DISQUS

I have NO REASON to listen to the advice of some crazy person who calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party". Yeah, you really care about what happens to Barack Obama...okay...let me get the money to buy that bridge you're selling...

It's basically reaching out to as many people as possible, which is expensive and very, very time-consuming vs. turning out the base in large numbers and trying to drive down the favorables of your opponent, which can lead to fervent support but less potential for growth.

You can find similar speeches on Youtube even. Those speeches by King are quite popular I believe and yet the news media doesn't pick that up?!


It's rank anti-intellectualism, the open discouragement from critical thought, that's driving this hypocritical meme about Rev. Wright.

I can't vote McCain. Although she hasn't always been good to my people, I still love this country way too much to vote for John W. McBush. No damn way.


Clinton is making it hard for me to want to even hold my nose and vote her way. She thinks McCain is a better candidate than a fellow Dem? She believes you have to scare the people into voting for you? She believes in tearing everyone else down so she can be lifted up?



Her administration would be bad news; she'd have critical press all the time, and the only way she'd be able to pass critical programs is by smearing, slandering and destroying the careers of all those in her way. That's only going to make the next generation of politics more nasty, but even more importantly, much more unproductive and illogical. If her proposals weren't at least better on the whole than anything McBush can come up with, I'd think about voting McBush over Clinton. For now, I'm wavering between voting McKinney, Clinton or just staying home is Hillary is nominated.



NOTE: I sincerely think that the most effective way for a constituency taken for granted to show displeasure with a party is to not vote at all. The significant loss of voters nationwide is much easier to identify and history tells me encourages the parties to start engaging that group on their playing field (see: current Dem. wooing of evangelicals, budget hawks) instead of taking those voters for granted again.

McCain needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I think we should be able to turn the other cheek and let Hillary gracefully exit stage right once this is over, and focus our sights on McCain, who's not really fit to be President. Seriously.


Hardball is one of the key shows for MSNBC, and Chris Matthews gets suckered in by any and all pols and their soaring rhetoric, from Obama to Clinton to GWB. He loves politicians and has a creepy fascination with politics in general.

The last lines were great. The best way he can defend against the Clintonian attacks now are with humor. I think if he makes it out to be humorous, he can laugh Hillary off, and that would be AWESOME.

In reply to these quotations:


"Obama talks about unity but has tried to center his positions to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Does he have a record of bipartisanship?"



These points, if one is to take anything substantial away from a politician's voting record AND stated positions, makes Obama out to be a flip-flopper, but it's sadly mired in those nasty things like logic, fact and context. How sad for that commenter. Obama's 'most liberal voting record' is a meme that is such a canard the very editor of the magazine that broke that supposed story, National Journal, has already said it's "misleading" to use their representation of Obama's record against him. Also, his positions are actually quite progressive in any number of areas from healthcare to poverty to taxation to foreign policy. I don't think he's a perfect progressive, no, but he's not billing himself as a DINO in any way.



"Obama talks about fiscal responsibility when he has proposed new government programs and agencies that will cost billions and earmarking ten of millions of dollars in new spending while claiming that the economy is on the verge of a recession."



You sound like you'd have the government NOT spend money while in a recession and YET you criticize Obama for supposedly tacking too far to the right? Keynesian economics (investing in the infrastructure and economy to spur growth) is certainly a much more progressive economic policy than being a budget hawk would be. Your point, while the underlying thought behind it may be valid, itself is nonsensical in light of your previous sentences.



"I do not ascribe to the notion that Obama supporters are 'hopeless Hopemongers' or that they are uneducated! You can't diminish real questions and contradictions about your candidate with such lame comebacks."



If you were the other Anon to ask people if they knew anything about Obama, then it certainly is odd that you now say you don't think supporters of Obama stupid.



By the by, the comment about John Edwards being a more genuine populist, while it says NOTHING about who is more PROGRESSIVE (two different movements) is only true if you exclude the way Sen. Edwards, then a centrist pro-war Democrat, voted in the Senate. If you do think that is fair, then why count Sen. Obama's votes against him? Because it's fun? Because it's fashionable? Because he's a possible nominee? Talk about contradictions.



"Why not use this forum to persuade many of us on the fence who are taking a look at Obama and trying to make an informed decision."



I do not know about others here, but I'm not good at that over the Internet, I'm much better at that in person. I do think, however, that if you're genuine in your interest, there are a lot of great ways to do so and launching an opening salvo or bomb-lobbing usually isn't one of the better strategies. It's up to you really.

I don't know. Personally I want him to buy in so we can get back to talking things like Iraq and tax cuts.


