Disqus - Latest Comments for B-Serious

Re: Senator Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

B-Serious — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:10:00 -0000

Hey everyone, I'm new around here. This is great news. I'm thinking this week will role out a lot of major endorsements. It will show that the democratic party is truly ready to turn the page and start in a fresh new direction.

Al Gore can't be too far behind. If so, Obama should save that endorsement until Wednesday morning - steal the headlines and prevent Hillary from getting any cheap publicity/momentum coming out of the Florida Primary.

Hey everyone. Take a moment and visit me at my brand new blog, Operation Reach B.L.A.C.K. I'm still working out some of the kinks, but I've got 7 or 8 posts up that you can take a look at.

Just visit: http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

<b... Obama!

Re: Some Quick Thoughts - One Is Mean

B-Serious — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:17:00 -0000

Wow. Those students hit the bullseye when they noticed the different ways in which gender and race play in this campaign. I'm going to try and write about it this weekend on my blog.

I keep on saying that Hillary's campaign has a strong "us v. them" quality to it. It's like Bush . . . "Either you're with us or you're against us!" All for political gain.

Hillary has played off of the "woman power" message in ways Obama could NEVER benefit from talking about "black power." Hillary keeps talking about the old boys club (as if the obstacles of exclusivity somehow don't apply to the only BLACK man in the Senate). Could you imagine the backlash Obama would get if he came in front of the cameras and started talking about White institutions and White exclusivity?

All I know is this. Hillary and Bill spend months spewing racially coded language at Obama through their surrogates and it's still a DEBATE as to whether or not Obama should have the right to feel offended. But Obama looks in Hillary's direction at the SOTU and he's "staring down" Hillary Clinton. He says "your likeable enough" at a debate and people say "we don't like your tone of voice." He has the audacity to not be standing at attention, waiting to bow to Hillary at the SOTU and all of a sudden he's "snubbing" her. Remember Rick Lazio? He "invades her personal space" and people go crazy. They're trying to do that to Obama.

Hillary benefits when people see her as the victim. They want to protect her. But mainstream America has no natural inclination to PROTECT black men or rush to a black man's defense. On the contrary, we're seen as the threat, not the victim.

Gloria Steinem plays the gender card in her (intellectually dishonest) op-ed piece a few weeks ago. The National Organization for Women cries BETRAYAL of all women just because Kennedy had the audacity to endorse Obama over Clinton. Could you imagine the backlash against Obama if the NAACP came out attacking people like that?

Divisive politics as usual.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

Re: Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:43:00 -0000

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

To g.d.: Respectfully, No, I will not be voting for Clinton. The Clintons are unapologetically divisive. They play off of identity politics to win slim pluralities of a fragmented electorate. This does not mean that I'd vote Republican. But you've got to draw the line somewhere.

I have no allegiance to the Clinton brand. Therefore, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt once they resort to gutter politics to obtain power - especially when such gutter politics comes by way of racial code and southern strategey. The Clintons have shown a disturbing level of comfort when it comes to throwing us black folk under the bus to score political points.

I do NOT want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Clintons would smother Obama (just ask Al Gore about his experience as V.P.). He'd be little more than window dressing to the Clinton Co-Presidency. Neither would I want to see an Obama/Clinton ticket. Bill and Hillary Clinton would overshadow and undermine Obama's authority. People might see Obama as an empty suit while still thinking that the Clintons are really in charge.

Additionally, Obama's would-be 2016 race as the incumbent V.P. would surely be handicapped by 8 more years of Clinton fatigue and scandals.

Sure, the Clintons are great so long as everything goes their way. But they showed just how low they're willing to stoop once they're not the center of attention. I, for one, am sick and tired of centrist Democrats taking progressive votes for granted and assuming that we'll always kiss and make up in the end. Bottom line . . . all of that lovey-dovey crap that Hillary tried to show last night goes right out the window the second she gets the feeling that she might lose her "entitlement" to the White House.

Re: Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:54:00 -0000

As for the debate, I gave the slight edge to Obama. Why? As was said amongst some of the punditry, people came into this debate thinking one of two things: 1.) Obama needs to knock the champ out; or 2.) Obama needs to prove that he can go the full twelve rounds.

Hillary's biggest sticking point is her claim that Obama is in over his head; that he lacks experience and a sufficient grasp of the issues. Obama had to show that he's not just all talk. He did that. Obama stuck with Clinton on every issue and showed just as much complexity and understanding of policy as Clinton did.

Plus, I think Obama solidified his position amongst progressives who might have been on the fence between him and Hillary. The discussion of the Iraq war was big. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge her mistake in voting for it; her attempt to justify her vote because she TRUSTED Bush to not use said authorization for war is a JOKE. I saw a few progressives flat out state that her answer was offensive. Obama came out ahead in that part of the debate. I think the war issue still has legs. How can Democrats be the anti-war party and vote for someone who still won't acknowledge that her vote was a mistake? It shows a certain level of stubbornness that many voters are sick of seeing with Bush.

Look, there were no knock-out punches. But Obama did three important things: 1.) He showed that he can be just as much of a policy wonk as Clinton; 2.) He re-established himself as the clear anti-war candidate (relatively speaking) despite the Clintons' attempts to diminish that contrast over the past few weeks; and 3.) He showed that he'd make the best candidate to defeat John McCain should he be the Republican nominee. It's been said before . . . you can't have nearly 70% of the American people against this war, yet still end up with two candidates who voted for it (and show no signs of doubting their decisions). That's what we'd get with a Clinton v. McCain matchup. That's not change.

Most importantly, Obama knows that the longer this thing goes, the more likely he is to get the nomination. Obama is trending upwards and Clinton downward. All Obama's got to do is get a fair split in delegates coming out of Super Tuesday. With(apparently) more money, and a growing list of endorsements, Obama is in very good position to take this thing.

Re: Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:07:00 -0000

To anonymous - Re: #3

LOL . . .Yeah, Whoopi's been trippin' lately. But, as you alluded to, I rarely look towards her for racial consciousness. Sherri Shephard is of little help as well. That show sees nothing wrong with the Clinton tactics of the past few months. And yes, Hillary is always the victim on that show.

It's a shame when Elizabeth Hasselback turns out to be the voice of reason for racial topics on that show.

Re: Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:59:00 -0000

Ms. Michelle,

I could not have said it any better myself. Bravo!

Re: Bill’s ‘Mea Culpa’ Church Tour

B-Serious — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:33:00 -0000

Call me crazy. But why do I sense another "Sister Souljah" moment coming?

I love this line from the story:

"Luis Vizcaino, a spokesman for Clinton's California campaign, objected to The Sleuth's use of the phrase 'mea culpa' to describe what Clinton planned to say on Sunday. He said there's no need for an apology because he 'has tremendous support here in the state' and is 'the most popular Democrat in the country.'"

Does that strike anyone else as being a little odd? Normally, an apology (or lack thereof) is based on whether or not someone thinks they've wronged another person, group, etc. It's NOT based on popularity or how high one's favorability ratings are. It's a matter of principle, not popularity.

But, like I said in my blog . . . The Clintons are banking on the assumption that we'll always come back:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-my-religion.html

Re: Bill’s ‘Mea Culpa’ Church Tour

B-Serious — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:57:00 -0000

rikyrah,

Wow those numbers coming out of California and New Jersey are HUGE! Just yesterday, I saw a poll that had Clinton ahead in California by about 15%. But, to my knowledge, that wasn't an updated poll. This IS an updated poll and it proves that Obama has big-time momentum. Let's hope the Sunday talk shows pick this up.

I definitely think that Obama is going to surprise people on Tuesday. Conventional wisdom has him coming out slightly behind in delegates after Tuesday. But these new numbers seem to suggest that Obama will actually maintain his lead.

Either way, it's looking good. In the least, Obama gets a fair split of the delegates on Tuesday. After that he's already got an estimated 20 million or so saved up to spend in the next round of states (not including new donors, etc.) Once again, the longer he stays in this thing, the better his chances are for winning the nomination.

As for black/latino relations, it would warm my heart to see a large percentage of Latinos support Obama. The Clinton spin on this whole issue is amazing. It's like, Clinton's pollster comes out with a statement that Latinos won't support a black candidate and . . . Presto! Clinton's projected to win the Latino vote 2 to 1. But, as you suggest, that might be changing.

I know both groups have their differences (which should be addressed), but the black/latino connection is a powerful force if we can ever get on the same page.

Re: Ethel Kennedy & Susan Eisenhower Endorse Obama

B-Serious — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:41:00 -0000

Hey everyone. There's a truly inspirational video sweeping the internet.

Props to will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas for putting this independent video together. Do yourselves a favor and check it out:

http://www.dipdive.com/

and

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGBMy

YES WE CAN!!!!!

Re: will.i.am Obama Music Video - Yes We Can

B-Serious — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:49:00 -0000

Absolutely amazing! It gives me chills. I love the sincerity and inspiration that this video conveys.

I'm passing this along to as many people as I can. I've even sent the link to my local news station and radio station.

Honestly, this should be his next commercial! Please, if anyone knows how to get this into rotation on MTV, BET, etc., try to do so.

YES WE CAN!!!!

Re: will.i.am Obama Music Video - Yes We Can

B-Serious — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:05:00 -0000

Big News! Maria Shriver. . .Yes that same Maria Shriver who is married to Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . that same Kennedy woman who's husband just endorsed John McCain . . . has endorsed Barack Obama!

Absolutely HUGE news! A major surprise!

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/maria-shriver-endorses-barack-obama.html

Re: Super Tuesday Results -Obama Wins 13 States

B-Serious — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:28:00 -0000

Let's hope Clinton's margin of victory in CA doesn't get out of hand.

Other than that, it looks like Obama has Clinton right where he wants her. Want proof? All of a sudden, Hillary wants to schedule a series of debates. The media picked up on this. Hillary is looking for free publicity. Why? Because she's losing the fundraising wars at a rate of more than 2 to 1. Plus, she knows that the next wave of contests favor Obama.

So this is what I'd expect to see over the next few days. . .

First, the Clinton campaign will spend the rest of this week trying to claim victory at any cost. It won't have to make any sense, but they'll just keep drilling it into people's heads, hoping that some will take it as gospel (see, "35 years of experience"). Don't worry. It's nothing more than your regular political spin. It’ll have a shelf life of about 3 or 4 days on the cable news circuit. Just let the talking heads battle it out on Hardball.

Next, Hillary will probably try to weave her newfound openness for debates in with her "experience" argument. She'll try to bait Obama with a "lay it all out on the line" . . . "give the people what they want" type of argument; hoping for a major gaffe on live television.

Obama doesn't have to take the bait, but he should play the game at least once (can't be seen as backing down from a challenge). Obama should agree to ONE more debate sometime late next week. Nothing more (stay focused on his message). He should also repeat his campaign's response from earlier today: “We won't let Senator Clinton dictate the way we run our campaign.”

Hillary's shouldn't be the focus anymore. Obama needs to move beyond her and bring his movement into a greater debate with the Republican Party.

Finally, Obama should spend the rest of his time building large crowds in the upcoming states. Use his advantage in fundraising to flood the airwaves with POSITIVE ads. And try to run up the score in the next few contests.

Re: Super Tuesday Results -Obama Wins 13 States

B-Serious — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:23:00 -0000

@ ronnie,

You raise a good question.

The problem, as I see it, is that the electorate is accustomed to consumer politics. Politicians sell us a product (themselves), and we buy it. It's a very passive approach to government (it's called civi engagement for a reason).

Hillary is a master in consumer politics. She breaks everyone up into individual interest groups. She promises a laundry list of proposals and says, "vote for me because I'll give you what you want."

Now, you'd think the public would know better. You can propose any policy you'd like, but it won't amount to squat if you can't build conscensus to pass it through Congress.

Obama, on the other hand, has a different approach. He paints a picture of what America can be and says, "we can do this together." Sure, Obama has specific policy proposals. However the essence of his campaign centers around a vision, a goal for the future. His approach is very grassroots. It takes its lead from the Civil Rights Movement arguing that we must first build conscensus before we can ever have a legitimate chance of making truly effective policy.

A true leader gets his or her followers to buy into an idea and believe in themselves to effect the change that they want to see. This is a very noble approach, but it takes hard work. We're used to five second sound bites and empty promises.

We're a cynical nation (especially after 8 years of Bush). And, unfortunately, this race presents a clash within the Democratic Party: the Idealistic Progressives v. the Pragmatic Centrists. One side sees this election as a chance for a paradigmatic shift; a historical opportunity to rewrite our approach to domestic and foriegn policy (similar to the Civil Rights Era). The other side sees this election as an opportunity to WIN. One side sees a MOVEMENT, the other side sees an ELECTION. One side feels that real change comes from the bottom up. The other side assumes that change comes from the top down. They assume that a mere change in party automatically equals a change in policy. They also view politics in a zero sum context. Someone wins and someone loses - there is no middle ground.

I also get the feeling that a lot of Clinton supporters see 2008 as a chance for payback after 8 years of Bush (raising my concerns about this Bush/Clinton dynasty).

The progressive wing, however, wishes to break that mold altogether and chart a new path. It has little to do with Party identification. That's why a lot of progressives dislike the Clintons. It's not a matter of gender. It's a matter of style. It's a matter of principle. Many progressives (myself included) look at her and have some of the same concerns we had with the Bush Administration: concerns of government secrecy; stubborness; narrow-minded foreign policy; political scapegoating; a refusal to take accountability (Iraq vote); partisan bickering; and unchecked power (Bill Clinton back in the White House raises similar, constitutional, concerns seen with Dick Cheney - what influence will he have behind the scenes).

Despite claims to the contrary, the American public expects to have its political leaders spoonfeed them like little children. A self-empowering concept like "hope" is foriegn and easily dismissed as fairytale.

Re: Clean Sweep for Obama Today

B-Serious — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:25:00 -0000

You know, I've been thinking to myself . . . what if the roles were reversed?

I mean, what if it was Obama who lost all of these states by such huge margins (we're talking 25-35% in many states)? What if it was Obama who, despite running on name recognition as the inevitable candidate, could only claim his home state and California as major (hard fought) wins thus far? What if Obama had negatives in the mid 40s/low 50s? What if Obama who held low appeal with Independents and virtually no appeal with cross-over Republicans?

What if Obama lost a majority of the swing states on Super Tuesday? What if it was Clinton who lead McCain by 7 points in the latest head to head contest, instead of Obama?

What if Obama had as much dirt on him as the Clintons do? What if Obama brought as much fatigue and divisiveness as the Clintons do?

What if it was Obama who had to "loan" himself $5 million dollars of his own money just to stay competitive?

What if Obama trailed in PLEDGED delegates and could only claim a slim (misleading) lead by counting super delegates (party insiders who can change their mind at the drop of a dime and show loyalty through political favors)?

What if Obama lost 6 out of 8 primaries (perhaps even 8 or 9 in a row) as Hillary Clinton is expected to lose this week?

I tell you what would happen . . . there'd be tremendous pressure on Obama to DROP OUT of the race. This thing would be over, and we'd have the DNC, the media, and party elders all telling Obama to pack it up and try again in 8 years.

I know, we have many more states to go. But that's never stopped the Party from rallying behind a candidate in the past. In fact, we often have a clear-cut nominee as early as Iowa/New Hampshire. Obama has shown that he can win in all parts of this country (black, white, young, old, male, female). He wins in black South Carolina and white Nebraska. He's won key swing states like Missouri and Colorado. He's expanding the Democratic Party every day, bringing new faces to the voting booths. Why hasn't the party establishment embraced him yet?

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

Re: Clean Sweep for Obama Today

B-Serious — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:11:00 -0000

I first saw someone raise the idea of Hillary having to think of dropping out in the Huffpost comments. It seems absurd at first glance. But, like I said, if the roles were reversed, Obama would have been forced to drop out a long time ago.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

Re: Obama Wins Maine Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:20:00 -0000

It just keeps gettin' better!

I was worried about Maine because of the demographics. But he pulled it out anyways. By a large margin at that (last time I checked it was 18%).

Does anyone have the exit polls? I would have to think that Obama did well amongst white women (Hillary's strongest group).

Go Obama '08!

Re: Obama Wins Maine Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:02:00 -0000

anonymous,

I understand and appreciate your frustration. But, respectfully, I've never been a fan of censorship. The best way to defeat people like that is to face them head on and expose them in their own public forum - beat them on their home court.

To me, censorship avoids confrontation. It's like asking big brother to "make the bad man stop being so mean to me!" It ignores the power that we have to challenge these comments on equal footing and speak up for ourselves - rather than ask a greater power to silence our enemies for us.

Hillary's camp is trying to use MSNBC as a lightening rod for sympathy votes. It's consistent with her victimology and feeds into yet another one of her vast conspiracies (right wing conspiracy, media conspiracy). It's very Bush-like . . . in fact it's the mirror opposite of the Bush approach (left wing conspiracy, liberal media bias). Clinton, like Bush, uses paranoia and false outrage to silence her critics. For example, they wanted a crusade against MSNBC for Shuster's (admittedly inappropriate) comment about Chelsea Clinton. They kept the story alive even though MSNBC suspended him indefinitely and apologized at least FOUR times on air. There comes a point where a justified offense turns into a "kiss the ring" power trip.

Obama is kicking butt despite the ignorant things that have been said (both from the left and right). I take solace in the fact that Obama makes Buchanan, and other critics like him, look dumber and dumber every time he WINS! There will be nothing sweeter than watching the Buchanans of the world squirm once Obama takes his oath of office as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! I'd rather stay focused on that.

Sorry for the rant. But I really dislike censorship. lol!

Go Obama!

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

Re: Hillary: Ready On Day 1 To Do Absolutely Nothing For The Black Community

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:08:00 -0000

I've been worried about Tavis as well. I heard his statement last Thursday and he promised to call somebody out. I'm just not sure who that "somebody" is.

I'll probably have a tough time watching the State of the Black Union this year. I don't know who's scheduled to speak. But I can't shake the idea that I'll see a panel full of "leading blacks" singing the praises of Bill and Hillary Clinton while the audience sits in palpable frustration.

I also have a problem with Tavis' approach. I love his commitment to The Covenant. But it's not the be-all-end-all of black politics. Both Democratic candidates showed up at his debate a few months ago. I have the feeling that he'll crucify Obama if he doesn't dance to his tune.

Obama walks a very fine line on race. He has to. Everyone knows this. He wouldn't get so much support if people saw him as the "black candidate." I'm not saying that it's right, but that's just the way it is. I'll give you Clintons' biggest dream scenario for Tavis' event:

Obama sitting right between Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

I'd love to see Obama at the State of the Black Union. But you gotta figure that this photo-op plays in his mind.

And no, Obama doesn't have to debate Hillary just because she wants free air time.

Re: Hillary: Ready On Day 1 To Do Absolutely Nothing For The Black Community

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:29:00 -0000

I know this is satire (it might help to label it as such). But is there anything to support the implication (We Want You Negro)? Do you really think Hillary's plans to fragment the black vote with her appointment of Maggie Williams? Or has she just given up on the black vote altogether. I've personally thought that we are headed towards another Sister Souljah moment - not an attempt (although shallow) at reconciliation.

I get the feeling that she'll try and use Tavis as a vehicle to do this (don't go for it Tavis!). Just think of it. She doesn't have a lot to do this month. She's consceding defeat in the next round of contests. Why not use that time to stir up some controversy?

Re: Hillary: Ready On Day 1 To Do Absolutely Nothing For The Black Community

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:23:00 -0000

d.,

He can talk to whoever he wants. He just doesn't have to jump to Tavis' orders/threats. And I wouldn't necessarily call Sharpton and Farrakhan "extremists" (well, maybe in their earlier days, but they've mellowed with age). But we all know that white folk view Sharpton as the devil and Farrakhan as . . . well . . .whatever's worse than the devil. lol!

The stakes aren't that high. This ain't "President Smiley" that we're talking about here. Maybe someone should tell him as much. This is Tavis Smiley, a (beloved) talk show host who appears to be suffering from a case of the "HNIC" syndrome. Respectfully, this is not about foreign policy. No one's going to die because Obama didn't talk to Tavis. This is about Smiley's ego.

To be fair, as far as I know, Tavis hasn't called anyone out at this time. Tavis hasn't necessarily crossed the line yet (in my book). But he's coming very close.

Re: My Goodness, Paul Krugman Is So Full Of Hate

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:32:00 -0000

Yes. Even fairweather liberals have a ceiling for black success. It's cute so long as Obama makes us feel good about ourselves. But this is getting serious. He might actually win. Can't have that!

I just finished listening to an hour of the Ed Schultz show where self-proclaimed liberals spoke ad nauseam about double standards and blacks supporting their own . . . yada yada yada. Basically, Obama is the affirmative action president in their eyes.

They spent the entire show talking about poor Hillary and that mean old MSNBC reporter, David Shuster. Hello? Obama just laid the smack down over the weekend. But no one wanted to talk about that.

Of course. It's not possible that Obama has actually run a smarter, much superior (better organized) campaign. No, no. It must be something else. Take your pick:

1. Hate for Hillary

2. Strategic voting by Republicans

3. Cult-like behavior

4. White guilt

5. Blacks always come home

Unbelievable. Also, is anyone else disgusted with how the Clintons get to move the goal posts? If the roles were reversed (5 straight losses; trailing in pledged delegates; McCain growing in strength), the DNC would be pressuring Obama to drop out for the good of the Party. Yet we're willing to let Hillary embark on some Rudy Giuliani type of campaign strategy. . . "Yeah, I'll lose for the entire month of February. But don't worry. I'll win in March."

Whatever.

Re: My Goodness, Paul Krugman Is So Full Of Hate

B-Serious — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:24:00 -0000

ronnie b,

I hear ya. You're talking to a registered Independent.

No love for the Democratic Party. They have no spine. Too weak to be progressive. I swear . . . Democrats v. Republicans . . . the party of NO ideas v. the party of BAD ideas.

Re: My Goodness, Paul Krugman Is So Full Of Hate

B-Serious — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:16:00 -0000

g.d.,

I was struck by a few of the things you said. I apologize in advance for this very long response, but you provided a lot of food for thought.

I respect your position. I understand that people on both sides can get out of hand at times. But, after serious thought, I've come to the opposite conclusion from Krugman, and I'd like to think that it's just as rational as any Clinton supporters'.

