICIAL popular votes. (Sorry, you can't agree with Andy about playing by the rules vis-a-vis the superdelegates, while at the same time saying "don't play by the rules" w/ respect to Michigan and Florida) Since Obama will have more pledged delegates, his supporters will have greater reason to be pissed and riot. Couple that with this nation's tragic history of oppressing blacks and you do indeed have real potential for rioting if Clinton and her supporters try to steal the nomination.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    11:48,

    Oh, we fully understand Andy's point. We simply do not agree with his assumptions or assertions.

    NO ONE on the Democratic side has threatened riots. Conservative pundits, such as Michelle Bernard and Rush Limbaugh, for months have gleefully suggested such riots could occur but I defy you to find one single source from the Democratic side actually ADVOCATING riots by African-Americans in Denver should Hillary be handed the nomination.

    It's a complete canard.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    God bless you Ostroy. Please keep up the good work. You are the sane reflection of light in this political mess in which most have crossed Hillary off.

     
  • At 12:35 PM, OpenID fiercepika said…

    Indeed, if we "play by the rules," Ostroy, Michigan and Florida don't count. Therefore Hillary's popular vote "lead" is in fact roughly negative 700,000. You're absolutely right, though, that if the supers decide to go with Hillary instead, those are within the rules, and it should be thought of as perfectly legitimate.

    I think the "riots in the streets" aspect is likely way overblown. That said, how do you think most black folks will feel if, given Obama's lead in every metric that matters according to the "rules," the supers go with Hillary? It may be legitimate, but it will sure SEEM otherwise, given the very long history of blacks being shut out of the process. What if the situation were reversed? I think you Hillary supporters would scream bloody murder. I don't support anyone's claims, one way or the other, to try to hold the party hostage over "riots in the streets," particularly according to identity politics.

    If we can trust polling this far out (dubious), they each have their advantages and disadvantages, although Obama does do much better with independents than Hillary does. I think a far more real and worrying outcome of the supers overturning the pledged delegate count is not "riots in the streets" but the disaffected youth vote. That vote is absolutely vital to Dem chances this year, and whatever the rules say, if the supers were to go with Hillary over Obama at this point, I think most would see it as "politics as usual" (which, incidentally, is what Clinton represents to many of them).

    Something rather drastic has to happen, I think, before Clinton's case goes from "compelling" to game changing.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:48 Right -- those endless string of black pundits who are on every TV talk show have absolutely no influence on the black community.

    Why did one of your own, an Obama suporter, fiercepika, say on another report that he's from Denver and he really hopes Obama wins to avoid possible riots. Look it up.

    It's like somebody said. the talk is on the street. That's why super delegates after super delagates are jumping over to O.

     
  • At 1:22 PM, OpenID fiercepika said…

    Hey, I just want to clarify: I was expressing a personal fear about riots, and I think it's more likely to be youth-oriented rather from "the black community" as such (they'll have more time and energy to commit to it, after all, and there are several large college/university campuses pretty close by). I think riots are less likely if Barack cruises to nomination and is not "usurped" by Clinton (as some would see it). This is a personal issue/fear, not an argument as to why Barack should get the nomination.

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Not that it makes a difference who is elected but, I think you are giving to must credit that this vote has not been hacked. If hacked your commentary lacks meaning. I suggest searching "black box voting" or watch Hacking Democracy on HBO. Our next Prez(if in name only) has already been selected for you.

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    don't you love it,the people saying there would be riots in the street if Obama don't win are the same people who said if OJ was found guilty there would be riots in the street,the jury aquitted him,no riots.These same people in the rodney king trial said if the police were found not guilty,there would be riots in the street.The first jury found them not guilty,there were riots in the street,so they did a end run around the verdict and tried the cops for civil right violations and got a guilty verdict,no riot in the street.They were right back then why would they be wrong now.Andy has every right to wonder if that might be why OBAMA has to be the dems pick

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    2:24pm is right..Obama has to be the dems pick. Not because he is, what's the word, FUCKING WINNING BY EVERY CONCEIVABLE, BY THE RULES, METRIC, but rather b/c the superdelegates are afraid blacks will riot.

    Ostroy, do you see what you have wrought?

    2:24pm is a vapid slug.

    Oh, and where the hell do you get off saying "the people saying there would be riots in the street if Obama don't win are the same people who said if OJ was found guilty there would be riots in the street"

    What do you mean by "same people"? Are you saying that Michelle Bernard, who Andy quotes in his post, said there would be riots in the street? Or by "same people" do you mean, generally speaking, black people or whites with black sympathies? God, you are living in the muck. Same people my ass. You are the missing link, my friend. Evolve and grow some thumbs.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1:25 PM

    exactly, it's all rigged. does anyone really think McCain has this much "support" in real life? gimme a break! if our votes truly counted we would be talking about Obama vs. Ron Paul in the General Election.