Also, I'd rather not give future generations a context for opting out of the system if they get more money than the public financing would give. It may be lots of small donors now, but in the future it may just be corporate America being back TOTALLY by one solitary candidate getting many donations from all over the private sector. Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm nuts, but I think it's possible and a real fear. Think it over, I say.

Al Wynn tried to cast himself as endorsed by Obama and he did the same, saying he supported Barack. Obama, to his credit, didn't acknowledge Wynn in the least, from what I know. Same for Donna Edwards.

Wynn's a pretty petty, nasty, ruthless corporate, Chamber of Commerce dude. However, the Washington Post projects her to win the primary, so Wynn's out of there, unless he wants to run a third party campaign.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2008/02/edwards_opens_a_lead_against_w.html

I forgot to add that Tennessee had lots of old people, Arizona has lots of Latinos, and New Jersey and Massachusetts had lots of women, so they're all disqualified! No valid wins for Hillary Clinton!

Yeah, well she won NH because white women rallied to her side, so that one definitely can't count. Nevada was an undemocratic caucus, so it's out. California had early voting, so it's gone. Florida and Michigan broke the rules, so they MUST be invalid. Arkansas and Oklahoma are red states, so they're gone. New York is her home state, so buh-bye.


Only Massachusetts and New Jersey are allowed to count...for now.

Did he win? Did he spend huge amounts of money to get an "atta boy"? No and no? Well, I guess that's a waste.

Why debate on FOX? They would have little chance to reach out to anyone, and they'd be validating Fox News. There's no need nor benefit.

I thought Obama supporters were crazy cultists! That's what Talk Left tells me!

Have you done a Talkback to Talk Left? Those guys are like an anti-Obama echo chamber. Hillary Clinton can do no wrong, but Obama and his supporters are insane cultists and if they defend their candidate, they're asked to leave the site! For a site started by lawyers, they seem a lot more like idiots. (Sorry, I used to love the site, but they've been just getting way too obsessed over their Obama and Obama supporter hatred)

D,


1. Just as fellow Republicans did not give Sen. McCain his age, but voters worry about that, too. Is that fair? I don't think it is. Maybe my mind will change as the general election approaches and I become more partisan, that's entirely possible, but right now, making such characteristics into political issues is still objectionable politics, like the "illegitimate brown baby" robocalls in the 2000 GOP primary.



2. You're right, I'm wrong on that one. I had thought the US had ratified the UDHR's Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It's about on par with individual ownership of firearms -- not a right but a privilege. So I accept that it is not a right, though I think we SHOULD then ratify the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and we have to ensure that every citizen has an opportunity to be healthy by providing health insurance to all. We provide health coverage to prisoners, we should at least give the same *privileges* to the rest of the citizenry.



3. Accepting that the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror is misleading. It was not until we invaded and attracted more people against our country. Staying there has festered more violence around the world. Will groups like Al Qaeda and HAMAS still wish for our downfall? Yes. Do we have to give them ammunition by perpetually occupying Arab lands? No.



I also do not think we should set a precedent that a president can lie the nation into a war with doomsday rhetoric and then afterward say the problem the invasion started needs to be damped down, thusly we need to continue the war based on lies in the first place. Does that make sense? I do not want this sort of war happening again and if we continue to sanction it by allowing permanent bases and occupation and accepting the entire conflict as necessary, we'll be setting just such a precedent. That precedent is MUCH more harmful for us, encouraging perpetual offensive warfare, than withdrawal is, at this point. Either way, we've helped al Qaeda regain strength, either we continue to help them regain strength or we don't. I say we don't.



On another point, the idea that because a debate over the way we went into the war will be long means it shouldn't be a factor now is off-base. Why we bombed Iraqi villages and cities, busted down their doors and searched their homes, deposed not only their dictator and his corrupt family members but also many influential people who happened to be a part of his party, (the only one allowed to participate I believe) etc. is important. It's important to us as the people funding and sanctioning this war and it's important to the Iraqi people and to the countries in the region who have to take in refugees, spend many resources to secure their borders and plan to grapple either with a vacuum of power or a U.S. pawn complicit in further American aggression. They need to believe that these consequences are undertaken because the mission we are taking in Iraq is noble, and not that it's the latest reason given by an incompetent administration that wanted war before it knew what that meant.



We can't just sweep the way we went in under the rug, well maybe we can here because it feels better that way, but it goes toward credibility, integrity, soft power, the ability to affect positive change in other nations without aggressive means and thusly the ability to effectively fight terrorism on multiple fronts with allies of all different types. If we don't have credible reasons for attacking nations pre-emptively, then when we say we want to fight terrorism and we equate this war with terror, people don't believe us and they shouldn't.