Your last line appears to sum up what you see as the short argument for a lot of Obama supporters: "Obama is great/_____ is not."

Respectfully, we've lived with the opposite for the past 16 years. "The Clintons are great ______ is not." We supported Gore, tried hard with Kerry, but many Democrats still see Bill and Hillary as saviors of the Democratic Party. The measuring stick. In fact, I heard one woman say she voted for Clinton because the Clintons have shown that they can win (nothing more, nothing less - that seems kind of shallow to me).

Now, I agree with you on one point. I too don't like with blind loyalty of anyone. But, with that said, I think people have every right to object to Krugman's article and the sentiment behind it.

It's extremely condescending to suggest that Obama is where he is . . . that he's gained this amount of respect and success merely because of a.) cult-like followers; or b.) "irrational" hatred for hillary.

I also find it offensive (and this is not directed at you - I don't know you) that people continually suggest that 1.) Obama is an empty suit with no specifics and 2.) his support is based in emotion.

Why is this offensive? Because it denies agency and intellect: Agency of the Obama campaign and intellect on the part of his supporters. It also maintains the assumption that everything must center around Hillary Clinton. The idea is, "Well, you didn't actually beat me. I lost."

Ironically enough, the converse assertion that Hillary and her supporters are somehow more informed, reasoned and rational can, by itself, be labeled as shallow and emotional.

The fact is, her "experience" hasn't done her much good in this campaign. Her "experience" has netted less pledged delegates, less states, less money and a slow, but steadily decreasing amount of support. But instead of realizing this and taking time to regroup, Hillary belittles any loss she gets with an abundance of ready-made excuses: "it's just a caucus," "my husband never won this state or that state," "it's just a small state," "latinos aren't likely to vote for a black candidate," "there were a lot of black people," etc.

I know, this thing is far from over. But make no mistake about it, Senator Clinton is LOSING right now. This is her fault. No one else's. She is not a victim here. She's losing, in part, because her message is not connecting with enough voters and people have grown tired of her style of politics - Clinton fatigue already setting in before we even have a nominee.

She has NOT distinguished herself from Obama on the "issues." They are practically the same from a policy standpoint with only slight differences on a few issues (healthcare, etc.) - slight differences that don't matter in the long run because everything has to get through (and will ultimately be compromised by) Congress anyway.

Therefore, given their similarities in policy, people will obviously give more weight to the intangibles: style of leadership, "inspiration," "change v. experience," electibility, etc. Obama is winning the argument on each of these fronts.

For me, Hillary's "experience" is exaggerated. She's more "experienced" because she says so . . .because she's made that her stump speech (like Obama has made "change" his stump speech). People just keep on repeating it and it becomes gospel. "Hillary's more experienced, Hillary's more experienced, 35 years of experience, 35 years, 35 years . . . "

To be honest, you could ask your average Clinton supporter why they support Hillary and you'd get the same blank stare and canned one-liners that you claim to get from many Obama supporters.

And let me stress this point. If Hillary's supporters are so concerned with "experience" then why didn't they support Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, etc? These people dwarf both Hillary and Obama in "experience." As a matter of fact, when you consider that some of their elected experience goes as far back as the early 70s, Hillary's 4-5 year advantage over Obama in the U.S. Senate seems quite insignificant. Especially when you consider the fact that Obama has MORE ELECTED EXPERIENCE than Hillary when you factor in his 8 years as a state legislator.

So her experience argument is disingenuous. If people wanted experience, they should have picked Senators Dodd or Biden. But they didn't. Obviously, people were looking for more than "experience" when they made their decision.

In my opinion, what really propels her campaign is the fact that she's "safe." We know she's smart and capable. We know her husband. We know what type of fight we'd have between her and the Republicans. She's safe, but that doesn't mean that she's great . . . that doesn't mean that she's the right person for this job at this time. As someone noted, she's "Phil Mickelson" to Obama's "Tiger Woods."

She's safe, but that DOES NOT mean that she's better. Obama, though less known, has already proven to be her equal (as evidenced by this campaign) and has a much higher ceiling and an ability to expand the party and perhaps shift the country from a center-right to a center-left disposition.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama validates his message of change and hope everyday. What's the proof? People respond to it. Yes, educated, sincere and passionate people of all races, ages, colors and backgrounds come out to support his message. People who've never voted before, young people, people who've felt disenfranchised, people who've left the Democratic Party, cross-over Republicans . . . yes, people who have lost hope . . . all come out by the thousands to support his message. That's change. That's different. Why? Because his message connects with something bigger than politics. It's self-empowering. It's not bound by race or party. Yet Hillary still wants to see this as some sort of phase. That is so dismissive and depressing.

It's ok. People are starting to see this. It's ok to "roll the dice" especially when the wager consists of the power we have to be the change that we want to see. There is life after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But, for some strange reason, we like to equate intelligence with cynicism. We're never impressed. It's always to good to be true. Change is top down not bottom up. We're told, "You don't know what you're getting yourself into. Wait your turn. Save 'hope' for some other day."

I'm sorry, but that is an extremely condescending message. And people have begun to reject it.

There comes a point in time when, after failed encounter after failed encounter, one has to start looking at his/herself. . . look in the mirror. But the Clintons don't do this. No, it's always somebody else's fault. It's the vast right wing conspiracy. It's media bias. It's cult like Obama supporters. It's some entrenched character flaw on the part of their critics. That sounds familiar . . . "you don't support me, you're unpatriotic, you don't support the troops" . . . eerily similar to Bush.

People like Krugman are LOOKING for a reason to NOT vote for Obama. Like I've said before, switch roles (give Hillary a string of 8 or 9 wins in a row) and you'd have the DNC rallying behind Hillary and urging Obama to drop out.

Krugman is grasping at straws. Let me get this right. He won't support Obama because he doesn't like his supporters? Okay. He doesn't list a single transgression on the part of Obama or his campaign. Why? Because he can't. Obama has run a relatively clean campaign. So instead, Krugman lists actions from other people (David Shuster, etc.) and tries to attribute those comments to Obama and Obama supporters. Very disingenuous. He must think we're stupid.

(As a side note, I find it amusing that Krugman laments the overreaction to White Water, yet says nothing of Clinton's attempt to paint Obama as a slum lord because of past association with Resko).

Listen. It's not just right wing conservatives who dislike the Clintons. It's a growing, substantial segment of the Democratic Party (blacks, progressives, anti-war activists, etc.) The Clintons (and a number of their supporters) have insulated themselves in their inner circle so much that they're convinced that any criticism MUST be irrational. "How could anyone dislike the Clintons?" "What would we ever do without the Clintons." As though there's no RATIONAL reason to support anyone who's last name isn't "Clinton." As though there's no RATIONAL reason to dislike the Clintons and their campaign tactics.

It's disappointing that the Clintons turned their attack dogs on their own party. But it's not necessarily surprising that they tried to hit us with a low blow. You want to know the real surprise? This time . . . WE HIT BACK!

It's funny. Krugman says we're the cult members. In truth, it's the Clintons who've become a kind of religion to many rank-and-file Democrats. They're all we know. We can't fathom a world without them. They are our habit, our knee jerk response to everything political over the last two decades.

Well, many of us are ready to turn the page. I'd tell Krugman not to worry. We're not crazy. We're not irrational. We're not children. We want something different, and we see Obama as a vehicle to affect the change that we want to see. Krugman doesn't have to agree with our willingness to change the system. I just hope that he and others would respect our decision (and capacity) to do so.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/mr-obama-you-did-what-you-had-to-do.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-my-religion.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-if-roles-were-reversed.html

Re: Julian Bond Sells Out Democratic Process…for what, exactly?

B-Serious — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:34:00 -0000

The DNC set the rules. EVERY candidate agreed to them. YOU CAN NOT TRY AND CHANGE THE RULES NOW!!!

My goodness. Mr. Bond, if you really feel this passionate about it, you should have addressed this months ago. You should have raised this before they voted. You should have raised this before the primary season started.

Disenfranchisement? You count those two states and you risk disenfranchising the 48 other states who played by the rules.

If she gets a do-over in MI and FL then Obama should get a do-over in NH, MA and CA!

As a matter of fact, just let all of the candidates come back for do-overs - bring edwards, giuliani, romney, richardson, dodd . . . Bring them all back!

Sidenote - I heard that Obama might still hold the delegate lead even if they counted MI and FL now.

Message to the Clinton campaign: STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS!

Re: Julian Bond Sells Out Democratic Process…for what, exactly?

B-Serious — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:43:00 -0000

d.,

I get it. There's always a bit of political posturing. But come on. This has the potential to rip the Party apart.

On second thought, don't you support McCain? If so, I could see how you might be enjoying this. lol!

If there's any creed that conservatives probably agree with, it's the idea that your word is your bond. She's going against her word.

Change the rules? Ok. Then why have agreements in the first place? Why have rules in the first place?

I might be wrong, but this was never open to interpretation. The candidates and the DNC all agreed - the delegates were not going to count. I assume each candidate campaigned accordingly.

I repeat, if it was so important, where were the protests a few months ago?

Obama's not the one who's trying to change the rules here. Hillary is. Obama played by the rules. Everyone else went by the rules. Now she wants to change the rules just because she won.

Why even have these primaries at all? Or better yet, as I said before, why not give everyone a do-over in the hopes that they net more delegates. I'm sure every candidate can make one argument or another to revisit a state election.

I'm willing to bet that there are thousands of Edwards and Kucinich supporters who were disenfranchised because they voted early in California, only to have their candidate drop out before Super Tuesday. Should they get to vote again? In fact, I'm willing to bet that Hillary got a good amount of delegates due to early voting. Maybe we can have a do-over in those states as well?

I've got a bio 101 grade that I'd like to do over from my first year of undergrad. Maybe Hillary can give me a few pointers. lol!

Re: Julian Bond Sells Out Democratic Process…for what, exactly?

B-Serious — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:17:00 -0000

anonymous,

Is it a fake? You make some good points.

If it is fake, I hope Bond comes out to clear things up. It's been a few days already.

Either way, we do know that Clinton wants them seated. She's playing with fire. If they are seated, it could tear the Democratic Party apart. We'll be saying hello to President McCain.

Re: Julian Bond Sells Out Democratic Process…for what, exactly?

B-Serious — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:39:00 -0000

This is complete BULL!

Bond can try and spin this as a civil rights issue all he wants. The question still remains...WHY NOW?!?!

He should have said this months ago.

The "pledge" is besides the point. The delegates are not supposed to count. End of story.

I'm sorry, but Bond's explaination sounds like it came straight out of Clinton's talking points memo.

And to top it off, he makes it seem like Obama wasn't for black people . . . like he sided with white Iowa/NH and threw black MI/FL under the bus.

This don't feel right, people. You watch. This is gonna get really ugly. From the CBC to Bond to Tavis Smiley, it'll be a civil war amongst the black leadership before Obama takes his oath of office.

Re: Dear Senator Hillary Clinton, Please Step Down

B-Serious — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:42:00 -0000

Interesting piece.

I know this thing is far from over (although the math does strongly favor Obama).

But, bottom line . . . Hillary NEVER thought she'd be in this unfavorable position. And I don't think she ever respected Obama as a candidate. You should alwasy respect your opponent. But Hillary never took the threat of an Obama candidacy seriously.

She thought the primary season was nothing but a formality on her way to the presidency. She underestimated Obama and still won't give him credit for what he's doing. She does so at her own peril.

I am so sick of this. Why can't she just give credit where credit is due? Sometimes you just have to face facts and say, "You know what, I'm just getting my butt kicked right now. But I'll regroup, double my efforts and keep on trying."

But no. There's always some excuse. It's always someone else's fault. It's always, "they hate hillary more than they love obama," "sexism is worse than racism" "media bias." Excuse after excuse after excuse.

That's laying the groundwork to call Obama the "Affirmative Action" President - someone who would not have won but for this country's dislike of Clinton (as justified or unjustified it may be). Someone who lucked into being president. As though he's not earning the nomination on his own.

I'm not denying that she faces sexism. But people want to make it seem like Obama doesn't face similar obstacles every day. Like he doesnt face racism or get death threats. Everybody hurts, Hillary.

For an entire year, the voters have listened to what both candidates have had to say. They're making up their minds and, right now, they're choosing Obama. Overwhelmingly!

Simple as that.

Re: Dear Senator Hillary Clinton, Please Step Down

B-Serious — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:14:00 -0000

Hey everyone. Read this if you haven't already. Oversimplifications of race and gender. You know, some of us want to end discrimination regardless of who it is. Others seem to think that there's a line of succession to equality. Similar to Susan B. Anthony back in the day, they're appalled that this negroe might get the prize before them.

Ms. Jong spits venom:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/patriarchy1000-hillary_b_86408.html

Competitive Victimology at it's worst: women v. blacks (in this case white woman v. black man). It started with Gloria Steinem's piece and it just keeps on getting louder and louder.

Re: Dear Senator Hillary Clinton, Please Step Down

B-Serious — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:39:00 -0000

Just as a sidenote.

Obama better get his act in gear as far as Ohio and Texas goes.

A new poll shows him DOWN 16% in Ohio and 21% in Texas. The Clintons are gonna use this news to their advantage. He's got to at least keep those numbers close in order to lock up this nomination. Wide margins for Hillary in those two states could possibly bring about a comeback.

One caveat: These two polls were taken on Feb. 12, which would be just before Obama's wins in Virginia, DC and Maryland. It doesn't look like it accounts for any potential boost from the Potomac Primaries.

Re: John Lewis Flips to Obama

B-Serious — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:39:00 -0000

d.,

Respectfully, I've got to agree with anonymous here.

Yes, the superdelegates are well within their rights to give Clinton 796 super delegates despite the will of the people (even the Clinton campaign acknowledges that they won't likely catch up in PLEDGED delegates). I have no problem being consistent here.

It's their right. But they'll catch hell for it. And the Clintons will go down in history for having forever fractured the Democratic Party for personal glory. They will suppress the Democratic vote in November and hand deliver the Presidency to McCain.

This is political suicide for the Democratic Party.

The day the DNC steals this nomination by 1.) going back on its word to seat MI and FL; and/or 2.) ignoring the will of the people by reversing the PLEDGED delegate count through super delegates - that's the day at least half of the Democratic Party splinters off and gives birth to a viable Third Party.

And I'm not talking about some Ralph Nader ish. I'm talking about a real third party. I see a coalition/critical mass of disenchanted Democrats, blacks, greens, anti-war voters and Independents that could easily defeat the Democrats in 4-8 years if we get our act together.

Personally, I think we've got two candidates in particular, Obama and Al Gore, who'd be more than willing to take on an incumbent President McCain or Clinton in 2012.

At this point, Obama has more votes, delegates and states. Yet we still have Clinton walking around like she's entitled to the White House, but we're just too stupid to realize it.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

Re: John Lewis Flips to Obama

B-Serious — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:22:00 -0000

Just as an FYI . . . Emanuel Cleaver was just interviewed on MSNBC a couple of hours ago. He denies having ever been pressured one way or the other. The host gave him a softball question to hammer Obama with this story. No takers.

Also. That NPR article describes his discussions with Jessie Jackson Jr. as being light-hearted, not as some strong-arming technique (as some have tried to describe it). Those "threats" appear to be from unidentified constituents not tied to the Obama campaign.

Both sides are trying to get an inch anywhere they can. For crying out loud, the Clintons are even calling the women on "The View."

But I agree. No need to copy the tactics carried out by the "National Organization for Women."

Re: The Latest Anti-Obama Memos Circulating

B-Serious — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:24:00 -0000

I find it funny that people can, on the one hand, say that Obama and Clinton share the same policy positions; yet, on the other hand claim that they don't know where Obama stands on the issues. That alone seems like an inherently contradictory position for one to take.

It's all about words. The hook brings you back. You've got some who just want to be reassured that their President can sound like a technocrat. That's all. It has little to do with competency. But it allows people to assume that you know what you're talking about.

Hillary is good at this. She just keeps repeating the phrase "35 years of experience," and people go for it. Mind you, I believe 20 of those "35" years was spent as the first lady (12 years as first lady of Arkansas and 8 years as first lady of the U.S.).

Senator Clinton can give a laundry list of proposals that her supporters can quote verbatim. And it is this that allows them to suggest that Clinton is all substance and Obama's all fluff. Note, these aren't necessarily specific plans (she, herself, isn't outlining how she'll pay for everything, etc.). They're just specific promises. She can have a list as long as the day, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if she can't get them through Congress.

For example, Obama and Clinton go back and forth over their healthcare plans. At the end of the day, we'll end up with a compromise between the left and right on this issue. Anything too far one way or the other will result in gridlock.

So it seems odd that some hear Hillary's technocratic language and assume she's better prepared. She says she's got solutions? Well, she claims 35 years of experience - why hasn't she solved anything yet? And I mean her specifically, not her husband.

Like I've said before. If people really wanted "experience," they would have chosen Senators Dodd or Biden (they're elected experience goes back to the early 70s). But they didn't. As a matter of fact, I believe Obama and Clinton have the least amount of elected experience out of the whole bunch (correct me if I'm wrong). When you consider that Obama has more elected experience than Hillary (8 years as a state legislature; experience at the state and federal level; 3 years as a U.S. Senator) this whole "experience" argument seems pretty disingenuous.

Anyways, if I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd urge him to say the magical words. Give two policy speeches a week. It could be on anything, just give at least two boring speeches per week from here on out. Next, I'd tell him to say the words "details" and "specifics" at least 10 times in every stump speech.

Re: File this under the ‘ Y’all think I’m paranoid, BUT..’

B-Serious — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:42:00 -0000

babyming,

I feel you on the whole expectations game the Clintons are playing. The media is setting the table for a Hillary comeback. Buchanan said she'll be the comeback kid if she comes close in Wisconsin.

Unreal. They will never give this man credit. I'll say it again. If Hillary won 8 elections in a row by an AVERAGE of 29% Obama would have been forced to drop out already. But the Clintons have a different set of rules.

I really hope they investigate this NY thing. I read the article this morning and it did say that there actually were a couple of places where Hillary got 0 votes as well. But this still smells fishy. It would be an easy way to cover things up and simply claim error rather than election fraud. I mean come on . . . Obama gets 0 votes in HARLEM and BROOKLYN????

And a part of me still can't get over NH. You don't see 18% swings overnight like we did on that day. He was up by 12-15 points in most polls; yet he loses by 3%? That never sat well with me (but I guess that's the conspiracy theorist in me - they did do a recount).

Also, I just wanted to give everyone a heads up. Get ready. The next attack on Obama: He's a sexist.

I just saw this article on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/abc-is-obama-using-sexis_n_87000.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/is-obama-using.html

I personally think this is fake outrage to try to get payback for SC. This is why I don't want Obama to agree to more debates. The media will be looking for another Rick Lazio moment - you watch.

Hillary needs a game changer to get the huge margins she'll need in TX and OH. She's looking for a gotcha moment, a public gaffe to kill Obama's campaign. Obama's too smart to call her a b**ch on national tv. But you'll have people like Taylor Marsh ready to twist anything he says or does to paint him as the devil.

Let's keep it real. You've got Hillary supporters who want payback b/c they can't accept the fact that Hillary's campaign got caught playing the race card. So they'll do whatever they can to accuse Obama of playing the gender card - even if they have to make it up (e.g., "you're likeable enough"; the "snub"; the "staredown"; N.O.W.'s "gangbang"; and now this). The media might bite just to appear "fair."

Get ready folks. Obama's going to get everything imaginable thrown at him over the next few weeks. People are looking hard, grasping at staws, for a reason NOT to vote for him. I guess it's good practice for the general election against the Republicans in November.

Who wants to bet that this will be the first thing they talk about on The View come Monday? lol!

Re: File this under the ‘ Y’all think I’m paranoid, BUT..’

B-Serious — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:04:00 -0000

craig hickman,

LOL...I can't lie. A brotha tivos The View when I get the chance. I don't know what it is. I guess it's like a car wreck on the highway - I can't help but slow down and watch!

Re: Obama Raises Hillary’s 47 Percent Disapproval Rating. OH. SNAP.

B-Serious — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:18:00 -0000

Heads up everyone.

There's a news report on Politico.com (as well as Huffington Post and TPM) that Clinton plans to go after Obama's PLEDGED DELEGATES. That's right. Not just the super delegates, but the Pledged delegates as well - you know . . . the ones Obama already "won."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me.html

Re: Clinton Camp Spreads ‘ Obama has a CULT’ Memo

B-Serious — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:43:00 -0000

I posted this in one of the comments sections below. But just in case you missed it:

There's a news report on Politico.com (as well as Huffington Post and TPM) that Clinton plans to go after Obama's PLEDGED DELEGATES. That's right. Not just the super delegates, but the Pledged delegates as well - you know . . . the ones Obama already "won."

Let's see where this thing goes.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me.html

Re: Distorting Michelle Obama

B-Serious — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:52:00 -0000

Thanks for pointing this out. It's a shame. Michelle has done wonders for the Obama campaign as she, herself, proceeds to break down barrier after barrier.

Watch out folks.. . They'll probably try to paint her as the stereotypically sassy, finger-snappin', neck-rollin' sapphire.

Re: Clinton Targets PLEDGED Delegates

B-Serious — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:28:00 -0000

Update: Clinton campaign released a statement denying the politico.com story.

Do you believe them, or do you think they just got caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

Take it for what it's worth:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

Re: Obama Wins Wisconsin & Hawaii - 10 in a row

B-Serious — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:42:00 -0000

Great win tonight. And I ain't mad that Obama cut Clinton's speech short. Earlier this evening, she released parts of her speech outlining her planned attack. Why would Obama give her a 1/2 hour of free air time just to bash him? Especially after he just won and she didn't even congratulate him? That wasn't a concession speech, that was a stump speech.

I just have one small request of Mr. Obama. Please, make sure your surrogates know their talking points!

Chris Matthews absolutely humiliated a State Senator from Texas who backs Obama. Chris asked him to name one legislative accomplishment by Obama and the Senator couldn't do it.

This obviously plays into the Clintons narrative of Obama being an empty suit (although sites like this one have debunked that theory over and over again - and Obama's doing a solid job of giving the people more specifics in his stump speeches). But you gotta study up on your material if you know you're going to be on tv.