    Its time for a REVOLUTION

     
  • At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    oh and p.s.

    the Democrats and Republicans are both controlled by the New World Order. I used to consider myself a Democrat- no longer.

    they did a great job ending the war (stop fucking funding it) and impeachment for war crimes, when they gained control of the House AND Senate....

    good job NeoLibs!!!!!!!

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In general sidney,use your head for something other than a hat rack

     
  • At 2:53 PM, OpenID fiercepika said…

    Hehe, well, there's something we can all agree on: end the two-party system!

    While we're at it, let's make the House into MMP, that way we're guaranteed at least some Greens and Libertarians will be in the mix.

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    2:53pm,

    Apparently you think my post was dim-witted by my contention that it's ridiculous to believe that the superDs will hand it to Obama MERELY due to a fear of blacks rioting, rather than on the basis of his having, you know, won by every metric.

    So, I only use my head for holding my hat, hmm? Well, instead of just throwing stones, why don't you explain how that contention is NOT ridiculous? That way you can show us all how you use your brain.

     
  • At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    From Ezra Klein:

    Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Kennedy is the most effective, dogged, determined, and skilled liberal legislator in the Senate. He's one of the few Senators who is genuinely irreplaceable, whose absence would degrade the nation's social policy, and thus the life chances and economic security of millions of its disadvantaged residents. Without Kennedy, we wouldn't have the Americans with Disabilities Act, S-CHIP, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or any of a hundred other crucial pieces of legislation. Without Kennedy, it's hard to imagine passing universal health care. Without Kennedy, it's hard to imagine passing paid family or medical leave. Without Kennedy, it's hard to imagine our country becoming more decent or just or humane.

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Prius said…

    Okay, once again, the media wants Obama to run against McCain. That was the plan from the get-go. They made Barack the best thing since Viagra and hyped him more then Britney's love life. The media kept saying that Barack would be the one that would be hard to beat and that the Republicans did not want to face him. In fact it is Hillary that they are afraid of so knowing the sheep we have as voters all you have to do is use the old flim-flam trick and whala you get just what the right wing media wanted.

    You keep pushing a product hard and long enough and it doesn't take gullible people long to fall for it hook, line and sinker. Remember the SUV that everyone HAD to have? "You soccer moms really need these gas hogs to haul your groceries with, you'll be MUCH safer, and to hell with the gas mileage, you'll be SAFER." We need Obama, he'll make us safer and he'll be the new President we'll all be able to look up to. Trust us we know what we're talking about.

    Well as we're all watching the front door (Obama) the back door is being left wide open, and guess who will be entering that door come November, can we all say McCain? I'm still convinced that come this September (late) there will be an O-bomb-a shell that will rock the party and then the GOP picks up the their "hat trick".

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Forget them all, bring in an old white guy like Ron Paul. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
    Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Further evidence to discredit the popular, but fallacious, notion that Obama cannot win in a state merely b/c he lost it to Clinton...

    New poll by SurveyUSA shows Obama beating McCain by 8 points in Pennsylvania...If he chooses Edwards as his VP, he pulls away even further.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e658e86c5

    Clinton's argument that Obama cannot in the general win states he lost in the primary is completely off base. Can you say President Obama?

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Geraldine Ferraro was on the TV as well as others expressing sympathy for Kennedy Then she got off on the campagaign and she is furious. She will not vote for Obama. Another Dem Party woman got on and said that the Party was no longer the Party she knew and she will vote for McCain. It was pointed out, too, that Donna Brazille and Dean have engineered Obama's almost certain win over Hillary. I don't know about the New World Order or any of the other charges about the two parties, but I know that the Democratic Party is not the one that I loved and supported for years. And, now the country is in worse shape thab the sixties with the civil rights movment. The race relationship has been set back decades. All that seems clear is McCain will surely win for all of the wrong reasons. At least there won't be rioting.

     
  • At 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How convenient! Race riots? That ship has already sailed and capsized. The 60's are over, it IS a new century, racr riots would only confirm and validate what the world already knows about us....what? you want ME to 'splain to ya? LOL My question is why is anybody voting at all? What IS the point???? Not to be all pessimistic, but haven't we learned anything from these absurd four-year runs? Every four years the establishment trots out another(0r sometimes the same) "saviour" to lead us out of the morass that the last moron got us into. But at the end of their four year run, why there's yet ANOTHER morass that some one some where PUHLEEEZE get us out of this one and ...and ...you can have my first born, my taxes, anything, just fix it! And every four years we get to be bombarded, yes BOMBARDED with the lies of the next patsy. Well, fuck that! I refuse. After these last two Selections, what about THIS one is any different? Why hasn't Obama said one word.......not ONE WORD about 9/11? Why? Duuuuuuh. There won't be a race riot, people. Nothing quite so dramatic, there will be a four year wait for the next saviour to clean up after this one....again. Call me a downer, but I challenge you, what about anything I just said is not true? And I'm not supposed to complain?