D,


I think having tax cuts that help widen the economic gap and ultimately weaken the economy are bad. I think it should be evident that Reaganomics didn't work well while Reagan was in office and it's not doing so now. Doing so especially in a time of war, when we need revenue for the supplies and tools needed for the troops, that to me is disgusting and McCain 1.0 thought the same thing. Too bad McCain 2.0 "evolved his position" on tax cuts for the wealthy.



I think universal health care is a right of free people that our government has abridged for too long. I don't think "freedom" and "liberty" just mean let corporations run wild on the backs of the people. I think true liberty involves an amount of equity as well, and so unexplained "socialist" fearmongering won't sway me.



Universal health care would provide massive budgetary savings, lowers premium costs, and can allow MORE choice and portability of medical insurance and coverage than current managed care. So, yeah, hate us horrible tax-and-spend liberals who love to save money and expand choice.



I think the pre-emptive warfare has to be something America has to be more careful and honest about, not just jumping into war without a purpose or on false premises. That obviously did not happen with respect to Iraq and I think we need to leave. I do not like that we invaded Iraq, to be civil about it, and I cannot vote for candidates who want to continue the war in Iraq.



This doesn't mean that I hate the troops or that I want terrorists to win. I think we'd have National Guard troops that could be in America, ready to protect us in case of any sort of national emergency if we didn't have this unnecessary war, I think we'd have the troops available to secure Afghanistan and attack Osama bin Laden along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border if we were not engaged in this war, and I think our nation would have more soft power within the Middle East were we not so stubbornly refusing to consider leaving Iraq.



Lastly, the politics of the Republican Party are at least equally disdainful, in my mind, as that of Hillary Clinton. The GOP seems to have no problem with fearmongering, (If you don't support me, then the country will be attacked again sort of rhetoric for one) nor identity smearing. (Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the madrassa story, calling Hillary the "bitch", John Edwards the "faggot", etc.)



There's more reasons to despise the current crop of GOP candidates and the party, but I wanted just to give you the first few things that came to my mind about this corporatist, fascist, pandering, hateful ideologues that call themselves leaders.

Michelle,


Let me take note of what you said, because I think I was a little ignorant in my first couple replies.



I do not think the Clinton administration was overall "black" by ANY gracious standards about which we look at black America. Bill Clinton was only "black" if we look at blackness through the corrupted lens of negative stereotypes.



Still, like I said, I think personally that the GOP has such a crock of shit crop of candidates that they need to be defeated. I do not like many of Hillary's policy positions and I hated her entire campaign tactic and theme to the core, but I do not want another administration like the one we have now. I do not think you do either.



I believe firmly that John McCain or Mitt Romney would be worse for all of us as people and as Americans than both Clintons combined, though they are far and away not the best choice.



(The best choice is Green Party, but who's counting?)



Maybe I'm believing in a boogeyman or something, but I do not see the Democratic Party and Republican Party as two hands of the same fist, but as two arms of the same body. I believe that if our arm gets stronger than the Right's, we can make some small-scale but still important changes to the body politic and I cannot let that go.

Nance,


Speaking for myself only I'd love to have a conversation as to why I think a lot possible Clinton supporters are swearing them off and dismissing them. I'll do what I can to be civil and respectful and just try to be honest.



First things first, I agree that from what little I know, her staff I believe was the most diverse of any presidential candidate in the major parties. (I don't know about 3rd parties is all) That is, to me, a great thing, if it belies the sort of campaign she would run, the sort of politics in which she would engage.



Secondly, I sincerely agree with you that Hillary Clinton has gotten a LOT of negative press, and very much of it was unearned. People of the left and right hate them in the media and throughout America. This leads to staunch defenders, of course, but it also has to obviously led to negative biases and negative stories in the press. Chris Matthews comes to mind right off the bat.



--->Now, to go on what may be considered a tangent but is actually important to this discussion, I feel that black voters in particular are known, rightly or wrongly, (I do not have exit polls from Clinton's 92 and 96 runs) as historically strong Clinton backers. Historically rock-solid, in fact. With this rock-solid base, I believe, there was supposed to be a sort of unwritten social contract, where black America was at least supposed to feel defended by the Clintons and not attacked.



When Barack Obama came into the race, my suspicion is that contract became a tightrope that the Clinton campaign gave up on when Obama took Iowa. They began with the drug smear and the unfounded implication and accusation that Obama SOLD drugs, and then they moved onto repeating right-wing smears of his name and implying he was a Muslim, wrongly.