Also, it interesting to note that Chris never asked the same question of Hillary's surrogate - name or list Senator Clinton's legislative accomplishments. She was allowed to recite Clintons stump speech - promises, not accomplishments.

Keith Olberman did a good job of answering Matthews after the interview - asking Chris to list ANY major legislative accomplishments made by Congress in the last few years. Chris couldn't do it, which kind of proved Olberman's point - it's hard to make a credible argument of "experience" when your Congress has a 12% approval rating and is constantly deadlocked. Which also leads to Obama's message that Democrats need a working majority to get things done.

Ask any average joe to list their candidate's legislative accomplishments and you'll likely draw a blank stare.

But still, this has been a great night so far. But he's the front runner now. He's got to close the deal - tie up some of the loose ends. Don't give the Clintons an inch. Obama can END this thing on March 4 if he plays his cards right!

Re: O’Reilly’s "Lynching Party"

B-Serious — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:06:00 -0000

I'm with everyone. Obviously this was a horrible comment.

But Obama and Michelle have got bigger fish to fry than to worry about O'Reilly right now. If they want to come out with a statement, then fine. But the last thing they need, at this crucial time, is to engage in a fight with the likes of Bill O'Reilly right before they secure the Democratic nomination.

You have to pick your battles. Part of the reason why Hillary is doing so poorly is because she's been knocked off message several times (Shuster's comment being one of them). That shows a lack of discipline. She got too caught up in trying to score political points and lost sight of the big picture.

Obama and Michelle should stay focused on one thing: ending the Democratic Primary on March 4/5th. That's going to take solid wins in Ohio and Texas.

Don't take the bait. What would you rather have them do for the next two weeks?: Spend that time arguing with right wing idiots like O'Reilly; or using that same time to seal the deal in Texas and Ohio?

It's a fine line to walk. But, falling for another "don imus" moment could do more harm than good. O'Reilly ain't running for President, Hillary Clinton is. They can not divert their attention and give her an inch to slip back into this thing. Close it out!

Re: O’Reilly’s "Lynching Party"

B-Serious — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:12:00 -0000

babyming,

You're right. This nomination is not a foregone conclusion.

But I see a different reason for this.

I cannot stress this enough. The MATH is NOT in Hillary Clinton's favor.

In order for her to have a legitimate "comeback," she'd basically have to run the table. Even more, she'd have to win TX, OH, and PA by HUGE margins. The math says she has to get roughly 57-65% of the remaining delegates to even have a shot at winning the Pledged delegate race. We work in a proportional system. I could be wrong, but I've heard that really means that she'd have to get something like 70% of the popular vote in places like TX, OH and PA (if she gets that far) to honestly call it a comeback.

This is my problem. I am royally pissed that the Clintons are spinning this as a must win. Sounds weird for me to say that, right? Well, by spinning those states as "must win" scenarios, they set the spin in place that would allow her to claim a comeback even if she only wins by a few percentage points in each state.

Last night on MSNBC, I heard a Clinton supporter say that, should Hillary win TX, OH, and PA (even if by small amounts) then she would have a "strong argument" to be the nominee. She would say, "look, I won more 'big states,'therefore, I'm a stronger candidate for the general election."

This is complete B.S.!! It's a spin of PERCEPTION and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reality - the MATH.

My worry is that the media and the DNC are so stupid . . . so gullible, that they just might buy it. That would mean that Obama could win more states, have more popular votes, more PLEDGED delegates, yet still get screwed out of the nomination if the PERCEPTION happens to be in Hillary's favor at that moment.

Complete garbage. I have no doubt that they will try and take this thing on the cheap.

Thankfully, Obama's camp is already trying to put a stop to that type of spin. But I think his supporters (whether it be in radio or bloggers, etc.) really need to stress this line: "IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!"

Re: Texas Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:54:00 -0000

Obama won.

1. There is NO WAY you can look at that debate and think that Obama is an empty suit. Just like the last debate, Obama showed just as much substance and just as much of a grasp of the issues as Clinton did. If she needed a "game-changer," she sure didn't get it. That "xerox" line absolutely bombed and we might see that get replayed over and over again for the next few days.

2. Obama did an excellent job of turning her "experience/solutions" argument against her; focusing on judgment.

3. Am I the only one here, or did Hillary's last statement look kind of like a concession speech? I can't stand how some of the pundits are trying to spin it as some "hillary found her inner-voice moment."

To me, it sort of looked like she finally realized, "hey, this guy is the real deal." Olberman on MSNBC said it looked like she was was saying, "no hard feeling, right? please keep me in mind when you pick your v.p. in about a month."

This was a good night for Obama.

Re: Texas Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:33:00 -0000

phillip,

I really hope that "softer side," sympathy vote thing doesn't rear its ugly head again.

It happened in NH, but I don't think it will work for her this time. Plus, one moment of sincerity does not erase months of gutter politics - especially when there's a pro-hillary 527 (swift-boat type) organization that will be running ads in Ohio. Don't believe the hype.

The momentum for Obama is real. The public has had more time to get to know this guy - they like what they see.

By ending the "empty suit" argument, he alleviates any lingering fears for voters who are still on the fence.

Indeed, I think Hillary's last statement could be viewed as implicitly granting her "blessing." Of course, she didn't say it out loud. But her actions conveyed a sense that she understands . . . Obama is ready to lead.

Re: Texas Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:16:00 -0000

My goodness, I had to turn from CNN as well.

Hey media: It's ok to say it now . . . Obama is gonna win this thing.

Stop making excuses for Clinton. There's no need to feel sorry for her. Just admit that Obama has run the better campaign; had the better (more inclusive) message; won more states; has more delegates; more popular votes.

What else does he have to do before you give him due credit? I mean, damn . . . 11 straight victories by an AVERAGE of 33%!!! If the roles were reversed, Obama would have been long gone by now.

I saw Dan Abrahms last night and he dedicated two whole segments to brainstorming ways for her to make a comeback. You know, I didn't see people do this for Giuliani, John Edwards, etc. When it was over . . . IT WAS OVER! There was no swan song . . . no violins. They were gone.

The Clintons always talk about media bias - well (as recently mentioned by one political pundit), it's actually the media that's keeping her in this thing. They allow her to keep moving the goal posts. Now we'll have to listen to a week of her "finding her inner voice" again???

Hey media, I see what you're doing. Stop throwing her a life line. The math is real. It's not enough to just win in OH and TX . . . she needs to win by LANDSLIDES. Stop laying the groundwork for some cheap 51-49% victories and a phony "comeback."

Re: Texas Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:26:00 -0000

rachel,

I must agree. Obama is stepping into the role. For what it's worth, he looks the part, now.

Obama is growing from a candidate to the next Commander-in-Chief!

Re: Texas Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:36:00 -0000

nichelle,

LOL! You hit the bulls-eye with your "Apprentice" parallel!

Re: State Of The Black Union Open Thread

B-Serious — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:50:00 -0000

Let me be the first to say, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is full of BS!

I love how she makes it seem like the black community is divided between Clinton and Obama.

Maybe she needs the reality check. The black electorate is far from divided when it comes to our decision. The real division is between the black electorate and our black officials.

Stephanie Tubbs-Jones points towards two families (the Jacksons and the Dysons) and wants to make it seem like there's a vast gender divide amongst black folk; Jesse and Dyson support Obama while their wives support Clinton.

Yet she conveniently ignores the fact that Hillary is consistently losing the overwhelming majority (I think 8/10) of black women voters. Black women are women too. And they, like black men, are overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama. Not because he's black (although that helps) but because he has consistently had the more inclusive, more inspirational message.

Hillary's campaign was about Hillary before she got into trouble. Then her campaign was about feminism when it was convenient. Yet, as has been pointed out by many black women, the modern feminist movement has lacked in it's appeal to women of color because of it's focus on white, middle-class women. That's who Hillary has been speaking to. Not surprisingly, Hillary's strongest base of support is white women over the age of 50.

So the congresswoman should keep it real. The division is not between black men and black women. The division is between a black electorate who votes overwhelmingly for Obama while their elected officials back Clinton.

Now, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones wants to come on C-Span and mention black women's issues when it's convenient for her candidate.

Here's the sad part. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones admitted that she endorsed Clinton BEFORE SHE EVEN DECLARED HER CANDIDACY!

If anything, black folk ain't mad at her for choosing to support Clinton. We're just mad that she, like so many other "leading blacks," never gave Obama a chance. She, like so many other "leading blacks" were quick to line up behind the Clintons before this race even got started.

Now she and Tavis have the nerve to talk about accountability - when, by her own admission, she backed Clinton out of blind loyalty!

So spare me with the "poor CBC" crap. I don't condone sending death threats. But black constituents have EVERY RIGHT to call people like Stephanie Tubbs-Jones on her BS. We have every right to vote their butts out of office.

Congresswoman, don't talk to me about "respect" when I see you on the news, everyday, calling Obama an empty suit. Get real!!

Re: State Of The Black Union Open Thread

B-Serious — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:08:00 -0000

I've picked up on 4 major themes from this SOTBU:

1.) Sheila Jackson-Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones were sent with one specific goal. Advocate Hillary Clinton by using the issue of sexism as a tool to divide what's left of the black vote.

This is consistent with her use of identity politics to play one group off of another: blacks v. latinos; men v. women, etc.

You know, one thing that's been great about the Obama campaign has been the fact that he has not asked supporters to choose between race and gender. I look at an Obama rally and I see all types of people: men, women, black, white, etc.

These two Congresswomen have implied that black women should support Hillary because she is a woman. I, as a black man, obviously can't speak for black women. But I find it a little disingenous that now, when all else has failed, Hillary's camp is finally trying to bring sistas into the sisterhood.

2.) Don't trust your instincts. Tavis has pushed an argument that asks for accountability. Yet, his focus has been on questioning our overwhelming support for Obama. I find it troubling that people like Tavis continue to suggest that our support of Obama is emotional, superficial and not clearly thought out. It's like he keeps on asking us to rethink our support.

3.) Don't get your hopes up. Is it just me, or has anyone else been struck by the fact that Tavis has asked the following question at least 3 or 4 times?: How will you feel if Obama looses?

I'm sorry, but given the mathematics of proportional delegate allocation, and Obama's commanding lead and momentum - shouldn't he be asking that question of Sheila Jackson Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones?

4.) Buy my book! Tavis must have mentioned his book about 15 times in the past two hours.

5.) I agree. Al Sharpton just killed it!!!! Preach chuch!

Re: State Of The Black Union Open Thread

B-Serious — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:55:00 -0000

phillip,

Regarding point #3:

I think it's pretty clear that Obama's supporters are not (and likely will not be) Hillary supporters should she win the nomination.

Obama's supporters who are not likely to vote for Hillary:

- Cross-over Republicans

- Independents

- Disenchanted Democrats that have left the Democratic Party

- First-time voters and youth voters. These are people who were brought into the process by Obama's campaign, NOT the DNC. They have no loyalty to the Clinton brand name. Their participation is based on the message, not the Party. . . their vote is based on principle.

Hillary's chances of winning the nomination fair and square are slim at best. The math is just not in her favor. I don't care if she wins TX, OH and PA. The math says that she has to win those states by landslide victories in those three states. Then she'd still have to basically run the table from there on out.

She's trying to set things up for a comeback based on perception. If she wins TX or OH by just one vote, she's gonna try to act like she's the new front-runner. And, sadly, the media is stupid enough to fall for it.

We might need Al Sharpton after March 4.

Tavis' question is only being asked because people know that the Clintons stepped in it when they went negative in South Carolina.

Personally, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton. I'd rather support a third-party candidate or write in Obama's name.

BS line of the night:

"Don't worry about super delegates . . ." - Sheila Jackson Lee.

Re: Shame On You, Barack Obama?? Really?

B-Serious — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:13:00 -0000

LOL! Yet she's so, "truly honored to be on stage" with Barack Obama????

Wow. The media is so gullible. For a second, she actually had people thinking she was sincere when she said that.

Whatever.

Re: Shame On You, Barack Obama?? Really?

B-Serious — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:15:00 -0000

I heard some people liken this to Howard Dean's scream.

For real. She reminds me of a grade school teacher scolding her class after recess. Next thing you know, she'll be ordering the country to take a nap. lol...

To take a phrase of hers from last week's debate, "the country will breathe a sigh of relief," when Hillary and Bill Clinton drop out of this race.

The delegate math says it should happen. It's just a matter of when. Please TX and OH - make it sooner rather than later!!

Re: Frank Rich Says Clinton Bungled Her Campaign Like Bush Bungled Iraq

B-Serious — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:53:00 -0000

Let's see...No plan B after Feb. 5th? Running on the family name??? Loyalty over competence??? Paranoia of the media??? Secrecy (where are those tax returns?)???

Seems like Hillary should be the last person to compare a fellow Democrat to George Bush.

Re: Frank Rich Says Clinton Bungled Her Campaign Like Bush Bungled Iraq

B-Serious — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:07:00 -0000

baldwin,

Obama needs to pound the argument that focuses on the mathematics of proportional delegate allocation.

The media is, once again, allowing Hillary to determine the terms of engagement. Hillary needs to win both states by 20% or more. Anything short of that and she turns into Mike Huckabee - just in it for the sake of pride and ego.

Truth is, Obama just has to keep both states close. Hillary could win by 5% in Texas and still come up short in delegates due to the state's allocation process.

If Obama wins just one of those two states, this thing is over, and Obama will have every right to call on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race (although, I actually think 11 straight losses by an average of 33% is enough cause for her to drop out now).

Winning TX and OH by small margins only helps Hillary in the perceptions game. But it does little (if nothing at all) to address her deficit in the delegate race.

The Obama camp needs to pound some variation of this message: "It's the MATH, stupid!" (perhaps in kinder language, with less of an edge).

Re: Hillary Is Trying To Sabotage Obama In November

B-Serious — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:44:00 -0000

Can you get a clip of her mocking Oboma earlier today. Seriously, she was literally mocking Obama, his message and, indirectly, his supporters today in RI.

She should catch a lot of flack for this. It's not funny. And, quite frankly, I don't need a president who dismisses "hope" so easily.

Re: Hillary Is Trying To Sabotage Obama In November

B-Serious — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:47:00 -0000

Sorry, I just saw that you linked to the video clip.

Is there any way that you could post it on this site?

She is being really childish!

Re: Hillary Is Trying To Sabotage Obama In November

B-Serious — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:10:00 -0000

Sorry for the long post, but I just saw something that’s driving me crazy.

OMG!?!? The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums over the weekend.

I’m not kidding. They’re spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, “bi*ch.” You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).

Now, I won’t deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton. The media is doing nothing but excusing her behavior.

Guess what, that “double standard” theory doesn’t fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she’s not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success?

Why doesn’t the media focus it’s attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won’t acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, “cheap,” and his hope, “false.” The list goes on and on.

I don’t care if she’s a woman, man or whatever . . . when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

“Shame on you Barack Obama”?!?!?! Who the hell is she to talk to him like he’s some 4 year old? This ain’t pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast.

Senator Obama is a grown a*s man. He’s just as accomplished as she is, yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie??? She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had.

It’s never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 20,000 but it’s NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states (24 to 11), have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it’s still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!

No. We still have to hear the media talk about a Clinton comeback, even when the MATH says it’s highly unlikely.

She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that (beleive it or not) this brotha is just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.

Her stunts are going to backfire on her. It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don’t like negative politics . . . it’s as simple as that.

You know, I’d love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I’d love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the “angry black man.”

This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I’m not saying that they’re better or worse, just different. I’m just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can’t forget those double standards, right?

Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to FEAR black men.

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done over the weekend??? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?”

Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he “invaded her personal space.” If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama’s black a*s the second he steps out of line.

Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her “Scarlett O’Hara” routine. It’s a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it.

You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004. He knows he can’t do or say certain things because he can’t afford to make white folk uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.

Trust me, we all know the routine. Smile . . . show your teeth . . . get that base out of your voice . . . don’t look them straight in the eye . . . don’t show emotion . . . make them comfortable and they might call you one of “those good black people,” and throw you a few crumbs.

Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it.

But I also know that there are many “oppressed” white women who would never trade places with my black a*s. That same “oppressed” white woman has been quick to clutch her purse and call the cops when she sees me in her neighborhood after 8:00pm. Hillary reminds me of one of those types of people.

All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest.

So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don’t make excuses for Hillary’s poor and divisive behavior. And don’t pretend like Obama doesn’t walk a tight rope everyday as well.

Obama caught hell just for saying, “you’re likeable, enough” because people didn’t like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the “snub” because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn’t looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!

I can’t make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the “black candidate.” It’s the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace “girl power” in ways Obama could NEVER embrace “black power.” Now you’ve got Tina Fey saying “Bi*ch is the new black.” WTF does that mean?

Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown a*s woman who knows exactly what she’s doing. She conveniently plays off of gender oppression and white privelege every chance she gets.

Some of us don’t see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement. And she can’t stand the fact that this uppity negroe didn’t wait his turn in line.

But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to “POOR HILLARY”

Re: Hillary Campaign Circulates Photo Of Obama in "Muslim" Garb

B-Serious — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:50:00 -0000

Yeah. You would think that they would deny this if it weren't true. Instead, they try to turn it around on Obama.

This story is also on TalkingPointsMemo and Politico.com.

I usually treat the drudgereport with a grain of salt. But, if this is true, and it doesn't SINK her campaign . . . I don't know what will.

Why release the picture?

Why do it unless you want people to get something out of it? She has no shame!

Re: Sometimes Our Readers Say It So Well

B-Serious — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:23:00 -0000

Hey rikyrah and everyone else,

Thanks for showing some love! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking this!

B-Serious

Re: Sometimes Our Readers Say It So Well

B-Serious — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:42:00 -0000

Thanks Liza.

Hey. If anyone else wants to pass this along, feel free to do so.

Every little bit helps.

B-Serious

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/double-standard-facing-barack-obama.html

Re: Why I Have Issues With Black Clinton Supporters

B-Serious — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:11:00 -0000

Nice post!

Let me just say, on a personal note, I try not to call other blacks "uncle toms" or "house negroes." After all, I don't hold a monopoly on what it means to be black. I also know that we're not a monolith.

But I call BS when I see it. And rikyrah did a good job of putting things into perspective.

Now, I'm not personally calling anyone any names. But, I can't shake this famous quote:

"If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, 'What's the matter, boss, we sick?' We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, 'Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate,' the house Negro would look at you and say, 'Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?' That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a 'house nigger.' And that's what we call them today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here." - Malcolm X

Re: Rebecca Walker on "Feminist Infightin"

B-Serious — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:24:00 -0000

Very nice article. I am pleased to see that some have come forward to challenge the assumptions of this "us v. them" type of feminism that's often associated with the Clinton campaign. It is a brand of feminism that ignores women of color far too often.

I've always been amazed at how Hillary can be seen as the "women's choice" when she consistently loses 8/10 black women in each primary. Her feminist pitch is not reaching most black women. Memo to the mainstream media: black women are women too!

As a man, I feel a little uncomfortable discussing my opinion outright. But it's good to know that there are feminists out there (there was another article written a few weeks back by Kimberly Crenshaw) who share my beliefs and make sure to mention the issue of intersectionality. They understand that matters of race, class, sexuality and gender are not as simple as the media would have us believe.

I have two STRONG black women in my family (mother and sister) who do not identify with Senator Clinton's campaign. The feminist rallying cries of people like Erica Jong and Gloria Steinem do not resonate with them. It doesn't mean that they are weak. It just means that, as black women, they're approach to feminism has been ignored over the years.

Re: Rebecca Walker on "Feminist Infightin"

B-Serious — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:18:00 -0000

justice58,

How strong does Clinton look in Texas?

I've noticed that some of the polls have actually underestimated Obama's performance in recent contests (e.g., only being up 3-5% in Wisconsin, but winning easily by 17-18%). What's the early voting looking like? Do people have a good grasp of the primary/caucus hybrid?

It seems like the polls can't accurately account for certain groups that heavily support Obama: 1.) young voters who are more likely to use cell phones; 2.) first time voters; and 3.) independents and cross-over republicans (who overwhelmingly support Obama.

Do you get the feeling that he could win big in Texas? Or does Hillary still have a fighter's chance?

We need to END THIS THING on Tuesday! Bring it home! Go OBAMA!!!

Re: Rebecca Walker on "Feminist Infightin"

B-Serious — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:31:00 -0000

Justice58,

I really share your sentiment: WE NEED TO END THIS!!!

The thing that makes me nervous is the fact that the media still allows Hillary to set the rules of engagement. They allow her to keep moving the goal posts and lower her expectations.

We need to end this, if only for the following reason - the media has two headlines ready to role for the morning of March 5:

1. "Obama's impressive victories lock up Democratic Nomination"

or...

2. "Hillary is the COMEBACK KID! Why can't Obama close the deal?"

Now, obviously, the second headline ignores the MATH. It ignores the fact that she'd have to start winning by 20% in most, if not all, of these states.

But I fear that the media is gullible enough, and the electorate uninformed enough to know that a 5% win by Clinton in Texas and/or Ohio is still a DEFEAT in the context of the delegate race.

Obama needs to do a better job of pushing the MATH! Hillary is positioning herself to try and win this thing on the cheap - to win by perception and cloud the truth so much that people will forget the fact that she'll need super delegates and MI/FL to steal this thing from Obama.

Message to OH and TX: You have the power to change the direction of this country for the better. You have the opportunity to save the Democratic Party from another month or two of partisan infighting and Hillary's gutter politics. You have the power to bring the Party together and prevent McCain from having 2 more months of unopposed preparation. Please come through! Vote Obama!

WE NEED TO END THIS NOW!!!

Re: Rebecca Walker on "Feminist Infightin"

B-Serious — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:44:00 -0000

One more thing. Did anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with SNL's cartoon skit on Obama. It seems as though the SNL writers are pro-Hillary. They've bought into her "poor Hillary" routine and even gave her a platform this week to continue the "media bias" strategy. They kind of make Obama look and sound like an empty suit (maybe because the actor playing him hasn't figured out the imitation just yet).

I've seen others suggest that SNL's cartoon skit basically plays into white America's fears that Obama is really the stereotypical "black" candidate who hides his black nationalist, Al Sharpton lovin', Jesse Jackson quoting intentions from his followers.