     
  • At 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There's only ONE way to settle this.

    A fusion...Obama/Clinton ticket!

    Just as staunch Obama supporter, Andrew Sullivan proposed:

    May 4, 2008
    Obama-Clinton, a Hate-Filled Dream Ticket
    Andrew Sullivan

    It is for many in the Obama camp an unthinkable thought. But politics is sometimes the art of adjusting today to what seemed inconceivable yesterday. I'm talking about the possibility — and the powerful logic — of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats.

    I never thought I'd even consider it; but times change; politics shifts, and in the roiling flux of this American campaign, a bold unifying gesture could make the Democratic ticket — and an Obama presidency — unstoppable almost overnight. It's still highly unlikely, but so was JF Kennedy running with Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan running with the first George Bush.

    The rationale for a fusion ticket is the same as for any grand political compromise. The test of a president is his ability to recognise his own weaknesses and adjust to them. If he can do that while strengthening his core message, and make his own election close to unstoppable, what would hold him back?

    Read here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3866584.ece

     
  • At 9:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A recent post by Ostroy pointed out the fact that Obama's support has declined since the Wright, bitter, Michelle revelations. Therefore, if that had been known sooner he would not have a lead of any kind Even tonight on CNN it was broung out that she has "been on a roll" and he has had "issues" since March, about the time Wright came out. Obama cannot win. Not even with Hillary. Why should she put herself in the second position of a losing campaign? Her voters will not necessarily go to him since they do not like him. Ferraro has announced publicly she will not vote for Obama becausse he is a sexist.

    I heard another idea aired tonight and that is if she feels she deserves to be the nominee and it's denied (because of riots????) she will then run as an Independent. She probably could win in that position.

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    She probably can win as an independent? What are you, fucking retarded? You clearly do not have a political science degree...wait, you probably haven't graduated elementary school.

    Hillary has NO support among conservatives, very little support among Independents, and she has roughly HALF the support of liberals. How the fuck does she win w/ roughly 20-25% max of the vote? No, if she were to run as an independent, McCain would win. Plain and simple. Go back to civics class, 9:19pm, you vapid fool...

     
  • At 9:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy, I've respected much of your commentary until now .. and regretably I now consider you a fraud ... with regards to the quote re
    "There will be race riots in the street if he wins enough super delegates..." you failed to take the full sentence as she stated that there would be race riots IF Obama won enough delegates and he was not given the nomination ... The frustration would occur if Obama played by the rules of democratic party, won fair and square despite all of Hillary's shinanigans and the nomination was given to Obama instead...


    When you have a portion of the population that works hard every day as other 'hard working white americans' only to see on the news that police officers are not charged for firing 50 bullets at an unarmed black person celebrating his stag a day before planning to get married ... People could be a tad frustrated if Obama nomination is removed after wining on all counts ...

    Please restore my faith in responsible blogging and avoid cheap 'sentence splitting' to garner shameful and incorrect intrepretation

     
  • At 10:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    9:42 Besides your being rude beyond redemption you are stupid as well. However, the point is all the Democrats who are not going to vote for Obama if Hillary is not the candidate will vote for her as an Independent. That means almost all of the Dems who are women and many Repubican women who are also tired of mysogyny. Then she will pick up the more liberal Republicans who are not pleased with Bush or McCain and she will win others from all groups by her brilliance and appeal.

    And, as contemptible as you are, you too will benefit from her presidency.

     
  • At 10:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The rules are: to win, a Democratic candidate has to have the number of pledge delegates required by the rules to become the nominee. Obama does not have the required number nor is there a chance he will. Neither will Hillary In that case, the rules say the Super Delegates will use the evidence and their wisdom to choose the candidate more likely to win agsint the other party's candidate. Those are the rules. They can choose EITHER Obama or Clinton depending on the one most likely to win. And AT ANY TIME DELEGATES CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND. ONCE PLEDGED THEY ARE STILL FREE TO CHANGE. There is no way that if they choose Hillary they have broken the rules. They merely may decide Obama has too much baggage to win.

    I presume 9:54 you're talking about the shooting in Brooklyn that riled Sharpton and everyone else for that matter. Amoung the irreponsible cops who shot and killed the man were two black cops. This is not a racial incident of white cops randomly shooting blacks.