I don't have to continue down this path, because not only do I think you know this all already, but there is a wiki already set up on this site that details many of these and other incidents that the Clinton campaign has gone into that culminate in a very distasteful, racially-charged experience that has been almost completely orchestrated and run by the Clinton campaign, while Barack Obama's campaign has tried, unwittingly to follow up with its own attacks and antics, falling in part to the trap set up for them.



This clearly broke the social contract and left many fellow brothers and sisters confused, unable to understand why the "first black president", at what seems now to be the climax of this strategy so far, would dismiss the black voters of South Carolina as mere sheeple.



So to me, when you ask why there are so many black bloggers here that are mad at Bill and Hillary so much (and of course it'll be taken out on Hillary who ostensibly runs her own campaign) that they're promising not to vote for her, I point to the breaking of what seemed a simple promise -- don't insult us. They did, and so a lot of people are done with them.



So, let me try to say this in a way that answers your comment.



It's not that these bloggers haven't tried to understand the Clintons and where they're coming from.



It's more like:

A) The Clintons clearly don't understand black America enough to know that using racial dogwhistle time after time after time were not going to play with black voters who saw a possibly successful black candidate.

B) Black America either knew the Clintons enough to vote for Bill twice, or not enough to know that his Slick Willie tactics could one day reverberate onto one of our own.



I again think it's to our peril ultimately if we are the deciding vote that allows a GOP president for what'll probably be 8 more years, but I must say I find it hard to be sympathetic to the cause of having black voters, who have been repeatedly insulted, demeaned, debased and attacked by the Clinton campaign in this cycle (all in the pursuit of victory), suddenly ignore this slander and vote Hillary.



To be plain, there are immensely, earth-shatteringly many hurt feelings. And that's an important problem for the Clinton team come general election time.

Nance,


I don't think calling their reasons, most of which seem to hit on the same theme, "any reason", as though people are throwing darts on a 100-Reasons-to-Hate-Hillary dartboard and using whatever talking point it lands on, is very fair or respectful of the intellect of the people you're talking to.



If you read what they're saying, most of it will talk about the idea that the Clinton campaign started race-baiting Obama at least since the IA caucuses if not before and that for many (not all but many) bloggers of color who watch this election closely, those tactics are too Machivellian, too craven, too racist to let any precedent of support for such politics stand. They, from what I gather, do not hate Hillary, are not being irrational and don't worship Obama. (I hope they don't)



What I see are people who feel this is about principle and fairness. They see a white family (The Clintons) privileged even among whites going against a talented man of color and using race-baiting tactics to keep him down and they care less about defeating the Republican than they do about not supporting race-baiting tactics, not now, not ever.



Do I agree? No. I have said that I feel McCain and Romney and Co. will set a worse precedent for the entire nation including us as people of color, then the Clinton campaign. I feel the GOP has not changed to a center-right party that at least believes in responsible tax policy or responsible foreign policy or at least responsible politics. They still are pandering, bottom of the barrel, far-Right ideologues and they have to be stopped.



But, please try to understand where others are coming from.



Hyperbole that insists people unwilling to vote for someone they feel has denigrated them personally by using racially-coded language deliberately and repeatedly are somehow unable to have "an open mind" makes a mockery of itself.

D,


There are third parties...

I think $32 million is a lot of money? How's that?

Obama has cut a bit into Clinton leads in the Feb. 5 states, but he needs a close margin in the big ones, CA, NY, PA, NJ, and win GA, IL, to stay close.


If it's all about delegates, then he needs to tighten it up in FL tonite, he needs to really tighten up CA (it needs to be within margin of poll error, to be honest, because of the number of delegates) and other big states like NY, PA, NJ need to get really close too.



He needs a big margin in southern states like AL, GA, (as well as home state IL) and he needs to be close if not win AR.



Obama has to get Western states like CO and the midwest like KS as well.



All in all, tall order, so he needs stamina and money and people. He has to try to at least hold some town halls and give some speeches to the people of these states so they can see him on TV at least, and he needs to do some major ad buys. This is the time to drain the account for both candidates. And of course he needs to find some way to quickly mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to help work polls in each state.



I do not envy his position.

That NOW statement sounds like the immature rantings of a child who just got beat in one-on-one by his baby brother or sister. It reeks of "I'm taking my ball and going home!" and that's a bad sign of desperation.


I know it's a press release, but lines like "This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights..." itself is telling in the narrow-minded obsession the organization has on Hillary Clinton.



That's as though a local NAACP chapter had said Andrew Young supporting Hillary (just supporting Hillary, not any specific comment) was tantamount to begging the massa for scraps at the table. It's incredibly whiny and sad to see.