For some reason, Hillary's SNL appearance commands front page attention on some of the news websites.

I'd like to ignore the SNL stuff. I don't want to start sounding like the Clinton campaign. But I was just wondering what y'all were thinking.

Re: Rebecca Walker on "Feminist Infightin"

B-Serious — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:31:00 -0000

justice58,

Thanks. That's encouraging news to hear!

lloyd,

I get what you're saying. It is an irrational anger towards Obama. Basically, they're mad at the media and what they perceive to be unfair treatment. So, they turn all of that anger towards Obama, a person who ain't got jack to do with any of that stuff. It's sour grapes. And it always comeback to "that uppity negro cut in line!"

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:17:00 -0000

I can't repeat this enough guys. . . Hillary is positioning herself (quite well) to STEAL this nomination.

The Obama camp is not doing a good enough job of pushing the MATH. The media is gullible enough to accept Hillary's terms of engagement. The goal posts keep moving.

Just think about the back-tracking from the Clinton camp:

1. Hillary will show her dominance in Iowa. If she wins big there, the contest is virtually over;

Oops! Obama wins Iowa! . . .

2. NH made her the COMEBACK KID. Obama's victory in Iowa was an anomoly. We're back to Hillary being the inevitable candidate.

Oops! Obama wins SC after taking on BOTH Clintons and their shameless race-baiting . . .

3. Hillary will end this race on Super Tuesday. Obama doesn't have what it takes to be a national candidate. He won't have enough time to gain familiarity and favor with 22 states in the span of a week;

Oops! Obama actually WINS MORE DELEGATES on Super Tuesday than Hillary. And, he's looking stronger in the February states . . .

4. Obama is favored in the february states. So he must win all of them. Clinton firewalls= Maine, Virginia (maybe), Wisconsin.

Oops! Obama wins sweeps 11 straight by an AVERAGE of 33% . . .

List of Clinton excuses: Obama's winning the red states (you'd think that would be a positive for the Democratic Party); he only wins caucuses; caucuses don't count; he only wins primaries in red states; he only wins primaries with large african-american populations; he can only win states with open primaries ...;

Oops! Obama eats into Hillary's base. He wins majorities among people making under 50K; splits the vote among whites; wins women . . . the list goes on.

5. "Meet me in TX!" "Meet me in Ohio!" Hillary MUST win TX and OH by large margins (20%) to catch up in delegates or this thing is over;

Oops! Obama closes the gaps. Effectively ending any talk of a Clinton landslide (which she needs to claim a comeback) . . .

6. Clinton excuses: it's the media's fault; it's harder for a woman than a man (even a black man).

7. Clinton must win Texas or she's done (Bill Clinton);

8. Clinton must win EITHER TX or OH.

9. Obama must win all four (TX, OH, VT, RI) or that'll prove that he's not electable (I swear, I'm not making this up);

10. All Hillary has to do is win Ohio, because OH is a key swing state and this shows that she is more electable than Obama;

and now.....

11. By way of morning Joe - Hillary should stay in the race EVEN IF SHE LOOSES EVERYTHING TOMORROW because a spirited campaign is good for democracy. I am not kidding. The media actually went there. And let's not forget this gem;

Bonus: Clinton should ALWAYS stay in the race because we might find some dirt on Obama that is so bad that he'll have to drop out and the Party will have no choice but to choose Hillary (of course, a scandal could happen to anyone, but what does that matter, right?)

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:25:00 -0000

Why does she keep moving the goal posts? It's simple. For the same reasons why Bush kept moving the goal posts on Iraq.

The plan is to muddy the waters; muck up the truth so much that we forget which way is up and which way is down. The goal is to make the truth RELATIVE and remove all sense of objectivity so as to to excuse the inexcusable.

The Clintons know they can't retake the lead in pledged delegates. Their only hope is:

1. Super delegates reversing the will of the people; and

2. Re-instating FL and MI.

Therefore, the Clintons want to make things look confusing; so much so that stealing the nomination WON'T SEEM SO BAD when it happens.

Re: Well, well….Hillary takes Barack ‘ at his word’.

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:38:00 -0000

The answer should be simple. Neither candidate will reach 2025 delegates. Therefore, if the Democratic Party truly doesn't want to reverse the will of the people, the nominee should be as such:

The person with the most pledged delegates. Bill Richardson just said as much. And he's dead on the money.

It's as simple as that. Democrats pick their nominee by way of delegates. Not popular vote, and not even states won (although Obama even has a strong lead in those two categories as well).

Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!

You give the Clintons another MONTH to throw mud at Obama (more Resko allegations; more Muslim allegations; more fear-mongering, etc.) and you not only further destroy any chance at party unity in November, but you also allow Hillary the opportunity to destroy Obama's chances against McCain even though she has no real shot at winning the nomination herself.

At this point, Hillary is GIVING the Republicans a list of talking points and attacks to use against Obama.

Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!

Re: WaPo on Color of Change vs Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and the CBC

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:42:00 -0000

I'm glad you pointed out the paternalistic attitude. They've adopted it from the Clintons themselves. It's old school democratic politics. It's a habit that's hard to break.

I wrote about it back in January:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-my-religion.html

Re: WaPo on Color of Change vs Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and the CBC

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:06:00 -0000

darth marc,

You said, "Elected officials aren't always in lock step with what their constituents think." You also speak of an "honest vote of conscience."

That's exactly the problem. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents. Sure, an official can and often must use his or her conscience. But they should also be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

For example, 70% of the U.S. wants to get out of Iraq. But Bush would rather act on "conscience," and ignore the people. Now, is he right to do this?

The Republican Congress ignored their constituencies on matters of government spending, transparency and a host of other issues. They too acted on "conscience." And guess what . . . the voters kicked their butts out of office.

It's one thing to go against the grain when your constituents are ambivalent. But that's not the case here. When you've got 85-90% of your district voting for candidate X my guess is that they're trying to tell you something.

In essence, this overwhelming support for Obama speaks to more than just a symbol of racial pride. Indeed, the overwhelming support for Obama can be viewed as an equally overwhelming REJECTION HIllary Clinton; a rejection of her campaign's divisive politics and race-baiting. Some black officials are clearly ignoring their constituents.

The voters decide how important a given issue is. Whether it be the economy, health care or, yes, even presidential candidates, voters have every right to hold their representatives accountable.

A constituency could vote a representative out of office for just about any reason they want to.

What happens if a representative from a pro-choice district votes to confirm a pro-life judicial nominee? They risk being voted OUT of office.

What happens if a representative from a Jewish district votes to support anti-Israel policy? He risks getting voted OUT of office.

I agree, these superdelegates can back whomever they wish. And if the white liberals in MA want to have a revolution over Kerry, Patrick and Kennedy, then so be it. But that's their job to hold their elected officials accountable to them. My guess is that they would be upset IF they felt it was an issue to get upset about. Perhaps they're just as happy with either candidate. Do you think Obama's negatives are as high as Hillary's are in many of these black districts throughout the U.S.?

Personally, I'd much rather take the Bill Richardson approach wherein the superdelegates ratify whomever has the lead in pledged delegates.

Re: WaPo on Color of Change vs Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and the CBC

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:18:00 -0000

darth marc,

You said, "Let the process play out. We're acting as if Barack is McCain and Hillary is Huckabee and the race is over. There is about 100 to 125 point difference in delegates. If she gets a split tomorrow (which she probably will), she's earned the right to stay in the race."

Respectfully, this is NOT close. Actually, Hillary is down by 162 delegates.

This is NOT the Republican primary. I really can't stand it when people want to pretend like this is close (btw, this is not a dig at you).

The Republicans have a winner-take-all system in their primaries. The Democrats have a proportional system. Hillary can spin the perceptions game all she wants. She can come out after winning OH by 3% and call herself the comeback kid. But she cannot ignore the MATH. And the math says she has to do more than just win tomorrow. She HAS TO WIN BIG!!! She's got to get wins by 20% or more in BOTH states just to even think of making up that delegate deficit. And every race she doesn't do this, those numbers get higher and higher.

John Edwards didn't have to drop out when he did. Neither did Dodd, Biden, Giuliani or Romney. But they did decide to drop out because the math was not in their favor. And rather than run a scorched earth campaign; rather than smear their fellow party member and GIVE the other party more ammo for November, they decided to drop out for the good of the party.

This really irks me. She should not be allowed to move the goal posts like she does. But I've already gone on my rant about this. LOL! http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-rant-... any type of monumental shift, Hillary had better come forth with an actual, mathematically plausible, game plan that shows how she can win this thing without:

1. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people (i.e., reversing whomever has the lead in pledged delegates); and

2. Re-instating MI and FL after the Party specifically said that those two states would NOT COUNT.

Anything short of that, and Hillary is just staying in this for pride and she risks dividing the party and destroying its chances to win in November. But maybe she'd wants to do this (e.g., Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004).

Re: WaPo on Color of Change vs Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and the CBC

B-Serious — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:58:00 -0000

@ nita,

I'm so glad you asked! I do have a blog. Actually, I've had a blog since January. You can just click on my name or visit the url below.

Feel free to visit me:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com

It gets kinda lonely over there. LOL! But you can check out my posts dating back to mid-late January, 2008.

Re: Hillary BLACKENS UP Obama in Ad?

B-Serious — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:58:00 -0000

Re: Jonathan Alter

I just wrote about that subject:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/remember-what-about-math.html

Re: Hillary BLACKENS UP Obama in Ad?

B-Serious — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:05:00 -0000

I assume that this blog will post about the primaries from tonight. I offer this in advance.

I anticipated this on my blog:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/remember-what-about-math.html

If you find yourself in a debate with a Clinton supporter. If you find yourself disoriented because of all of the Clinton spin. Just stop . . . take a deep breath . . . and ask . . .

WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

It's as simple as that folks. Ask that question and DEMAND that they give you a plausible game plan wherein Hillary can comeback and take the delegate lead without:

1. Seating the MI and FL delegates after the DNC specifically said that they would not count; and

2. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people.

If they can't do that, then DEMAND that they tell you EXACTLY why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race knowing that every attack she makes from here forward will do no more than add ammunition for the Republican party.

Beware! You will be called a "hater." You will be called arrogant. Don't be swayed. At the end of the theatrics and philosophical talk about "swing states," and "big states," just ask, "WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?"

And if someone should create some outlandish (although mathematically possible) scenario. Get it in writing. Send it to every news outlet you know. And DEMAND that the media hold her to that standard!

Stop moving the goal posts!

Re: The Race-Baiter Won the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas Primaries

B-Serious — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:13:00 -0000

I anticipated this on my blog:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/remember-what-about-math.html

If you find yourself in a debate with a Clinton supporter. If you find yourself disoriented because of all of the Clinton spin. Just stop . . . take a deep breath . . . and ask . . .

WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

It's as simple as that folks. Ask that question and DEMAND that they give you a plausible game plan wherein Hillary can comeback and take the delegate lead without:

1. Seating the MI and FL delegates after the DNC specifically said that they would not count; and

2. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people.

If they can't do that, then DEMAND that they tell you EXACTLY why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race knowing that every attack she makes from here forward will do no more than add ammunition for the Republican party.

Beware! You will be called a "hater." You will be called arrogant. Don't be swayed. At the end of the theatrics and philosophical talk about "swing states," and "big states," just ask, "WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?"

And if someone should create some outlandish (although mathematically possible) scenario. Get it in writing. Send it to every news outlet you know. And DEMAND that the media hold her to that standard!

Stop moving the goal posts! Do NOT let her steal this!

Re: The Morning After - Some Thoughts

B-Serious — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:27:00 -0000

Let's not forget folks. Obama is basically in the same position he was before March 4. He is still the front runner. HE'S STILL WINNING! The math does not lie.

The ONLY question is whether or not we're willing to accept the Clinton spin that, somehow, the delegates don't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not the media and the public are gullible enough to accept an undemocratic result to this Democratic nomination process.

If you buy her spin, then we will almost certainly nominate the candidate who got LESS votes, LESS pledged delegates and LESS states.

I swear, if that happens then the DNC should right a big fat apology letter to George W. Bush for whinning about the stolen election in 2000. It's no different here. The only difference is that the person planning to steal this thing has a (D) at the end of her name and a last name of "Clinton."

Don't believe the hype! Don't buy the spin that Ohio means more than the rest of the country because it's a "swing" state. We get a different swing state every four years. That's because swing states are determined, in part, by the character and qualities of the two people running for office, not just the political make-up of the state. Last time I checked, Missouri and Colorado were swing states as well.

Plus. Am I supposed to believe that Obama can't win Democratic strongholds like New York, and California.

It's funny. We swallow so much BS that we've learned to accept the unacceptable.

It kinda reminds me of the Iraq war. Remember? We allowed Bush to keep moving the goal posts. First it was weapons of mass destruction, then it was democracy in the middle east. The justifications kept on changing every 2-3 months. Before we knew it, we were fighting in the wrong country, with no exit strategy. And we had the NERVE to ask, "how did we get here?"

We got there the same way we'll get to a Hillary nomination . . . because we, the people, didn't do our job to hold people accountable. But hey, the means always justify the ends, right?

Re: I am BLACK

B-Serious — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:38:00 -0000

Sans the name calling, I feel what you're saying.

But beware. Don't get painted as "angry black" folk. You know that's why they do it. I have no problem with passion, but don't fall for the trap. The point of race-baiting is to get inside your head. Don't let them do it. It can be counterproductive.

Re: I am BLACK

B-Serious — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:39:00 -0000

@nmp

Respectfully, I know both groups have their differences. And I'm not advocating that we put on blinders and ignore the issues that we have. But, at the end of the day, the black/brown coalition is something that we should work towards. If they're voting, then they're just as American as you or I. Shippin them back accross the boarder is like having them say that we should go back to Africa.

I understand that Hillary has done some messed up things. But let's keep the focus . . .channel that energy to beat Hillary in this primary season and do your best to take back the Democratic party.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:33:00 -0000

My biggest fear is that Obama just might be naive enough to believe in the concept of "fairness."

He's very calm when he discusses his delegate lead. Make no mistake about it, he's right to feel as confident as he does.

But there's a big problem that's become more and more obvious over the past few days:

1. If it were'nt already clear, Hillary Clinton does not, and has no intentions of playing by the rules. Indeed, she makes up her own rules as she goes along. SHE tells the media which states are important and which are not. No one ever calls her on this. Obama must take some responsibility for this.

I guarantee you, Hillary would have the media believing that GUAM is a make or break contest if she wanted it to be. Why is PA so important? Why is Ohio more important than Missouri? Obama has got to raise some of these issues.

2. The MSM is disturbingly gullible. Everyone knows that we pick the Democratic nominee through delegates. Hillary, herself, has been quoted as saying that the only thing that counts is the delegates. Yet the MSM has reduced this race to one of spin, perception and momentum. Thus you hear the growing chorus that claims the nominee will be whomever has the momentum at the end - REGARDLESS OF THE MATH.

3. The Democratic Party has always and will continue to be SPINELESS. The DNC has been bullied into accepting the possibility of do-overs in MI and FL. Sadly, even Obama's campaign has left the door open for such do-overs. This is disturbing when one considers the fact that many of these super delegates are the same SPINELESS politicians that have grown so accustomed to being bullied into a host of other issues - the same Democrats who get pimp-slapped every news cycle by the Republicans.

4. The MSM has completely bought Hillary's latest spin: i.e., neither candidate can get 2025, so the rules don't apply. The mainstream media is completely ignoring the delegate math. This is the same delegate math that has made EVERY CANDIDATE (with the exception of Huckabee) drop out of the race. But again, Hillary makes her own rules. And we allow her to do it.

I guarantee you that, if Hillary were in Obama's position, she'd be screaming the math so loud that there would be NO discussion of an Obama comeback.

finally,

It hurts to say this, but it has to be said: Barack is DROPPING the ball.

True talk, Obama can't pass gas without some Hillary surrogate jumping down his throat. But Obama's surrogate game is WEAK! And he let's Hillary get away with murder in the hopes that the American people will opt for hope over fear and dirty politics. My brotha, don't give the people too much credit.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO FEEL LIKE A LOSER NOW! But it's time to fight back and make the American people and the MSM understand that Hillary's method of winning the nomination is UNDEMOCRATIC! I've heard Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Maher and a host of others state the obvious and make a clear and convincing argument that Hillary is tearing the Democratic Party apart. THEY ARE DOING OBAMA's JOB FOR HIM. Why hasn't Obama stepped up to the plate?

Message to Obama: WAKE UP! Stand up for yourself, your supporters and your message!!!

Hillary has mocked you; she's ignored your impact. SHE DOES NOT RESPECT YOU OR WHAT YOU STAND FOR! My brotha, it's one thing to lose, but it's another thing to lose like this! It's another thing to have something STOLEN from you while they spit in your face and mock your message.

The American people deserve better, but it won't happen unless you throw caution to the wind and speak your mind.

What happened to the "fierce urgency of now???" Well, the time IS now. But you've got to fight for it!

And to all the people on this board. Don't give up. This is OUR time. Whether you've walked door-to-door, spread the message, or simply written a donation, don't give up now. We've worked TOO hard to get where we are and we ain't gonna take a defeatist attitude just because Ms. Hillary turned up the heat. Throw it right back in her face.

Listen, we all know the story. This is supposed to be the time where we fall in line and act like sheep. DON'T DO IT. Re-double your efforts. No one said it would be easy.

Obama '08 - YES WE CAN!

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:51:00 -0000

My goodness, y'all. A politician could get the public to believe that the sky is red with purple stripes if he or she wanted to.

And if she said it enough times. If she beat it into your heads. She could get you to believe it. Repitition = truth. It's sad, but that's how it works.

The Clinton campaign is repeating their talkingpoints. Their beating their message into our collective skull. I've even memorized a few of them myself. I could name you a list of Clinton surrogates and identify them. That's because the Clintons have got them all over the media. You can't flip a channel without seeing one of them.

Why can't Obama do this?

Hillary knows the game: A lie becomes the truth when it goes uncontested.

And Obama is letting her walk all over him. He's letting her say whatever she wants without consequence.

She's got the media saying the delegates don't matter; the math is irrelevant; it's ok to let the super delegates reverse the will of the people; and that the only important states are states that she wins.

It's like we're in the frickin' twilight zone.

Don't let Hillary steal this thing.

DON'T LET THEM DO IT!

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:25:00 -0000

felicia,

Amen. You are 100% correct in your suspicions of a "mail-in" primary. I was thinking the exact same thing.

There is no way I'd trust a mail-in primary. You're absolutely correct. There'd be a ton of black and young voters whose ballots would mysteriously get lost in the mail. No thank you.

And how would the state determine who gets a ballot? Does every resident get a ballot? Just registered Democrats? Only people who voted in late January?

It's complete garbage. But, once again, where's the Obama campaign on this??? This "mail-in" idea began floating around on Friday. Once again, if you don't jump on it, it begins to take on a life of its own.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:57:00 -0000

Re: that V.P. crap,

If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd suggest the following:

Obama needs to schedule a public press conference. He needs to make it unequivocally clear: He will not accept a V.P. slot. He should tell the public that we need to make a choice . . . that, as hard as it may be for some (not hard for me at all), the Democratic Party needs to make a clear and decisive CHOICE between he and Hillary. There is no "two-for-one." It's either/or. End of story.

He should then restate that the purpose of his campaign is to shift away from the negative, divisive politics of the past two decades.

He should then present a laundry list of Hillary's tactics and DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND. Challenge the people. Put Hillary on the spot.

Finally (and I've said this before on my blog) Obama needs to highlight Hillary's praise of McCain at the expense of a fellow Democrat. Take every crazy comment McCain's ever made and tie it to her endorsement of McCains supposed "presidential threshold experience." HE SHOULD MAKE HER WEAR THAT LIKE A SCARLET LETTER! He should note that no other Democrat in this campaign has ever praised a republican nominee at another democrat's expense.

Define her as placing herself above the party. MAKE HER OWN IT. Debunk her assertion of experience (read direct quotes from her speech on the senate floor leading up to the Iraq invasion) and publically state that she should apologize for giving the RNC its first political add of the general election.

I saw someone say the following on a comment board earlier. Obama should list Hillary's negative tactics. And, in response, Obama's new slogan should be: "WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS." Simple as that. A great slogan from a message board.

That's not negative. But it's strong. It's direct and to the point.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:12:00 -0000

Re: A tough surrogate,

Obama definitely needs a strong surrogate. I'm thinking liberal talk show host, Randi Rhodes.

She'd be an unconventional choice with the potential for greater influence than a political insider.

In case you didn't hear it, Randi went on a tirade Friday. She finally came out of her neutral stance and called it like she saw it.

Like a lot of us. She said that people should do everything in their power to DEFEAT Hillary in PA. She went all out.

Randi is tough. She holds no punches. She has an inside track to politics and perhaps the largest audience in all of progressive radio.

Even more, she's an assertive, intelligent middle aged white woman (I hate to go to identity politics here, but it's a definite advantage). She can hopefully identify with Hillary's strongest base of support and soften her strangle-hold on that demographic.

Obama doesn't have to use her as an attack dog (i.e., Stephanie Tubbs-Jones style). But he could utilize her talents to show that you can be a strong, middle-aged white feminist who doesn't think Clinton is best for this country. Randi doesn't hate Clinton (I think that's important because I find Hillary's use of black surrogates to be highly offensive). She's one of many feminists who think a woman President would be great . . . just not this particular woman.

Randi's criticsm can focus on Hillary's harm to the Democratic Party(that's not personal or gender specific). Randi can describe in detail how she's grown disgusted with her tactics. Randi has unequivocally stated that Hillary needs to be stopped before she destroys the party.

Have Randi go around PA with Senator Claire McCaskill and Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano.

Next Obama should have Tom Daschle, Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd camp out in PA for the next month. Have them focus on economic issues in rural PA. Once again, soften Hillary's advantage in one of her stronger demographics - working class whites (particulary working class white men).

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:36:00 -0000

@anonymous

1. If Obama's lead is so "tiny," then Hillary would have no problem overcoming it. But she can't do that - she can't overtake Obama in pledged delegates. Therefore, Obama's lead is not "tiny," at all; it is quite substantial. That spin don't work.