    I'm not sure but I think I heard that they had reason to shoot since the car with the man who was shot didn't stop when ordered.

    It behooves us all not to change the facts to win a point.

     
  • At 11:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The republicans would like to run against obama he is black. It is not rocket science. 75% of the country is redneck. All you have to say is "hi i am a white guy running against a black guy vote for me". White america rather fail with a white guy than succeed with a black guy. Come on; My favorite saying is 90% of white people are racist and of the last 10% 5% is one mugging away from being racist.

     
  • At 11:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    10:48pm has no understanding of electoral politics. He or she is wildly delusional about Hillary's potential support among liberal Republicans, who McCain will scoop up easily (not that there are many of that breed left anyway) as he is considered a bipartisan maverick. Hillary won't even pick up many Republican women either. You overstate the case for reverse discrimination. Republican women have never been supporters of Hillary. They won't vote for her solely b/c she has a vagina just like them. They are complex voters and not simpletons as you would have us believe. At best, Hillary as an Independent, and i'm being very generous, nets 25% of the overall vote. Enough to deny Obama the win, but not enough to win on her own. McCain would likely win w/ a plurality (under 50%) much as Bill Clinton did in 1992.

    Now go back to your bong, you delusional wacko...

     
  • At 11:14 PM, OpenID fiercepika said…

    10:48: Um, you're totally out to sea.

    1. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that "all the Dems who are women" will vote for Hillary. According to national polling she's trailing Obama among women (to this end in a new national Gallup poll, she's trailing Obama in general by a significant margin among Democrats).

    2. Ferraro calling Obama sexist doesn't make Obama sexist. I'm not saying he isn't, but what kind of authority is she? She's just pissed because Hillary's losing, and in the process she was viciously attacked for her racist remarks.

    3. If you think Republicans will vote for Clinton, you really have another thing coming. Republicans HATE the Clintons, even the liberal ones. They hate her irrationally, and so it doesn't matter how smart, capable and good with policy she is.

    4. Hillary herself will never go independent, and refusing to vote for Obama results in president McCain.

    5. Time and again, Obama polls better with independents than Clinton, even after the gaffes and scandals of the last two months. Whatever the reason (and I don't rule out sexism), that's the way it is.

    I'm going to pose this question AGAIN, which has never been answered here: why would you vote for McCain over Obama? In what universe does that make sense? To this end, in my view Ferraro has lost all credibility.

     
  • At 4:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    America's media mafia is the last place one would go to find out the whole truth about anything and since the major networks are virtually connected to the governments hip, why would you want to switch on the ABCNBCBS's anyway?
    Unless you enjoy the bright lights and sounds of infomercial news , then by all means.. these are the people who would sell their own souls for peace of mind. Makes sense to them. Me, I'll just stick to the serious issues without the side dishes and focus on bringing true justice to that which was promised to all free people through the internet. The heart of the beast.

    Everything else is just a ratings grab.

    -CNN SUCKS

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:05 Your racism is startling. You say that the majority of whites are racists and those who are will be after being mugged. Your implication is that the whites are justified in their racism because they have been mugged/harmed by blacks; and, that those who remain non-racial, will become racists after their inevidable mugging by a black.

    I can't wait to hear your reasoning about why the blacks are also racists.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    ANON 9:54...you write:

    Andy, I've respected much of your commentary until now .. and regretably I now consider you a fraud ... with regards to the quote re "There will be race riots in the street if he wins enough super delegates..." you failed to take the full sentence as she stated that there would be race riots IF Obama won enough delegates and he was not given the nomination ...

    Well, you are 1000% dead wrong, my friend. The quote from Bernard is EXACTLY how it came out of ehr mouth. Word for word. From the moment her lips parted and these moronic words came out, right until the point Chris Matthews stopped her dead in her moronic tracks and cut her off. Here's a nice challenge for you: get a transcript of the show and prove me wrong here.
    Andy

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Andy,

    I really cannot believe you even gave credence to a conservative pundits claim by making it the subject of a post as if she was a black leader with her finger on the pulse of the black community. All you have done here is futher fan the flames of racial fear. You become more Mildred-like with each passing day. Next you'll be quoting Bill O'Reilly as being representative of what the Irish are contemplating and/or threatening.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    FYI Sidney, You have lost all credibility as a serious or functioning poster after several responses brimming with hatred, venom, irrationality and vulgarity. This is your typical response even when the disagreement with you is mild. And I'll probably generate another such response from you. Here goes: This post of Ostroy's is aboslutely something all should read and the threat is real.

     
  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Do you realize you have no credibility b/c you post as "anonymous"? If you are a regular poster, then come up with a name and gain some credibility which flows from enhanced accountability. Until then, your thoughts are worthless...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home