2. Hillary has an outside shot at the popular vote total. But it's still unlikely.

Even if the DNC caved in to Clinton and counted the elections in MI and FL as is, Hillary would have a slim popular vote lead of about 50,000 or so.

Now, you give do-overs and Obama adds to his popular vote total. Don't forget, Obama got zero votes in MI because 40% of the people voted "uncommitted." They voted uncommitted in the dead of winter with no name on the ballot. That 40% is likely to increase once its just Obama and Clinton. Plus, where do those Edwards supporters go? Obama could get a healthy portion of those votes as well.

Same goes for Florida. Hillary would probably still be the favorite there, but things have changed since January. It wouldn't be a vote on name recognition. Both candidates would likely campaign there. And, again, where do those Edwards supporters go.

3. Hillary would still have to blow Obama away in PA, MI, and FL to make up that popular vote gap. She won Ohio by 10% (roughly 230,000 votes). She'd have to repeat that type of performance in at least two of those three states just to draw even. Once again, it's not like Obama stops getting votes. He's going to be getting large vote totals as well.

He'll also have an opportunity to pad his leads by taking Mississippi and North Carolina.

4. If caucuses were less representative (or as some Clinton supporters claim, undemocratic) then the DNC would simply hold a nation-wide primary.

But they don't. And states have the right to either hold primaries or to caucus. Those states award their delegates based on their system.

Hillary doesn't get to ignore caucuses just because she's not organized enough to win them. Hillary has the same opportunity to win a caucus as Obama. But she loses because it's clear that caucuses never factored into her campaign plans. That's on her.

Her arguments against caucuses are weak. She claims that people can't get off of work when a majority of the caucuses were held on Saturdays. She claims that the elderly can't get out of their homes to caucus, but somehow can (amazingly) muster the exact same amount of energy to get out of the house to vote in a primary.

One could argue that caucuses are more democratic. It's more than pulling a lever. You have to actually argue your case and, at times, even persuade others to vote for your candidate.

5. All of this is besides the point because the nominee is not chosen by way of the popular vote. The nominee is chosen by DELEGATES. Hillary Clinton has gone on record saying that it's all about the delegates.

Issues like momentum, etc., only come into play if the frontrunner does a complete tank-job (meaning some type of scandal, etc.,) making the candidacy unworkable and unwinnable.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:38:00 -0000

Arguing the popular vote over delegates is like trying to argue the popular vote over the electoral college. It ain't gonna fly. Everyone knew the rules, and the rules say it's delegates, not popular vote.

And Hillary can't try the Al Gore argument. Think back to 2000. The problem people had did not center around the popular vote; it focused on the electoral college.

People were upset that Bush stole Florida from Al Gore via the Supreme Court. Democrats didn't argue the popular vote because everyone knew it all came down to the electoral college.

In essence, Bush used a biased Court to steal Florida, which gave him the necessary electoral votes to win the White House. It had nothing to do with the popular vote.

Even if I conscede the popular vote argument, Obama's still got twice as many states and more elected delegates. That's a best 2 out of 3 scenario - which means a stronger argument both on a practical and moral basis.

6. I conscede that the super delegates are within the rules to use "judgment."

But know this . . . there will be hell to pay if they reverse the will of the people.

Give the nomination to Hillary on those grounds and watch half of the Democratic Party stage a walk-out on national television at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Go ahead. Alienate your strongest base (African-Americans) prompting a shift in American politics not seen since blacks began moving to the Democratic party after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go ahead. Lose an entire generation of young voters (ages 18-30) just to please Hillary Clinton.

Go ahead. Alienate Democrats in red states and watch Democratic candidates fall like dominos on the down ticket. Let's see Hillary pass universal health care after she (like her husband) loses the Senate.

Sure, super delegates are within the rules. But you'll destroy the Democratic Party in the process. Super delegates know this. The only question is whether enough of them will be strong enough to stand up to the Clintons and do what's right.

7. Finally, Clinton's "big blue state myth" requires a suspension of all logic and critical thinking.

Mark Penn has gone on record as saying that winning a primary doesn't equate to winning in the general (I think he used this argument when Hillary was losing 11 straight by an average of 33%).

If you give the "big state" argument, then you must convince the super delegates that Obama can not win Democratic strongholds like NY, CA, MA, NJ, etc.

Fact is, the second place Democrat has often received more votes than the first place Republican in a lot of these contests. So it's disingenous to suggest that Obama couldn't beat McCain in these Democratic strongholds.

As for swing states, I'll see your Ohio and raise you Missouri. And don't forget about Virginia, and Colorado (just to name a few).

Where do Clinton's rural working class white voters go in the general election? My guess is McCain has just as good, if not better, an opportunity to peel them away from Hillary.

In a McCain/Clinton matchup, add those rural white voters to McCain's strong hold on Independents; an anti-Clinton Republican base; and depressed Democratic turnout in the African-American community and you've got the perfect formula for defeat in November.

A lot of these arguments have already been shot down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:49:00 -0000

my last comment was directed @ anonymous.

@ black american princess

Thanks, I'll see what I can do.

Re: Obama Responds to Clinton’s Vice-President Rope-A-Dope Trick

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:58:00 -0000

I love it!

And I love the key line: "You have to make a choice in this election."

I also love the fact that he's putting it out there - he's in first place with more votes, states and delegates. That should be a catch phrase for him. Keep pounding it into people's heads.

I saw someone on MSNBC actually say that it's been easy to forget that Obama is WINNING because Hillary got most of the headlines last week.

Keep it up, Obama. Set the record straight. You're off to a good start.

Re: Ferraro Says Obama is LUCKY He’s Black

B-Serious — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:09:00 -0000

I gotta tell y'all. Last night, I wrote a comment about 4 or 5 times before I decided to delete it and just leave it alone.

That's how mad I actually am. I had to physically restrain myself from hitting the "post" button because I knew that I was about to write some words that I wouldn't want my mama to see(LOL).

I am beyond pissed at this moment. This all started with that dumb a*s article by gloria steinem. It continued with that stupid, "B*tch is the new Black," comment on SNL and it's just gotten worse and worse ever since.

I wish someone would write an op-ed piece (perhaps Melissa Harris-Lacewell) and call them out on this nonsense. I'm so sick and tired of hearing white feminists distort black history and cheapen the black struggle for political gain. And the media buys into it hook, line and sinker.

I am trying soooooo hard to restrain myself, but some of these middle-aged white "feminists" are working my very last nerve! I won't chastise an entire group. But someone needs to tell these women to shut up.

It is the epitomy of privilege and entitlement. They're like that spoiled brat in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - stamping their feet and screamin' " . . . "Don't care how, I want it NOW!"

That's all they're saying. And they think they've earned the right to say this garbage about another minority and then hide behind the shield of being an "oppressed woman" (read, white woman).

It's clear that some of them think black men ain't sh*t. And, for the life of them, they can't understand . . . can't comprehend. . . can't fathom the FACT that this "uppity nigger" is whoopin' their a*ses! Man, that must drive them crazy! You know that's what's killing them right now. It burns, don't it!?!

Because you all know that it would be one thing if they could call him dumb, lazy, etc. But they can't do that. He's always been a step ahead of them.

So, like some have said, they'd rather paint him as the Affirmative Action candidate. Unreal!

This hits on a personal level. Because I'm sure that, like myself, all of you have had your "affirmative action moments," where whites use it as a crutch to dismiss your success.

Just like they're trying to dismiss Obama's success right now. So . . . now he's only winning because people like the "concept" of electing a black president? I'm with rikyrah. I didn't know that being black was a concept.

And, surprise, the media is silent on the issue!?!?!?

You can't say "boo" to Hillary Clinton without having N.O.W. jump down your throat. I'm with that anonymous poster from earlier on . . .Where the hell is the NAACP and other groups like that?!?! I mean, I don't need a civil rights march, but it would be nice to see someone stand up and draw attention to these types of comments.

Re: Ferraro Says Obama is LUCKY He’s Black

B-Serious — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:44:00 -0000

@ anonymous,

I hear what you're saying.

I was talking to my sister yesterday and she said something very interesting.

She thinks that Hillary and her ilk are gonna slip up real soon and start calling him "boy."

That's when gender politics butts heads with racial politics. And Hillary's bold enough to try it.

This is highly probable. I've seen feminists use that term, "boy," when fighting patriarchy. But that will backfire BIG TIME if people like Erica Jong, Ferraro, Steinem, Taylor Marsh and N.O.W. try to take that rout with Obama.

They've already come close. Bill and Hillary were calling him "kid" back in January.

I'm telling you. Hillary's mouth is going to get her in trouble. Her campaign says whatever they want without consequence. The only problem with that is that it encourages them to keep talking. And people like Hillary don't know when to stop. They keep pushing their luck until it comes back to bite them.

Her mouth (or someone in her campaign) is gonna write a check that her a*s can't cash.

Re: Ferraro Says Obama is LUCKY He’s Black

B-Serious — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:46:00 -0000

ronnie b,

LOL! You and I were thinking (and typing) the same thing.

Re: Ferraro Says Obama is LUCKY He’s Black

B-Serious — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0000

@ nmp,

You asked, "When will the Democratic Leadership stand up to the Clinton Campaign?"

Well, Nancy Pelosi just spoke out against the Clinton campaign. She said that the "dream ticket," is "impossible," and guess who she's blaming . . .

Here's the quote:

"I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that [dream ticket] out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible," she continued, "Nothing ever resolves itself -- it has to be resolved by some outside forces . . ."

Uh oh! Not good news for Hillary Clinton. Looks like you tick off a lot of the Democratic Leadership when you try to throw the Democratic frontrunner under the bus and give the RNC its talking points for the fall.

Now, Pelosi remains "neutral," but this is as strong a condemnation as you'll probably see from her.

Let's hope that this is a sign of things to come. Maybe . . . just maybe the Democrats will show some spine and do the right thing.

We'll have to wait and see.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/pelosi... last thing. I am somewhat pleased by the fact that there are some people who are finally beginning to call the Clintons on their bs. Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz and Stephanie Miller have done a great job of pointing out some of these issues.

The television MSM is out to lunch. But talk radio and the internet media are starting to get on Hillary's case. And the anger is growing each and every day. They're not ignoring the math. They're not falling for that "tight horse-race" crap.

They look at the math (as they did with EVERY other candidate) and realize that Hillary can't win this thing without the super delegates. They're getting more and more upset at the fact that, because she can't win, all Hillary is doing is hurting the party in the process.

Re: Sinbad Blaast On HIllary’s Foreign Policy Experience. He Was There

B-Serious — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:28:00 -0000

LOL! Now, you KNOW you done messed up when you go and make SINBAD mad. LOL!

Re: Obama Wins Mississippi

B-Serious — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:25:00 -0000

Hey everyone. Make sure to set your tivos.

In case you haven't heard, Keith Olbermann will be making another one of his Special Comments tonight.

For the first time, he's targeting a DEMOCRAT . . . Hillary Clinton!

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/keith-... should be interesting. His special comments usually don't hold back. I'll be interested to see how he approaches Hillary.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:37:00 -0000

Great job, Olbermann!

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-hateration-and-keiths-special.html

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:30:00 -0000

Joe Scarborough is trying to say that this will backfire on Obama because white women will feel offended . . .martyr, etc.

Well, someone needs to tell Ms. Ferraro that she's not the victim! I'm sick of this. Joe's basically saying that Obama doesn't even have the right to defend himself.

Joe says that it's no different than what Gloria Steinem said so what's the big deal. Well, it WAS OFFENSIVE when Steinem said it back in January. It's just that the media gave her a free pass and blacks didn't speak up.

This ain't January. And just because you get away with a dumb comment once doesn't give you license to say it over and over again.

Keith was right on the money. I agree with nita's point that he still had trouble laying complete blame/responsibility at her feet. But he went as far as he probably could go.

All I know is this. Barack Obama has bent over backwards to try and be nice to this woman. He has bitten his tongue while her and her people go and say whatever they want.

This was more than a dumb comment. This was a racist comment. And it's representative of how the Clintons feel about Obama. It fits right in line with Hillary's condescending attitude.

Spare me the violins on Ferraro. I could care less if her feelings are hurt or if she is or is not a racist. She said it. It was factually inaccurate and racially offensive. So take responsibility for it.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:05:00 -0000

And another thing. How does responding to a racist comment equal "playing the race card?"

What privilege it must be to tell someone that they shouldn't respond or defend themself against your attacks.

And Obama has STILL been above the frey. All he said was that her comments were divisive and absurd. I didn't hear him call her a racist. I didn't see him put on a black leather jacket, throw on a pair of shades, stick a black fist in the air, and yell, "let's get the white woman."

This gets to the heart of the "angry black man" problem. Hillary can go bipolar (I'm honored to share a stage with Barack/Shame on You Barack/He's not qualified/he is qualified so long as he's my v.p.) but Obama can't even respond to a racist comment? He can't respond to a constant talking point (echoed from Clinton to Steinem to Ferraro) that he's an unqualified, empty suit affirmative action candidate who's only gotten thus far through white guilt?

How many people have the Clintons gotten fired or suspended during this campaign? How many apologies has she squeezed out of cable news networks? How many times has Hillary used a sledge-hammer when a chisel would do?

So, I get it. She and Ferraro play the victim until they find a way to turn this into another sister soujah moment. Ferraro gets to go nuclear on Obama while Hillary gets plausible deniability. And the media gets spun into some alternate reality where the victim of the assault is actually at fault. Unreal.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:51:00 -0000

justice 58,

Roland Martin said it perfectly on his radio show yesterday. He said he doesn't want to hear any of these CBC folks complain about conservative racism, Bush or the Republicans anymore - because they're silent on Clinton because of her name and because of the fact that she's a Democrat.

That's all it is. They've put party above principle. They're political tools . . . no different than the Armstrong Williamses and Larry Elders of the world. The only difference is that they're Democratic apologists while people like Williams and Elders are Republican apologists.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:03:00 -0000

Honestly, has anyone seen Obama use Claire McCaskill or Janet Napolitano the way Hillary uses her black supporters?

Has McCaskill or Napolitano attacked Hillary's womanhood the way Andrew Young attacked Obama's blackness? Have they drudged up Hillary's past scandals the way Bob Johnson did in with Barack in South Carolina? Have they called Hillary an empty suit the way Stephanie Tubbs-Jones has spoken of Obama?

Let's get real for a second. Let's stop trying to make excuses for Hillary.

The fact is that I haven't seen Obama's female supporters go after Hillary the way her black supporters go after Obama. You want to know why???

Because those women know that there is a line that they're not willing to cross. All of those women support Obama, but have made it a point to express their admiration (on varying levels) for what Clinton has accomplished. They may support Obama, but they're not willing to trash their own gender to do it (as they shouldn't).

But we've got our own people making excuse after excuse for the Clintons. Putting loyalty over everything else, they're job is to say what Hillary can't. They're just as condescending towards Obama as Hillary and Bill are. And it's sickening. Who the hell is Stephanie Tubbs-Jones to get on national tv and tell/lecture a black audience (at the Tavis SOTBU), "Shame on us?!?!?" That still rubbs me the wrong way when I think about it.

This has nothing to do with group mentality. By all means, support who you want. But you don't have to tear down another black person to do it. Regardless of your personal choice, there's gotta be a point where you're willing to say, "Enough is enough. I supported you, but I won't go there."

We always want to rationalize stuff. We've been trained to make excuses for people . . . "Well, maybe she really meant to say this . . . maybe he was trying to do that."

I keep saying it; and I agree with rikyrah. There is no other group that does this. There is no other group that tolerates as much disrespect as we do.

This is not about censorship so much as it about accountability. I'm not one for censorship. You won't see me picketing some rap artist or comedian. But I draw a line when it comes to politicians. Ignorance + power is a dangerous thing. Michael Richards has no power over me, but a racist in the white house or in congress sure does.

We always talk about the "issues" when discussing the candidates. Well, let me tell y'all something. . . RESPECT IS AN ISSUE!!! As a matter of fact, the very first prerequisite to getting someone's vote is to convey a sense of RESPECT! It seems that almost every group demands respect except for us. No, we're too worried about what other folks are gonna think.

I'm gonna put this out for a thought piece. You tell me what you think:

I'm gonna be honest here. I really think a President could call someone a nigger on national tv and get away with it. Seriously. It would be highly controversial. He'd take a lot of heat and a hit to his image. But he wouldn't lose his office over it. He'd maintain his power and authority. It might take a year or two, but he'd do it. And he'd probably have black folk (either Democratic or Republican apologists) defending him all the way.

Don't forget, this wouldn't be some comedian or news anchor. This would be the President of the U.S. calling a black man/woman a nigger. Some leaked tape in the President's second year of his term. Do you honestly think America would force the most powerful person in the world to step down over something like that?

Now flip it. What if a President got caught saying something anti-semetic? What do you think would happen?

The Jewish community don't play that. And I ain't mad at 'em. God bless 'em for it. Because they're not afraid to show pride and solidarity when they need to. What's the matter with us? I can see the excuses now: "But we're in the middle of a war .. . yeah, but he's created x million jobs . . . yeah, but he's had a history of helping the black community."

It's not always about the "issue." A lot of times, it's about the willingness of a person or a people to stand up for themselves. No one's gonna fight your battles for you.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:25:00 -0000

rikyrah,

Right on!!!! It's like I'm watching some photo negative. We're relying on white people to decry white racism. What a shame.

Is it strategic on some of their parts? Is it that they don't want to get marginalized in a "black" issue? I get that, but still . . . you have to stand up for yourself.

I'm not asking for a march on washington. I'm just asking for black folks to stand up for themselves.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:58:00 -0000

Regarding Jeremiah Wright:

Option #1 - Confrontational

Seeing as how the black clergy were among the first to line up behind the Clinton machinery . . . how many of you are willing to bet that there are probably 4 or 5 pro-Hillary black clergymen whom have said similarly controversial things? I'm sure it would be easy to find tapes of such statements and throw it right back at the Clintons if they want to make it an issue.

That's one approach.

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:05:00 -0000

Jeremiah Wright continued:

But here's another approach . . .

Strategically speaking, it would seem as though Obama will have to do more than "reject and denounce" Mr. Wright. People are and have always been looking for a reason to NOT vote for Obama. The underlying theme from his critics is that Obama's too good to be true. It is wrapped in cynism.

Knowing this, the "Hussein" stuff coupled with the church is all people need to say, "I told you so."

No one is going to take the same route with McCain or Hillary, because we assume they don't have to prove their Americanness as Obama does. Hilary is a "first" but Barack has another issue that he must overcome. Not only is he a "first," but he's also an "other." His name, skin tone, background and upbringing raise doubts to traditional americans. . . "Is he really one of us?"

Therefore, it seems like Obama will have one last racial hurdle to overcome before he wins this thing (which he will). He will not only have to reject and denounce . . . he will have to EXPLAIN.

That's what it's gonna come down to. I've watched both videos and I understand where the pastor is coming from. He says slings some hard one-lines (e.g., "GD America" and 9/11 conspiracy) that Obama, for political reasons should squash right off the bat.

However Mr. Wright's race-related comments are not far fetched for someone like me. But I'm black and have a proper context of where he's likely coming from. MSM doesn't have that context. That's because the MSM has a "color-blind" context whereas most black folk have a "color-conscious" context (myself included).

So what does Obama do? I doubt white america will ever understand the context. I wouldn't expect them to. It would be unfair and unrealistic the think they'll find a way to sympathize in 8 months.

But here's the deal. Racism and religious intolerance thrive off of ignorance. It is FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN that drives the muslim emails, Hussein fear and church controversy.

So, this is what I think he should do: OPEN THE DOORS TO HIS CHURCH.

Seriously. It would be a bold movement, but I think he could pull it off. Imagine this. Obama goes to Fox News to set up an interview with Sean Hannity. But instead of a standard five minute sit-down, Obama takes Sean to his church.

I'm serious here. Think of the impact. Bring him to the sermon; show him around the church; introduce him to the people (their families and their kids).

Obama would be able to prove (gasp!) they're just like everyone else.

It's a bold move, but the payoff could be huge. That's the way you overcome racial and religious divisions. You get together . . .you break bread together.

I was part of the my school's college gospel choir. One of the easiest things we could do at that time was to invite an "outsider" to our church. Simple as that. We weren't trying to convert anyone. All we did was share our world. Church, fellowship and soul food afterwards. You know what happened? They came back the following Sunday.

If Obama is truly going to unite us (or at least start), then he'll have to HEAL. Education and oppeness is the BEST weapon against ignorance. It would truly put Obama on a whole new playing field.

What do you guys think?

Re: Keith Olberman Comes Correct On Clinton And Ferraro

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:58:00 -0000

craig hickman,

Respectfully, I gotta disagree with ya on this one. Hillary needs more than a blowout in PA to catch up.

A big win in PA ain't gonna do it for Clinton.

She's down by over 700,000 popular votes and counting. Rumor has it that this number could get even higher when they tally the popular votes from the caucus states.

Plus Obama still looks strong in places like NC and OR.

She's got an insurmountable deficit in pledged delegates.

She's already lost the race for states.

The only way she gets this is through media spin, the super delegates, and deafening silence from us, the people.

Now, I know that this is possible. The Democrats could reverse the will of the people. But that would be political suicide.

Seriously, say goodbye to an entire generation of voters ages 18-30. Say goodbye to the black vote. Give liberal, "latte-sipping" voters an excuse to vote for Nader.

How does she win Ohio without the black vote in Cleveland and Cincinnati? How does she win PA without the black vote in Philadelphia? The list goes on and on.

Plus, the only real reason to choose Hillary over Barack would be out of some sense of loyalty to the Clinton name. Her big state myth has been debunked by numerous sources. Obama does better than her in head-to-head contests with McCain. Obama's expanding the party while Hillary's negatives are just as high (if not higher) than her positives. Forget a glass ceiling . . . Hillary's got a cement ceiling and it's due, in large part, to her divisive tactics.

She can spin all she wants. But a logical, sober look at the math says she's a weaker candidate than Obama.

So, should the super delegates give her the nomination because she's a "Clinton?" Tell that to those Democrats on the down ticket in red states. They ain't voting for her. Like Bill did in '94, she risks losing Congress to the Republicans by 2010. Try passing universal health care when that happens.

Obama is far from done. In fact, I think he's in a very strong position. And when we get out of the spin zone, he's as strong as he's ever been.

Plus, do-overs in Florida look like a dead issue because the state Dems just shot down the idea of a mail-in vote.

Bottom line. Hillary needs more than PA and she doesn't have enough states left to get the job done.

Re: Trying to Attack Obama Through His Church

B-Serious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:59:00 -0000

McCain has got ties to crazy ministers. I'm sure that some of those black clergy supporting Hillary have said similarly "controversial" things.

But still.

Obama needs to address this ASAP. If Mr. Wright has a spot on Obama's team, I don't see how Obama gets out of this without making him step down.

I know it's a political ploy. But when you've got a person saying "God D*mn America" you know that's gonna hang around Obama's neck like an anvil. That's the PERFECT soundbite for the GOP (and even Hillary supporters).

The negative far outweighs the positive here. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of practicality. He doesn't have to throw him under the bus. He doesn't have to publically scold Wright or make an example of him. I'm not talking about that.

He doesn't (nor should he) have to make a big deal of it. But he's gotta put this behind him before it gets too big.

That doesn't mean that he has to denounce his church or faith (nor should he). As I said in the last post, I think he should open the doors to the church and use education and openess to fight the ignorance of the Fox News crowd.

But he can't be associated with "God D*mn America" and the like. I'm not saying it would be fatal to his campaign. But it would likely create a huge headache that he doesn't need at this time.

Obama has already released a statement. All he needs is for Mr. Wright to respectfully step down from whatever symbolic post he has. Don't feed the fire.

Re: Trying to Attack Obama Through His Church

B-Serious — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:14:00 -0000

I'm telling you. The way to take the sting out of all of this is to open the doors of the church.

As long as the media gets to portray the church as some amorphous mob of black militants, Obama will continue to get dogged by the questions.

You open the doors of the church. And you do the very thing that best undercuts those fears of the unknown: You give it a face. You give it a name. You give it a culture; life and context. You take away the mystery. Why? Because ignorance feeds off of that mystery.

I guarantee that would be one of the highest rated shows of the year. I'd even go one step further. I'd consider setting up a brief discussion with about 10 church members. Let Hannity ask his questions face to face.

Don't engage in a tit-for-tat with McCain's connections or Hillary's. It's been rightly noted that Obama doesn't get to play by the same set of rules. Don't shy away from the issue or try to stay above the frey on this one. This is one of those issues that people use to define a candidate if not answered properly (fairly or not). Meet it head on. Discuss the elephant in the room.

Step in the lion's den. This would demonstrate an openess that's rarely seen in modern politics. It would show a sense of confidence and moral conviction. Whether they agree or disagree, people, particularly conservatives, at least respect a person who is willing to stand by their convictions.

He's gonna have to do it sooner or later. And he should do it by inviting his main critic, Fox News/Sean Hannity. Obama could even bring his own camera crew as insurance (just in case Sean tried to distort what happened).

Re: Trying to Attack Obama Through His Church

B-Serious — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:58:00 -0000

Well, it's still early. But, so far, the media and public response to Mr. Wright is not as bad as I thought it was going to be.

By the looks of it. A lot of people are willing to put Wright in the "crazy old preacher" category along with the likes of Pat Robertson and the rest. I've heard some suggest that they'd like a clearer explaination from Obama. However, I'm surprised to say that most people have not been willing to condemn Obama via guilt by association.

Checked out MSNBC and CNN - it's no more than one of a string of stories being discussed. Quite frankly, the proposed do-overs in MI and FL are still getting more attention at the moment.

Of course, Fox News has Wright as their lead story. But that's expected.

Listened to some (liberal) talk radio this morning and a lot of the callers (black AND white) said it wasn't a big deal. Some white folk even empathized with Wright's perspective (re: race relations, etc.) - I was shocked, but they said it.

I think we really might be making more of this than it is. Dick Morris even said this story wouldn't have wings. McCain's campaign doesn't seem to want to touch it. Hillary's been silent so far.

Outside of the usual suspects (conservative white guys like Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough and Hannity) this story doesn't seem to have the buzz needed to make it past the weekend.

It hurts him among the flag waving crowd. But those people weren't voting for him anyways. As for fence sitters . . . those voters have been breaking for Hillary lately anyways (my thesis: late deciders are not "change" voters, they go with the safer pick).

I could be wrong. But it looks like Obama's positive vibes and good reputation MIGHT just be strong enough to help him avoid a PR nightmare.

I think it comes down to this: At the end of the day a lot of people look at Obama and just don't see an angry black man.

Overall, the media's giving it the same amount of scrutiny that they gave Michelle Obama's comment about a month ago.

This is not a campaign killer.

Re: Trying to Attack Obama Through His Church

B-Serious — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:30:00 -0000

brownsugaqt86,

I hear what you're saying. This will be an issue that pops up from time to time.

But there is such a thing as overreaching in politics. The only people really beating the drums on this thing are Fox News and conservative pundits. Obama was never gonna get that vote anyways.

Have you seen the Fox News coverage? They're basically trying to paint Obama as some type of closet Huey Newton. That's an overreach. If you're going to attack someone, you gotta make it seem realistic. It's hard to characterize someone when there's no corresponding reputation.

Right now, most of the people I've heard have been able to distinguish between Obama and his pastor. Once again, it's still early. But this story has been fighting for air time with Spitzer and the MI/FL issue.

Obama's good reputation has given him a little more slack than I think we're willing to recognize. Plus, I maintain, I think Obama's tougher than we're willing to give him credit for.

Fox news and the like will try to re-define Obama as some type of black nationalist. That's a hard sell to make - especially in a news media with a short attention span. . . especially after you've spent the past year telling the public he wasn't black enough.

I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just hard.

Re: Big Up Andrew Sullivan on Pastor Wright

B-Serious — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:46:00 -0000

Yes. I mentioned this on my blog. Whether you agree with Wright or not, Obama has EARNED the right to be judged by on his own merits. People understand this.

I have to say. The majority of people chiming in on this subject are not buying this "guilt by association" argument that Sean Hannity is pushing. That's because Obama has a good reputation. He has run a relatively clean campaign. He's kept his cool no matter the issue. His message is universal and inclusive. That buys you a lot of brownie points for controversies like this one.

When you get outside of the conservative, Fox News-type of crowd, the majority of people don't see this as a campaign killer. That doesn't mean that they like what Wright said. But it does mean that it's not enough for them to change their minds on Obama.

I'll be keeping an eye out for the next 2-3 national Gallup polls to see if this has had any real effect.

Like I said. This is just a bad news cycle. Barring any major new developments, this story doesn't have the legs to make it past Tuesday or Wednesday. Sure, Hannity and others will try their best to play a game of gotcha politics. Look for some "former member of the church" to come on Fox News and swear that he saw Obama on X day at X time. But, short of an offensive comment from Obama himself, it looks like people are ready to move on. We've seen far worse scandals. Politicians have survived far worse.

Re: Big Up Andrew Sullivan on Pastor Wright

B-Serious — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:49:00 -0000

Remember folks, the MESSAGE has not changed! Don't take a defeatist attitude. No one said it would be easy.

Yes We Can!

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/message-has-not-changed-yes-we-can.html

Re: Big Up Andrew Sullivan on Pastor Wright

B-Serious — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:22:00 -0000

I don't see how this hurts Obama in the short term. Jeremiah Wright doesn't change the math. He doesn't change the delegate equation or the states won. He MIGHT affect the popular vote in a few of the remaining states, but Obama's got a comfortable margin (700,000 and growing).

Which means that it still comes down to the super delegates. If Obama has the pledged delegate lead going into the convention then the supers would need a GOOD reason to reverse the will of the people.

Now, maybe the Wright controversy is enough to do that. But, I doubt it. I can't imagine that the Obama camp didn't plan for this.

It would have to be something to make Obama's candidacy absolutely TOXIC ("kill whitey," dead girl/live boy type stuff) to give the supers a free pass to give the nomination to Hillary.

That's why I think it's important to keep an eye on the polls. Come June, how does Obama stand up against McCain? Unless the polls shift dramatically, I see no reason to fear an Obama the nomination for the Fall so long as he remains competitive.

I'd also like to hear from some of the people working the campaign. How are the phone calls going? What are canvassers hearing?

Plus, I wouldn't use Sean Hannity or Fox News/conservative radio as a barometer on this issue. They're going to be on a crusade no matter what. I'd pay more attention to the morning talk shows and evening broadcasts on the major networks. As for cable news, this story is still competing with MI/FL do-overs for air time.

Bottom line: Obama ain't dropping out of the race when he's winning by every objective standard. His base is strong. Which means that he'll have time and support to wrestle with this if it continues to grow.

Re: Big Up Andrew Sullivan on Pastor Wright

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:40:00 -0000

@ anonymous 10:12pm

Thanks for pointing that out.

You know that's kinda funny that people say it was racist.

Jeremiah Wright's comments weren't racist. The controversy involved the issue of "patriotism." "God D*mn" America was not racist. People that got beef with that should say unpatriotic, but not racist. That is, unless we instinctively and/or subconsciously equate "american" with "white."

It demonstrates just how shallow our racial discourse really is. Wright mentioned race. But in today's world, racism is defined by a predetermined list of naughty words. Nevermind the context in which those words are said.

Wright said Hillary was never called a nigger. Whether you agree with it or not, that's not racist. There's no inference of racial inferiority in that statement. If anything, he's acknowledging the fact that whites are seen as privileged and superior to other races.

I think the media inferred racism because that clip made white america very uncomfortable. I listened to the Lionel (sp?) show on Air America Friday, and even he said that people weren't listening to what Wright said. All they saw was an angry black man. Might I add, people saw an angry black man dressed in african patterns with a particularly frightening influence over an agitated black mob . . . all of them shouting . . . unapologetically black.

Thus the equation goes something like this:

acknowledgment of race + discomfort = Racism?

Now, I'm not gonna argue whether or not his comments were offensive. I can see how some would be offended. But be offended for the right reasons. It was a controversy of "patriotism," not racism.

Re: Obama/Rezko….Done. Over and Out.

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:52:00 -0000

Yes. I saw the skit. That is an instant SNL classic. Very clever play on Tina Fey's words. I've already seen people joke about making t-shirts.

@ ms. martin,

I didn't know that he and tina collaborated on that. Where did you hear that from?

I saw someone joke that they're waiting for the Hillary camp to demand that Obama denounce and reject Tracey Morgan and have him step down from some imaginary position in the Obama campaign. Maybe Sean Hannity will do an investigative report.

The sad part . . . I wouldn't put it past them.

Re: Obama/Rezko….Done. Over and Out.

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:05:00 -0000

"God D*mn Whitey"????

I didn't hear that. Unless what we're really getting at is subconciously equating "white" with "american."

Like I said in the other post. If you got beef, argue it on its proper terms. Wright's statements were a controversy of "patriotism," not race.

These accusations of racism are based on the fact that the IMAGE of an angry black preacher; draped in foreign african patterns; influencing an equally agitated black crowd . . . SCARES WHITE PEOPLE! Thus, people consumed in their discomfort with black aggression assume racism when it's not there.

Like I said before, I'm not going to argue whether or not people should take offense to Wright's comments (I see it as not being that much of a big deal, but such is life ... people can agree to disagree).

However, people who are upset should at least argue on the right grounds. This is an issue of "patriotism," (for what it's worth) not racism.

Re: Obama/Rezko….Done. Over and Out.

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:52:00 -0000

Here's a WTF moment . . .

By way of the Chris Mathews Morning Show, rumor has it that John Edwards has decided to endorse . . . wait for it . . . Hillary Clinton!?!?!?!?

He's supposed to do it in the coming weeks. Now, this is only a rumor (Mark Halperin is behind the story). But this just does not make sense.

Didn't he warn us during the debates something to the effect of "When the forces of change mobilize the status quo (points to Hillary) always try to stop it." And that was one of his nicer comments about the Clintons.

Plus, why endorse a candidate so late in the process? Especially a candidate who can't win without using the super delegates to reverse the primary elections - that's about as "status quo" as you can get.

Seems to me like Hillary's engaged in just about every tactic the status quo uses to hold on to power. Isn't that what John was supposed to be against??? Or do the means justify the ends?

Re: Big Up Andrew Sullivan on Pastor Wright

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:42:00 -0000

When did Pastor Wright say "bi*ch?"

Maybe I missed it. But I don't remember him saying that word.

If I missed it, then ok. But I'm only bringing this up because it seems like some people want to imagine words and sentiment just to paint their own picture of Obama: First he wasn't black enough, now he's Huey P. Newton!

The fact that no one holds John McCain to the same standard; the fact that people forget George Bush spoke at Bob Jones University; that McCain CAMPAIGNED for Jerry Fallwell's blessing; that Rudy Giuliani accepted Pat Robertson's endorsement. . . all of this tells me all I need to know about this situation.

Some people's pain and frustrations are more important than others.

For some reason we assume that Bush, Giuliani, McCain and the like are intelligent enough to think for themselves. But Barack. Oh wait, now. That Barack is a little different. Somehow we're supposed to believe that he's under the spell of Mr. Wright. Like he can't think for himself.

Thus, NOTHING that this man has said or done is good enough for this country. He has bent over backwards trying to make white folk feel comfortable. His smile can't get any wider. His tone can't get any softer. He can't say enough about unity to make this country happy.

People say he created a "holier than thou standard." Guess what. That's the only way this brotha can run for president. There is no other way.

I see Hillary talk about the sisterhood all the time. She's gets to rail against the "all boys club." She gets on tv and talks about how women can run things differently.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

But I do have a problem with the fact that Obama can't do the same. Obama can't talk about "black power." He can't vent about the "white man," or encourage white america to vote for him because a black man will run things differently.

Apparently, he can't even have a relationship with a black man who does any of these things.

Funny how the only person to have his patriotism questioned just so happens to be the black guy named Barack Hussein Obama.

So the message is clear. When Katrina hit, Jesse Jackson lamented that this country has a high tolerance for black pain. Ain't that the truth. My pain does not matter. My struggle and frustrations must be silenced so as not to make white america uncomfortable.

I once had a debate with a classmate from law school a couple of years ago over affirmative action. We were about 30 minutes into it when I realized that his argument boiled down to one issue: he didn't feel comfortable with the idea of affirmative action.

I was floored . . . absolutely floored because it finally hit me. He was so privileged in his thinking that he honestly believed his "comfort" was powerful enough to dictate policy and control other people's lives. The sad part is he was and is absolutely correct. But black folk don't have that type of sway.

I, and a lot of other black folk, have NEVER thought that we could control someone else's life based on how comfortable or uncomfortable something made us feel. Sometimes we get lucky and white guilt throws us a bone. But even that usually comes after some tragedy in the black community.

We know the drill. We're uncomfortable almost every day. It's just that we've learned to live with it and move on.

You know what, black folk have been uncomfortable for over 400 years. When are we gonna ask white folk to be a little uncomforable for a change? I don't mean that in a racist way. I'm just asking.

Politicians go to the black community all the time and ask for our trust, tolerance and understanding. We always give it to them. We vote for a white candidate every four years - regardless of his shortcomings; in spite of our doubts and questions (that never get answered); despite our discomfort, we trust that everything's gonna be alright.

Well, this black man is asking white america to return the favor for once. I know it's different. I know we've never seen this before. I know white america has it's questions. But Barack has done all he can to ask for white america's trust and understanding. All he wants is the same chance black folk have been giving white politicians since we got the right to vote.

Re: Trinity UCC’s Palm Sunday Statement

B-Serious — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:44:00 -0000

I apologize for the rant, but I must repeat . . .

When Katrina hit, Jesse Jackson lamented that this country has a high tolerance for black pain. Ain't that the truth.

Things like this Wright controversy tell me that my pain does not matter. Why? Because it never has anything to do with what I say . . . no, it has everything to do with how I say it.

Issues like the Wright controversy send the warning that I better keep my place . . . watch my tone. Becaus black anger is never afforded the opportunity at discussion and/or redemption.

As a black man, I don't have the right to get angry or show emotion. And if I should make a mistake and say something untoward, then I'm not allowed the opportunity to simply apologize. For some reason my fate must be far worse than that given to everyone else.

It proves that my struggles and frustrations must be silenced if it makes mainstream ("white") america uncomfortable.

I, and many other black folk, have NEVER been so privileged so as to think that we could dictate policy or control someone else's life based on how comfortable or uncomfortable something made us feel. Sometimes we get lucky and white guilt throws us a bone. But even that usually comes after some tragedy in the black community.

We know the drill. We're uncomfortable almost every day. It's just that we've learned to live with it and move on.

But now . . . despite everything Obama has done to make white folk feel as comfortable as possible. After an entire year of denying a part of himself and distancing himself from anything remotely "black" just to make white america comfortable . . . you've got the media trying to kill his chances at being president.

NOT because of anything that Obama said. NOT because Obama is an "angry black man." But solely because he has a relationship with a black man whom the media can portray in such a stereotype!!

Let me be honest. Barack Obama is about as "safe" a black man as you're going to see. I've watched in amazement as I've seen him deflect attacks from all sides. . . to have his blackness questioned one day and then be accused of being TOO black the next . . . to avoid race like the plague just to give white america the chance to vote for a black person without being made to feel guilty for the transgressions of past generations. Even now, Obama still speaks of unity and understanding.

As I said before, it's not the comment so much as the IMAGE that makes people uncomfortable. The IMAGE of a defiant, strong black preacher dressed in foreign african robes leading a congregation of equally defiant passionate black people. That's scary to a lot of white america.

THAT is a fear of black agression and black power. And it don't matter whether your as fiery as Jeremiah Wright or as accomodating as Barack Obama. You ain't gonna get anywhere unless you master the ability to make white america comfortable. And now people say they can't vote for him because they're UNcomfortable.

You know what, black folk have been uncomfortable for over 400 years. There's not a day that goes by where black folk don't bite their tongue and grit their teeth just to keep the peace.

WHEN are we gonna ask white folk to be a little uncomforable for a change? I don't mean that in a racist way. I'm just asking.

Is that not the definition of a pluralistic society? Let me check out Webster's dictionary . ..

"pluralism" - "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."

If we are truly a pluralistic society, then we must allow everyone, INCLUDING black folk, the opportunity and right of self-definition and self-determination (props to ronnie b for pointing that out).

All I know is this . . . White politicians go to the black community all the time and ask for our trust, tolerance and understanding. We always give it to them.

Blacks vote for a white candidate every four years - regardless of his shortcomings; despite OUR OWN DOUBTS AND QUESTIONS (that never get answered); despite OUR OWN DISCOMFORT, we trust that everything's gonna be alright and we'll make it through somehow.

Well, this black man is asking white america to return the favor for once. I don't want to dismiss your concerns. I know it's different. I know we've never seen this before. I know white america has it's questions.

But Barack has done all he can to ask for white america's trust and understanding. He deserves to be judged as being self-autonomous. He derseves to be judged by his own reputation.

He deserves the same chance black folk have been giving white politicians ever since we got the right to vote.

Re: Trinity UCC’s Palm Sunday Statement

B-Serious — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:47:00 -0000

@anonymous 7:19 am

Obama distanced himself for the same reasons Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton never stood a chance to win. The first black president will not be a "race man." White america will not vote for a black man who carries the baggage of resentment from racial oppression. He must defy the stereotype to get crossover support.

Just like the first female president will not be a "dove" on foreign policy.

Proof of media culpability is the fact that it will not allow Obama to escape this "box," wherein it tries to hold him accountable for words he never said.

He distanced himself for the very fact that we're having this conversation now. He distanced himself because this controversy proves that he can't even KNOW an "angry black man," without being labeled the same.

You speak of the consequences of Obama's actions. What act did Obama ever commit? Really, what has he done? There is no "act" with which to be accountable for. And what would the appropriate consequence be for said "actions."

Re: Trinity UCC’s Palm Sunday Statement

B-Serious — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:28:00 -0000

@ anonymous 7:55 am

Is it possible to take a man at his word? Especially when Obama hasn't even said or done anything remotely controversial?

America doesn't have to like Wright's comments. But for argument's sake . . .

Is America so narrow-minded to miss the fact that from adversity and frustration springs hope and enlightenment?

Once again, I don't see Wright's comments as the worst thing in the world. I don't see a church of hate, no matter how much Fox News would like me to.

I never said Obama was living a lie. But I do think he's been very considerate of the fact that this country prefers baby steps when it comes to big changes like electing the first black president. Thus, he's campaigned accordingly.

I think the tolerance level for black anger is extremely low. And I see NO reason for that. Anger (even black anger) is an inescapable part of political discourse. Rather than dismiss Wright, I've yet to see the media truly engage his comments for what they're worth.

I don't think Obama is pretending to be anything. I choose to judge him on his own merits.

Re: Transcript Of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union (Now With Video) - Update 2

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:07:00 -0000

@ rikyrah,

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Mrs. Dyson and other Hillary supporters on Larry King.

Like Ms. Martin said, it was truly pathetic. Like a jealous little sybling screaming for attention, "Look what I can do. Look what I can do!" Trying to piggyback off of Obama's good press. I don't even know why they were invited.

I loved when they teased the idea that Hillary could do a similar speech on gender. Well . . . good for her (rolls eyes). This was not a policy speech, it was an honest, heartfelt response to the crap he's been getting for the past week. Stop trying to steal a brotha's shine! (lol!)

It'd be like Peyton Manning showing up at Eli's press conference to say, "hey, remember me guys, I can win a superbowl too." Hey Hillary . . . this ain't about you!

Man, I wish the media would stop trying to join Barack and Hillary at the hip.

Obama's speech wasn't some pre-planned publicity stunt. It was a reaction to growing racial tensions and a rabid conservative media that was trying to paint him and his family as racist anti-americans.

You had idiots like Sean Hannity calling for Obama's RESIGNATION from the Senate.

But, props to Ed Shultz for reminding everyone that Obama voluntarily did this under immense media scrutiny. Obama took a risk when he didn't have to. He could have released another statement or held a short press conference. He could have disowned his church. He could have spoken to the American people like children rather than challenging them as adults.

But he didn't. You learn a lot about a person when their back is up against the wall. Obama gave a politically risky speech and tackled the issue head on. His back was pushed up against the wall and, rather than attack, Obama talked to the american people like adults and conveyed the complexity (and beauty) of race in America.

The blogosphere absolutely loved Obama's speech. So did probably 85% of the mainstream media. That will trickled down to the "working class white voter," over the next few weeks.

There's NO WAY you can listen to that speech and think that Obama hates America.

Re: Transcript Of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union (Now With Video) - Update 2

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:12:00 -0000

P.S.

Obama's speech was unprecedented in modern day politics.

You don't see that type of speech from a politician these days. He spoke to us like adults. His speech trusts that we're smart and open enough to get it.

He's basically saying, "I know you're smarter than the media gives you credit for. I have faith in YOU, the people."

Hmm . . . a President with faith in the intellect of his electorate. What a concept. Very refreshing.

Absolutely amazing!

Re: Transcript Of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union (Now With Video) - Update 2

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:16:00 -0000

@rhonda,

I mentioned this on my blog. Obama has actually begun to marginalize his critics on this issue.

When you've got John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Peggy Noonan, the 700 Club as well as liberal media and a majority of the MSM praising Obama's speech, you've basically painted Sean Hannity and Fox News for the "haters" they are. They lose credibility. They're stuck on this story like a broken record. People move on. I think people will begin to see Fox and the like as merely being focused on some personal mission to destroy Obama's candidacy. They lose credibility (not that I think they have any) when they do that.

Obama's speech wasn't aimed at conservative or liberal; democrat or republican; white or black. Obama's speech was aimed at our greater angels. His speech was made to evoke rationale, critical thought.

Most reasonbale people (regardless of whom they support) look at that speech and say it's sincere. Again, unless you're talking to the conservative Hannity crowd (and perhaps die-hard Hillary supporters) you're gonna have a hard time convincing people that Obama hates America.

Re: Transcript Of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union (Now With Video) - Update 2

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:28:00 -0000

@ anonymous 6:13,

I don't know his thoughts.

But, to me, Juan Williams looks like he's starting to cross over into Larry Elders territory. My impression of him is that he's increasingly eager to say whatever it takes to gain favor from his conservative friends at Fox.

He's anticipating conservative talking points to appear more independent-minded - especially during such polarizing times.

It's not a matter of what he says. He seems more concerned with the reaction he'll get from people like O'Reilly, Hannity and other conservative pundits.

Re: Transcript Of Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union (Now With Video) - Update 2

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:54:00 -0000

@ nita,

As crazy as it sounds, an SNL spoof of the Wright controversy could help Obama if it's done in the right way.

Imagine SNL making fun of the absurdity that is Fox News and their obsession over this issue. How do you think that would play?

Personally, I'd rather SNL leave it alone. But something tells me the writers are cooking up something right now.

But I'm with you. SNL is a little supsect to me as well.

Re: Obama’s - ‘More Perfect Union’ : Some Afterthoughts

B-Serious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:38:00 -0000

@ anonymous 11:53

you said,

"But I am not bound to the sins of my fathers unless I choose to sin."

Isn't that ironic.

Because you are clearly more than willing to hold Barack Obama accountable . . . to bind him to the "sins," of his former pastor.

And, the fact that you were raised to believe that "life is not fair," does not absolve you, I or anyone from doing everything we can to make life fair.

I was raised to a different tune:

1. Don't forget where you come from; and

2. You meet the same people falling down the ladder of success that you stepped on climbing up!

Finally, I'm glad you're privileged enough to ignore that which makes you uncomfortable. Black folk can't do that. We're uncomfortable everyday. We see white anger and ignorance everyday. It's just that we've learned to grin and bear it. . . force a smile to keep the peace.

Obama's speech was the perfect compromise. He challenged black and white to, not only look inward, but to also open our minds to the concept that (gasp!) we might actually live different (though equally valid) versions of the American experience. Obama's speech poses the following challenge to us all:

Whether black or white, we should remember the following. . .

Although my experience and reality makes you uncomfortable. It's real. You don't have the right to tell me it's not American. It's just as American as yours or anyone else's. My anger is just as American as your anger. My is joy just as American as your joy. And vice versa.

You can't wish me away. I'm still here and we're going to have to deal with each other sooner or later.

In the meantime, we'll both continue to suffer the consequences of our shared ignorance. The choice is ours. What are we gonna do?

Re: Bill Richardson Endorses Obama

B-Serious — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:42:00 -0000

1. Roland Martin has proven to be everything that Tavis Smiley should have been. When it comes to holding people accountable, I'm looking at Roland, NOT Tavis.

2. Dare I say . . . Obama/Richardson '08?????

Think about it. Are we ready? It would be amazing to think we could have a black president and hispanic v.p. Besides that, Richardson could bring a lot to the table. I'm thinking he could bring a lot of the hispanic vote as well as (hopefully) some southwestern states. Or. . . would the vision of a black/brown ticket be more than enough to push those "blue collar whites" over to McCain?

Talk about a black/brown connection!

Still, my guess is that conventional wisdom says Obama chooses someone with a lot of national security cred. Or at least someone who people view as "tough." Obama/Webb still sounds good too.

3. Joe Scarborough is doing his best to impersonate Fox News. I almost had hope for him. But when you try to put Obama's grandma comment OVER a security breach by the state department . . . you're pretty much showing your hand, there. EVEN Tucker Carlson had good enough sense to know which is the more important story.

Re: Obama’s Latest Defenders: Mike Huckabee and Fox’s Chris Wallace?

B-Serious — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:09:00 -0000

WOW!?!?!????

I just got home and checked this out on Huffington Post. I can't believe it. I hope it's not some ploy. But if it isn't, I gotta give props where props is due.

Dude walked off the stage. And then you have Wallace defending Obama.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Obama's speech has long-term implications for this campaign. He's gonna survive this story. Yeah, he's dropped in the polls. But he didn't tank. He's a viable frontrunner who's gotta get back on message. He'll be just fine.

But Obama's speech did something important:

It's begun to marginalize the haters. John McCain, Chris Wallace, Mike Huckabee, the 700 Club, throw in another FOX NEWS anchor . . . it all shows how STUPID this Jeremiah Wright stuff is.

I'll say it again. Obama didn't speak to Democrats or Republicans; liberals or conservatives . . . he spoke to our better angels. We've all got them - INCLUDING some people at Fox News.

Unbelievable!

Re: Obama’s Latest Defenders: Mike Huckabee and Fox’s Chris Wallace?

B-Serious — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:32:00 -0000

truthseeker,

His name is Brian Kilmeade. He's part of Fox and Friends. It was on huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/mayhem-at-fox-news-ancho_n_92743.html

Re: Bill Clinton Says There are TWO Patriots in this Race…and guess who’s NOT included?

B-Serious — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:29:00 -0000

@craig hickman,

THANK YOU!

That's what bothers me with the Democratic leadership. Hillary's ONLY path to the nomination involves fracturing the party.

Think about it:

1. She'd have to seat the MI and FL delegates as is, which would require a brawl at the convention.

2. She'd have to get the supers to reverse the primary elections, which would alienate AT LEAST half of the the Democratic Party.

You take this to August and you're left with just two months to unite the party, woo independents/swing voters and plan an offensive against the Republicans. It ain't gonna happen!

Thank God for those two recent articles on politico and the nytimes that basically say it's over.

Why are the Democrats twiddling their thumbs on this? Are they that scared of the Wright controversy? With all the skeletons in the Clintons' closet, they're gonna get caught up on Resko and Wright??? Give me a break!

John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Giuliani . . . basically EVERYONE (except Huckabee) left the race before they had to. Why? Because the MATH wasn't there. No. NOT the popular vote math. The delegate math. They didn't try to recreate reality. They accepted defeat and stepped aside for the good of the Party.

What makes Hillary so special? She and her supporters are the only ones who haven't been forced to face the music. Listen, every time the media uses the words "close" "tight" or "horse race," they're lying! I repeat, what makes Hillary so special?

Mike Huckabee, although he stayed in the race, didn't use that time to tear down the Republican frontrunner and his party like Hillary has.

Message to the Democratic Party: THIS IS WHY YOU LOSE! I'm an Independent, and I'll tell you, the thing that keeps me from backing the Party is their lack of conviction. You have no spine. How do I know? You can't even stand up to the Clintons. They've been pimp slapping the DNC since Feb. 5th.

John Edwards, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter . . . WHERE ARE YOU!?!?

@ ideasharer,

I'm with ya. But that would mean the Democratic leadership shows some spine. Beside Richardson and Pelosi, I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate.

But I hear ya. By any standard of objectivity and political decorum, this thing is over!

Re: Bill Clinton Says There are TWO Patriots in this Race…and guess who’s NOT included?

B-Serious — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:49:00 -0000

Also, I'm glad to see that the Obama camp responded to this latest swipe by Bill Clinton. General McPeake (sp?), an Obama supporter, spoke up at an Obama town hall meeting today. He called Bill on his bs.

My only issue is this. . . Obama better start doing a better job at sticking up for himself.

I'm all for staying above the frey, but self-defense is human nature. My only fear is that Obama sometimes puts TOO MUCH faith in the American people. Sometimes you gotta speak up. Forget the debates.

Examples:

1. Obama's camp should have been all over Clinton the moment she even entertained the idea of counting FL and MI. He should have had surrogates on tv waiving the DNC pledge with her signature on it. He should have told the media that, although he feels for the people in MI and FL, the time to protest was LAST YEAR when the decision was made public.

2. Obama should have been a little clearer on the super delegate issue. He left an opening by urging them to vote their districts. He should have kept it simple: The person with the most pledged delegates wins. Easy as that. The super delegates should act as a means of ratifying the front-runner to nominee status. But he left himself open, which leaves him open to criticism from Hillary supporters over people like Kerry, Deval Patrick, Kennedy and now Richardson.

3. At the time Obama won 11 straight, Obama should have had his surrogates out there demanding that Hillary step down for the good of the party. But, even today, they still haven't done that. What gives? I guarantee you, if Hillary wins PA by more than 15% you're gonna see her go there. Toughen up!

4. Politically speaking, Obama should have spotted Wright and Resko a mile away. I still think he's done a good job. But this shouldn't have been as big an issue as it turned out to be.

Listen, I'm a big Obama supporter. I will not vote for Hillary. Neither will my family. But we're tired of seeing the Clintons get away with stuff. We're tired of seeing them change the goal posts and alter reality to fit their needs. No one ever calls her out. What gives?

Re: Bill Clinton Says There are TWO Patriots in this Race…and guess who’s NOT included?

B-Serious — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:27:00 -0000

@ tiye,

That's part of the problem. Someone's gotta say it. Who's going to step up? Why are people so afraid of the Clintons? Why are they so special? Obama's camp should be doing everything in its power to end this YESTERDAY. He'll need as much time as possible to reunite the Party after the job Hillary's done on it.

Hillary seems to be positioning herself for a big win in PA. I don't know how this Wright situation plays out in places like NC and Indiana. She could get the momentum back only to fall short when all is said and done. That's a dangerous possibility for the Democrats. . . a candidate (Hillary) with a "moral" reason to continue, but no objective argument to win. That's what she's shooting for. The more confusing this gets, the better her chances. She'll hang on to that "moral" victory for all it's worth.

It ensures a divided party all the way to August. It increases the chances that the super delegates won't feel as bad reversing the primary elections/caucuses.

People are already hinting that a big win in PA for Hillary would give her added pressure to force do-overs in FL and MI.

Let me make it clear. I support Obama. But, this is a game of chess. Obama's proven that he's good at it. But, lately, it feels like he's coasting a little bit. He's in constant reactionary mode. She's setting the terms of the conversation. And Obama's relying far too much on the concepts of "fairness," and "logic."

That's the problem . . . the Democratic leadership is too spineless to enforce fair play (just look at Howard Dean and this FL/MI mess); and Hillary threw logic out the window a long time ago.

Throw in the fact that Hillary doesn't care about the rules or the Party and you've got a MAJOR problem on your hands. And let's not forget the Rush Limbaugh factor.

There's an asian saying that goes, "the time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself." Obama has another oppotunity to change the direction of this race. The media is waking up to the fact that the MATH is BAD for Hillary. But someone's gotta close the deal. Someone should be setting benchmarks for Hillary (e.g., "if she doesn't get X % of the delegates by May 6, she must drop out).

Obama needs to expect the unexpected - Hillary is setting the table quite effectively. Obama needs to reclaim that, "fierce urgency of now." The fact that she's still in this thing is a testament to short-sightedness and weakness on someone's part. Is it Obama? Is it the media?

I don't know who, but the longer this thing goes, the greater chance Obama and his supporters have at getting screwed.

Re: Bill Clinton Says There are TWO Patriots in this Race…and guess who’s NOT included?

B-Serious — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:28:00 -0000

P.S. Believe it or not, I'm still very confident that Obama will win this. But I see a few openings. And I'd prefer it if those openings were closed ASAP.

Re: Bill Clinton Says There are TWO Patriots in this Race…and guess who’s NOT included?

B-Serious — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:54:00 -0000

@ rikyrah,

Ok. I hear what you're sayin'. It's probably too late to change strategies anyways.

Plus, I take comfort in the fact that Obama just regained the lead in the national gallup tracking poll. He's only down 2% to McCain. So yeah, this Wright controversy wasn't fatal. He's doing just fine.

Let's hope the American people continue to see past all the bs being flung at them from the Clintons and the Republicans.

Obama o8!

Alright. About 7 minutes until the Sunday talk shows. Let's see where the talking heads are on all of this.

Re: Obama Accused of Being Elitist

B-Serious — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:34:00 -0000

nquest,

RIGHT ON and AMEN!!! I was thinking the exact same thing. No one had a problem when Obama gave a dose of "Bill Cosby-esque" tough love to a black audience in Texas. People love that ish.

They love the idea that Obama might be the first President to openly challenge black pathologies. . . because he's black.

Well, guess what. . . Obama is also WHITE. Surprise! He's got just as much legitimacy to speak towards WHITE pathologies.

Tough love and straight talk go both ways! Deal with it.

In fact, I'm amazed at the manner in which Obama has tried to empathize with voters (including the white working class). I'm not saying he's 100% correct all the time. But at least he's trying. He's speaking to us like adults. What have Hillary and McCain done to empathize?

For me, that was the brilliance of his speech on race. He legitimized both black anger and white resentment. Yet, at the same time, he challenged both communities on how we might move forward.

Condescending? Hillary's response: Woo woo woo. Your perfect little hard working white folk. Woo woo woo. Easy there, I know that you pull yourselves up by your bootstraps. Woo woo woo. Mama Clinton is here to take care of everything. Woo woo woo.

THAT is condescending.

Ignore the woman behind the curtain folks. She's the real populist. Why? Well, because Mama Clinton says so, that's why.

Like Bill O'Reilly, Hillary's looking out for you (wink) with her $109 million (I literally make just about as much in one day as the median yearly income . . . my husband and campaign manager get paid millions to promote Columbian free trade . . . NY lost 35,000 jobs on my watch) self.

Re: Obama Accused of Being Elitist

B-Serious — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:48:00 -0000

Also, I don't see this as the major political gaffe that "McClinton" (someone else's word, not mine) hopes it to be.

This doesn't hurt Obama's base because the white working class wasn't part of his base to begin with. Even with his struggles amongst the white working class vote, Obama's base has been bigger than Clinton's (let's not forget, he's been winning). So I don't think he'll lose any significant support.

I've even seen a few suggestions that working class voters might even appreciate Obama's candor.

Worst case scenario, it might add a few points to an Obama loss in PA. But it's not catastrophic enough to change the math. It doesn't make Obama toxic. And it could easily backfire on Hillary and John if they overplay their hand. Obama's response was tough and it shows that he ain't backing down.

Re: Obama Accused of Being Elitist

B-Serious — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:56:00 -0000

This is why I'm an Independent. It's time for the Democratic Party to grow a back bone.

No one has a problem when the Clintons characterize Obama's supporters as a bunch of young elite, latte sipping, birkenstock wearing, naive limousine liberal cultists who "don't need a President." There's no empathy there, just name calling.

Parroting the talking points of the RNC and teaming up with the Republican nominee won't fly well with the rest of the party. Contrary to the MSM current obsession, this country is bigger than PA.

Every election year the Republicans go on a tear calling the Democrats elitist, unpatriotic, etc. The same things they're calling Obama now. The Democrats need to grow a freakin' backbone and stand up for themselves. Republicans embrace their redneck, hard-a*s characterizations. Why? Because at least it's better than being a wimpy bleeding heart liberal.

Go ahead. Call a republican racist for supporting harsh crime legislation. He'll laugh in your face because he knows that people like a tough guy in the white house. He plays to his strength.

But call a Democrat elitist? Oh, they'll turn tail so fast it will make your head spend. I've never seen a group of people feel so ashamed for being educated and/or worldly in their view of politics and life.

Re: Obama Accused of Being Elitist

B-Serious — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:56:00 -0000

kim,

Respectfully, I'd have to say that black folk know all too well what it feels like to have a President who neither appreciates nor respects our worldview.

The closest we ever got to an empathetic President was Bill Clinton (or so we thought . . . tsk, tsk!). And that's only because he played the saxaphone on Arsenio Hall. I mean, we were so impressed, we called him our first black president.

Walk in someone else's shoes? America has NEVER walked a minute, nevermind a mile, in the shoes of African-Americans.

We all know the drill. Some politician says something stupid. We get pissed. They talk to Al Sharpton, meet with Jesse Jackson and cry on Oprah's shouler. Presto! No more racial baggage. They're life moves on and blacks are told to get over it.

Who ever told white folks to just "get over it?"

Mainstream media does not speak of African-Americans as a necessary voting block. Sure, Democrats pander to blacks each election cycle. But they only go so far. And pandering is not the same as IDENTIFYING or empathizing with the black community.

For every pander we get, there's sure to be another sister souljah moment specifically designed to compensate for the white discomfort and resentment that such pandering brings about.

On the contrary, politicians have to IDENTIFY with that good ole' Reagan Democrat, working class white voter.

MSM can't get enough of the NASCAR Dad, soccer mom, security mom, blue collar worker.

Black folk in the inner city are just as American as they are. Yet politicians speak ill of and down to us all of the time. Sadly, it's actually good politics:

- You want to look tough on crime? Run a Willie Horton ad and promise to put more criminals (*cough* black people) in jail.

- You want to look fiscally responsible? Target "welfare moms" and pledge to put an end to inner-city social programs.

My goodness, the Republican Party learned this decades ago when they invented the Southern strategy. And guess what. . . it's been good enough to get them into the White House.

Look at the source. People want Obama on his hands and knees. You've got Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough all beating the same drum. Since when are they the moral arbiters of tolerance in America??? Is this the twighlight zone???

Politicians pay lip service to black issues all of the time - Just long enough to get the photo-op and then they're gone! But Obama's different. It's not enough for Obama to listen to working class white voters. Heck, it's not even enough that he try to empathize with them. No, Obama has to BEG.

P.S. With all of this talk about Obama bowling for votes in Altoona, I'd love to see Hillary or McCain be forced to lace up a pair of high-tops and play a game of pick-up with some brothas on the nearest inner-city black-top. But it ain't gonna happen because the black vote ain't that important to them.

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:49:00 -0000

Jack,

Excellent point! I have yet to see one single report to actually get the opinion of rural PA voters.

All I've seen are pictures of Hillary yuckin' it up with the locals, drinking shots and bragging about how she loves God, guns and learned how to hunt when she was a child. . . all blatant pandering of the worst sort.

I'll say it again, this has the potential to backfire on Hillary bigtime!

Her talk is all superficial. Yet, when you press her camp on the fact that:

1. She's made over $109 million to Obama's $3 million,

2. She's yet to explain her campaign's ties to Columbian free trade,

3. She's yet to give a good excuse for her state's loss of 36,000 jobs on her watch,

4. She's lived the past 25 years of her life in the insolated bubble that automatically comes with being the first lady flanked by full security detail and chauffeured around in motorcades . . .

(just to name a few!)

When you ask all of those questions they can't think of an answer.

You take any objective look at Obama and Hillary's backgrounds and you'll see just how stupid this whole "elitist" crap is. Let me see . . . Obama, raised in a single parent home, just recently finished paying off his student loans; with a net worth that's no more than a fraction of Hillary's $109 million. . . and he's the elitist? Whatever.

This story lasts until one of two things happens: 1.) news coverage switches to the upcoming debate; or 2.) the press sees that this "gaffe" had little to no effect on the national and/or PA polls - whichever comes first.

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:02:00 -0000

Check this out. Guess who said almost the exact same thing when he ran for President a while back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

Another thing. This really gets at the heart of the Democrats needing to grow a backbone!

I'll say it again. Like clockwork, we're seeing the same old smear that Republicans (and now Hillary) have used against Democrats for the longest: 1. Democrats are unpatriotic; 2. Democrats are elitists.

I really hope Obama FIGHTS on this issue. I don't need Republican-lite. You know you're in trouble when you see the Democrats sucking up to conservative NRA-type crowds. You NEVER see Republicans suck up to liberal groups like . . . let's see . . . the ACLU! No way. A Republican will tell the ACLU to "F" off in a hot second and watch his poll numbers jump by 3 or 4%.

You stand on principals. Grow a spine. Embrace your strengths and stop trying to play by Republican standards on national security, God, gays, religion and other cultural issues! Stop apologizing for everything!

Listen, if I wanted a Republican in the White House, I'd vote for one. Why settle for Republican-lite when you can have the real thing?

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:05:00 -0000

typo: I meant "principle." :)

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:31:00 -0000

@nita wrote, "For what it's worth, one is not going to get the 'real thing' in McCain, either, this year -- if one is so inclined to 'hold one's nose' and vote Republican in the same way that people are going to 'hold one's nose' and vote for Hillary on the Democrat side."

I agree. First, let me repeat that I will in no way "hold my nose" to vote for Hillary. I'm not voting for McCain either. But I would vote third party or simply write in Obama's name if I had to.

But this is key. I'm one of those people who really thinks that this is a golden opportunity with Obama. And it's not because I think he's the messiah.

I think we're on the cusp of a paradigmatic shift in American politics. Much like Reagan was seen as a result of supposed liberal excesses in the 60s and 70s, Obama could be the answer to conservative excesses in the 80s, 90s and early 21st century.

The influx of new voters (mostly left-leaning, Democratic) has the power to shift this country from a center-right disposition to a center or even center-left disposition.

A Hillary nomination (especially if handed to her by the super delegates) will depress that fragile new voting base and squash this opportunity that we have.

I look at it this way, it's about influence. Which of the three candidates has the best possibility to influence American politics?

In a Clinton/McCain matchup, I can easily see McCain and the RNC influencing Hillary rather than the other way around. I can see her trying to "out-Republican" John McCain. She's gotten way too cozy with the right-wing press and the Clinton's history with centrist (right-leaning) policies worries me.

But Obama's different. His candidacy offers a glimpse into the future. Few have talked about the fact that Obama threatens to undermine that famed "Reagan Democrat" vote with a whole new constituency composed of African Americans, the youth vote, socially moderate Republicans and the ideological (liberal) wing of the Democratic Party.

This would be huge. And the perfect time to test this new constituency is this year when the base is energized, registration is astronomical and fundraising is through the roof.

The Republican Party is weak right now. I can't see McCain being able to match Obama's fundraising, enthusiasm, energy and message.

At least, that's my definition of the "fierce urgency of now!"

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:42:00 -0000

@truthseeker,

You got it. Right out the box, they gave Hillary the chance to hammer Obama.

However, she didn't land any applause lines from the audience during that segment (at least not from what I saw - I clicked it on about 3 minutes into the program).

Can't wait to see how Obama's received by the crowd.

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:53:00 -0000

One thing I'm waiting to see is the treatment this story gets from the morning mainstream media.

Shows like "Good Morning America" and "Today" are going to have their first crack at this. Will they be fair? Or will they take the Lou Dobbs approach.

One things for sure. I'm already bracing for the spin that's sure to come from "Morning Joe" and "Fox and Friends." They'll try their best to make this look like the biggest gaffe in American political history. Joe Scarborough is so unapologetically in the tank for the Clintons, I'm not even sure if he believes what he's saying half the time.

I maintain . . . this will be a story until either the polls prove it's not a big deal or the media moves to cover this week's debate.

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:45:00 -0000

@texas girl,

Add to that the fact that Obama gets a very warm reception and much applause at tonight's compassion forum on CNN. This included a standing ovation at the end of Obama's segment.

Another important part from tonight's forum . . . Obama got loud applause when he said that Jeremiah Wright was unfairly portrayed by the media. And all of this in PA where they're supposed to be waiting for Obama with fired torches and pitch forks.

Will this get ANY coverage in the media????

Sadly, I'll be shocked if it does.

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:34:00 -0000

@texas girl,

I saw his response. I loved it!

He wasn't angry, but he made light of the situation to reveal just how stupid it really is.

Annie Oakley! LOL! In a world of soundbites, that's gonna stick.

Good job Obama!

Re: Open Thread: Compassion Forum

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:13:00 -0000

plantsmantx,

You beat me to it.

PLEASE do a post on the "Annie Oakley" response from Obama earlier today. I think truthseeker and rikyrah were talking about it on one of the other threads.

In a world of soundbites, that's gonna stick.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/watch-obama-on-annie-oakl_n_96459.html

Very funny stuff!

Hey, "Annie Get Your Gun." lol :)

I can see the SNL spoof now. . .Hillary swiggin' back shots of liquor with some NRA card-carrying good ole' boys; duck huntin' to the tune, "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better!" LOL.

Good job Obama. That's how you start to fight back!

Re: Easy Question: Are PA Voters Actually Offended? (updated with video)

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:15:00 -0000

@ texasgirl,

Hey, "Annie Get Your Gun!" ;)

LOL!

Re: Obama On Hillary "Annie Oakley" Clinton

B-Serious — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:43:00 -0000

Love the Annie Oakley response! I'm tellin' ya. I think it's gonna stick. I'm happy to see Obama get a little fight in him.

He should see this for what it is. Hillary, being Republican-lite, is a test run for the real deal he'll face in the general election.

Nice to see Obama fight back for a change.

Re: Most Folks Don’t Care About Rev Wright "Issue" & Want Superdelegates To Go With The People

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:36:00 -0000

A few thoughts.

The media just does not get it...

1. If this is truly going to be a "change" election, then the same old labels and tactics are simply not going to work.

Plus, in both the Wright and "bitter" controversies, Obama's critics overplayed their hands.

It wasn't enough to simply state that Wright could be a question of judgment. No, critics had to go overboard by trying and paint Obama as a black radical who hates America.

It wasn't enough to disagree with Obama's "bitter" comment and let it fester on its own. No, critics had to go overboard and try and make him into an elitst.

They raised the bar so high on each criticism, that voters found them incredible. You can disagree with Obama all you want. But it's gonna take a lot more to make the average voter think he's an elitist, marxist black radical who hates America.

2. We, the people, are speaking and we want to be heard. It's not surprising that, after two decades of double speech, finger pointing and passing the buck, we'll recoil at the slightest sign of "politics as usual," and cheap pandering (something that the Clinton camp can't seem to avoid).

We'll take a politician with flaws. But Hillary has more than "flaws." She comes across as FAKE; completely rehearsed, poll-tested and scripted. Her attacks have been predictable; her ever-changing goal posts all the more transparent.

This leaves people with the growing impression that she's in this for herself, not for the American people. Her proclivity to ignore reality (e.g., math), adopt Republican talking points, dismiss process (e.g., "caucuses are undemocratic," "MI and FL should count despite my agreeing that they would not") and create her own reality speak of someone who is willing to do and say anything to win something that she sees as an entitlement.

True, neither candidate will reach the magic 2025 number of delegates (although Obama has an outside shot at it). But don't ignore the elephant in the room. Come June, the people will have spoken. And they will have chosen their candidate as so represented by the person ahead in pledged delegates. Sorry, Hillary, that's Obama. Even Hillary supporter, Rep. Barney Frank, said as much in a recent interview.

Both Obama and Clinton have gone on record as saying that this is all about the delegates. And the Democratic Party WILL NOT destroy itself just to appease Hillary Clinton and her supporters by handing over a nomination that she did not earn.

3. A change election means that you can't rely on old, traditional measures of success. Wake up, media. Obama is changing the electoral map. That's been his goal from the beginning and he's doing a great job of it so far.

People talk about Obama's hard time reaching rural, white voters. Yet, they IGNORE THE FACT that he has successfully created a new coalition of voters that makes the Reagan Democrat less essential to a Democratic victory in November.

Why doesn't the media ask this simple question: How can Hillary win in November without the black vote? Without the youth vote? And, yes, without the liberal ("latte sippin'") vote. Let's see . . . young, eductaed, urban, black. . . yup, I just described the urban voter. She's getting crushed in these three demographics and her negatives amongst these groups are growing by the minute.

I don't care how much you love the Reagan Democrat. A Democratic nominee ain't winning JACK if he or she can't mobilize the urban vote. Look at the maps, folks. PA is a RED state with blue fringes. This general election will be about one thing . . . GOTV (get out the vote). Who has the ability to generate more voters in November? Obama or Hillary? It's not even a contest. . . Obama.

Democrats win a state like PA in the general election by running up the score in densely populated, URBAN CITIES like Philadelphia. They DO NOT win by being "Republican-lite;" adopting Republican terms of engagement; and trying to convince conservative voters in rural PA to believe that the Democratic Party is something that it is not.

Once again, the Democrats will win when they play to their strengths, but NOT so long as they continue to cower to bully tactics and labels like "elitism," and "unpatriotic." I'll say it again . . . Demorcats . . . GROW A BACKBONE!!!

I've yet to see any evidence that any of these "controversies" have hurt Obama. The PA polls are basically the same. And, as of last night, Obama enjoyed his largest national lead in the Gallup poll (51% to 40%).

Message to the mainstream media: This country is bigger than PA and blue collar whites aren't the only "real Americans." Get it? Honestly, I don't expect them to get it until they see Obama get sworn in as our next President.

Maybe, just maybe, we're not as dumb as the pundits think we are. Not this time.

Re: Most Folks Don’t Care About Rev Wright "Issue" & Want Superdelegates To Go With The People

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:00:00 -0000

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who's thinking this.

The media already has it's narratives drawn up. For them, it's just a matter of which gets higher ratings at the moment. And Hillary's drama is good for tv ratings.

It's a business. The media will do whatever it can to keep this soap opera going all the way to the convention.

That is, unless the voters deliver a knock out blow some time in the next month or so. I'm gonna hold out hope for PA. But I'm really looking at you Indiana and North Carolina!

It looks like May 6th will be Obama's next best chance to end this once and for all.

Re: Most Folks Don’t Care About Rev Wright "Issue" & Want Superdelegates To Go With The People

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:26:00 -0000

@ms. martin,

Rendell's comment is odd. I'd have to see the full context to get a better idea as to whether or not it was race-baiting.

But, I'll tell you what I did find to be blatant race baiting...Bob Johnson rehashing of Geraldine Ferraro and the whole "Affirmative Action" candidate argument yesterday.

No one was even talking about him, Ferraro, or her comments. Yet, for some strange reason, Bobby felt compelled to come out of the blue and bring it all up again just one week before the PA primary?

Re: Most Folks Don’t Care About Rev Wright "Issue" & Want Superdelegates To Go With The People

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:31:00 -0000

Hey guys,

Is anyone planning on watching tonight's debate?

I gotta be honest. I don't think I can sit through another one of these things.

I'm sure the pundits will be looking for yet another magical, "where's the beef," gotcha line. My guess is Hillary's got about 5 or 6 that she's ready to feed the crowd. Ugh! What was her last one: Change you can xerox? Good grief!

I'm gonna try to avoid watching it. But something deep down inside me knows that I won't be able to keep away.

Re: Philly Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:24:00 -0000

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the moderators want to debate the candidates themselves (specifically Obama)?

A lot of loaded questions. And they're not letting them (specifically Obama) finish their points.

Re: Philly Debate Open Thread

B-Serious — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:30:00 -0000

I missed the last 1/2 hour, but I heard there was no mention of Mark Penn, Bill Clinton and Columbian Free Trade. Is that true?

Also, no mention of the "screw 'em" comment?

I agree with everyone here. I sat through the first 90 minutes and was not impressed with abc at all. I was particularly upset with the argumentative style of the moderators.

Re: Friday Open Thread - TGIF…whew…

B-Serious — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:18:00 -0000

RE: Clinton's comments about MoveON.

I wrote about it on my blog:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

@craig,

This is definite sister souljah material. But I'm not sure she'd leak something like this so early. You gotta make it to the general before you pull a stunt like this. She's gotta catch Obama first, and stuff like this ain't gonna help.

Let's see. . . If I were running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination I think I'd want to:

1. Piss off black folk (check);

2. Dismiss the youth vote (check);

3. Piss off Progressives (check);

4. Threaten the DNC Chair (check)

5. Threaten the Democratic Speaker of the House (check)

Yup. She'd be well on her way! Well, if she were running for the REPUBLICAN nomination.

But don't worry. Hillary's got the Reagan Democrats in her camp. Too bad she won't have the Democratic BASE to go with it.

Wow! Now, just add in her negatives over 50% as well as the fact that most Democratic voters don't think she's trustworthy and I can see how she thinks she's the strongest candidate ;)

Not smart. And she's got the nerve to attack Obama's electability?!?!?

Re: Note From A New Obama Convert

B-Serious — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:50:00 -0000

Add MSNBC to Hillary's media blitz.

Morning Joe just said that Hillary will be on Olbermann's show tonight! Very interesting.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but this could be significant. She must be feeling pretty confident to go into the lion's den the day before PA.

She wouldn't agree to such an interview UNLESS she already had something planned.

Either:

1. She knows that, somehow, this interview will be a cake-walk (meaning she thinks Keith is all bark and no bite);

2. She's got her victim card primed and ready for another swipe with her political base (raise voter turnout on her behalf); or

3. She sees this as a potential sister souljah moment. Remember, Hillary's theme has changed from "experience" to "fighter." She could try and use this interview to put Keith Olbermann "in his place." Show him who's boss.

I wouldn't be surprised if she had a list of counter-questions aimed at (1.) making Keith look stupid and/or (2.) pushing one of many Clinton propoganda issues (e.g., "double standards in the press" "poor Hillary" etc.)

Re: Jeremiah Wright To Be Interviewed By Bill Moyers Friday

B-Serious — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:29:00 -0000

On the one hand, I understand Rev. Wright's need to defend himself. Ultimately, that's his right and no one can take that away from him.

On the other hand. This opens the door for more debate over his comments at a time when Obama is trying to seal the deal on the Democratic nomination.

I wouldn't trust ANY media to take an interview with Wright without having someone twist his words even further. Despite the good intentions or integrity of the interviewer, Fox Noise is just waiting for the next soundbite. . . even if they have to create it out of thin air.

As for the racial and social dynamics involved, Wright's got a fair share of white supporters and defenders of faith. I'd like to see more of them if anything at all.

Re: Well, He Wouldn’t Have Been My Endorser: Rendell Praises Farrakhan

B-Serious — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:10:00 -0000

This won't be an issue, in large part, because Obama won't make it an issue.

Obama's restraint in the face of blatant hypocrisy and constant attack is both his biggest draw and greatest weakness. Hillary knows this and she's gonna exploit it for all it's worth.

By staying above the frey, Obama emboldens Hillary to raise the ante with every shameless charge she makes. She's like a child who doesn't get punished when she gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar: "No consequences??? Well, next time I'll try to steal TWO cookies!"

It's gotten to a point where Obama can't even defend himself without a Clinton surrogate calling him "negative."

At the same time, Obama can't pass gas without a Hillary surrogate accusing him of polluting the environment.

Hillary is skilled at spotting political points and she seeks to score them at any cost.

SHE WILL GO THERE! And it doesn't matter where "THERE" is. Just know that she and her husband have no shame when it comes to politics.

Obama's in too deep to change strategies now. He has placed the success of his campaign squarely in the hands of an electorate he feels is smarter than Hillary gives it credit for.

It's noble. It's needed. It's one of the reasons why I support him.

Don't get me wrong. Obama is going to win the nomination. The math doesn't lie. And he'll take the gloves off when he doesn't have to worry about Hillary's victim card anymore.

Just understand that his unwillingness to hit back will delay the process a little bit. Whereas he could have ended this thing back in March; treating Hillary with kid gloves ensures that he won't wrap up the nomination until May 6 or early June.

Hillary needs TIME . . . not votes or delegates or even wins. She needs time to see what sticks. Obama, consumed with being the gentleman, is willing to give her all the time she needs. The media, hoping for a ratings bonanza in a convention fight, is looking for any narrative to prolong this contest. And the Democratic Party, being the group of spineless career politicians it is, is too SCARED to stand up to the Clintons. . . even if doing so is for the good of the party.

Positive politics can be both a blessing and a curse.

Re: Well, He Wouldn’t Have Been My Endorser: Rendell Praises Farrakhan

B-Serious — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:29:00 -0000

why does she hardly ever refer to him by name? its always "my opponent" or "some people"

@amy,

It's probably standard campaigning 101 - Don't give the opponent any free press whatsoever; keep the focus on you.

Although, I personally think it speaks of her disrespectful, condescending and dismissive attitude towards Obama, his supporters and everything that he's achieved and stands for.

I honestly think she still feels like she's the frontrunner. . . like this is all some phase that the country will grow out of.

Re: Daily Open Thread - It’s Election Day in Pennsylvania

B-Serious — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:01:00 -0000

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

The odds are against him, but we've seen upsets before (payback for New Hampshire, anyone?).

There is a path to victory for Obama. Everyone knows it. It's called GOTV.

Either way, take heart. In a week's time the media will shift it's attention from working class whites in PA to african-american voters in NC.

Obama needs to close this thing out. I'm still looking at May 6, but let's hope for the upset tonight!

Re: Daily Open Thread - It’s Election Day in Pennsylvania

B-Serious — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:41:00 -0000

webb said, "I am so *&*king tired of hearing about how a Democrat can not win without the white working-class vote...IT's TIME THESE FOOLS APPRECIATE THAT A DEMOCRAT CAN'T WIN WITHOUT THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTE EITHER!"

I'm with Webb 100% on this one. I want to see the media hold Hillary's feet to the fire in NC the same way they did with Obama in PA.

I want to see the media ask Hillary how she's going to win while losing 90% of the black vote?

I want to see pundits obsess over how Hillary can't connect with the young African-American voters represented in HBCUs all over the state of NC.

I want to see the media give just as much attention to NC blacks as they gave to PA rural whites.

And can we stop with the moving goal posts. This thing is OVER!

I don't want to hear about popular vote. There is no such thing as a national "popular vote" in the Democratic primary. I haven't seen any rule that says Democrats pick their nominee on the popular vote, or electoral map, or big state myth, or whatever half-baked argument Hillary invents on any given day. Both Hillary and Barack are on record as saying that this is a DELEGATE race!

If the Dems wanted to choose a nominee based on the popular vote, then they'd just hold. . . (gasp!) a national primary. But they don't.

Hillary's own camp doesn't even pretend to have a mathematical strategy to win the nomination. Now they're talking about "history" and feelings. WTF!?!?

Re: Daily Open Thread - It’s Election Day in Pennsylvania

B-Serious — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:37:00 -0000

@ n. mahana and angela,

I'm with you guys. Switch the roles. Imagine this. . .

Hillary Clinton just won 11 straight states by an AVERAGE of 33%. She's outraised her opponent 2 to 1. She's galvanized the electorate. She played by the rules, ran a relatively clean campaign and has created an insurmountable lead. She is poised to be the Democratic nominee.

Only one small problem. Some guy named Barack Obama just won't get out of the way.

This guy, Barack, has no mathematical path to the nomination. Yet he holds his share of the Democratic Party hostage in some twisted attempt to extort a nomination that he hasn't earned.

This guy, Obama, is routinely allowed to make his own rules. He changes the goal posts every chance he gets. Yet, surprisingly, he holds Hillary to unrealistic standards that he, himself, could never reach.

He's so despised by half the country that he doesn't waste time trying to make a positive claim for his own candidacy. Instead he spends the majority of his time trying to raise Hillary's negatives. He talks about every Clinton scandal that ever happened. When asked if he thinks Hillary killed Vince Foster, he replies, "Of course not. . . AS FAR AS I KNOW."

His campaign is in constant disarray. He's already fired three major campaign strategists. He's in debt with a poor reputation for failing to pay outstanding bills - yet he somehow has the audicity to claim that he's ready on day one.

He knows he can't win, so he sends his surrogates out to do his dirty work.

He spreads the idea that Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman; and that any vote she gets is because of (a.) male guilt or (b.) because the country is just too racist to give him a fair shot.

When asked whether or not his acts damage the party he just grins and tells Hillary to toughen up. "If she can't take the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. After all, polls show most men won't vote for a woman, anyway."

He dismisses every victory she's ever had. He mocks her message. And he ridicules her supporters as needy, victim-card carrying, enablers with a diva complex.

Amazingly, however, he makes time to compliment the Republican nominee at her expense and proceeds to join forces with the RNC and Fox News to parrot every negative right-wing smear associated with her campaign. When he's challenged on it, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "Well the Republicans were gonna say it anyways."

Are you tellin' me that Hillary's supporters would just smile, kiss and make up after all of this. Give me a break.

I have NO loyalty to the Clintons. And, since her latest "let's nuke Iran" comments from last weeks debate, I'm convinced that she's just as much a hawk as McCain. No thank you. If I wanted a Republican, I'd vote for one.

Re: Pennsylvania - She Won..oh well, onto Indiana and North Carolina

B-Serious — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:39:00 -0000

This too shall pass.

Just bunker down and realize that the rest of this week belongs to Hillary. She'll get a lot of positive press; her surrogates will flood the airwaves; and the spin will be on high. Just picture "Morning Joe" on a loop for the next 4-5 days.

Expect to see Hillary get a boost. She might take a slight lead in the national polls and a small lead in Indiana.

The media will play along with any bit of spin the Clintons throw their way.

And then...

A new week hits and the media turns it's attention to IN and NC. They look for the best story lines and begin to focus on NC.

NC: a state where the black vote has quadrupled since 2004; a state that is tailor-made for Obama; a state with 11 HBCUs. With little effort, Obama supporters can shift the spotlight from the rural white voter in PA to the young black voter in NC.

Instead of focusing on Obama's problem with rural voters, people (hopefully) will begin to ask the obvious question...HOW IS HILLARY GOING TO WIN WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE?

Rather than focusing on the 60/40% advantage Hillary holds with blue collars, the media might focus on the 90/10% REJECTION just about every black voter has for the Clinton name. Hey Chuck Todd. . . play the electoral map with those numbers!

Fresh off a week of pro-Hillary press, pundits will begin to look for evidence of Hillary's new-found momentum. They'll look at the numbers, only to find that (gasp!) nothing has changed. Obama is still ahead by any and every objective measure of this race. And, if we're willing to be practical for a moment, Obama has already won the most important (the only relevant) measure for determining the nominee - PLEDGED DELEGATES.

May 6 passes by. Obama wins by double digits in NC (maybe 20% or more). Indiana stays close regardless of who wins.

And, astonishingly, after 2 weeks of Clinton hype and chest-thumping, the media will come to the same reality that they met just one week after March 4...

Hillary got the headlines, but Obama got the delegates. He will have expanded his lead by then. His probable win in NC will make up for the loss he took in the popular vote in PA.

And Hillary will be left trying to find a new spin to take something she hasn't earned.

We've been through this before.

Early May or early June. This race is over, it's just a matter of when someone forces Hillary to acknowledge it.

Re: Pennsylvania - She Won..oh well, onto Indiana and North Carolina

B-Serious — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:36:00 -0000

Big Man,

I've got my criticsms of Obama as well. But this loss was status quo. There weren't any surprises. I don't feel any sense of panic.

I'll start speaking out if I see trouble in an Obama stronghold like NC. Although, most of my criticsm comes with the idea that:

1. Obama should have been better prepared for Wright and Ayers stories. This stuff was old news to anyone who follows politics;

2. He's done a poor job at exploiting Hillary's weaknesses to gain political points (they haven't followed Hillary's controversies: "screw 'em"; her comments about MoveOn; Rendell praising Farakhan; Mark Penn and Columbian Free Trade, etc.); and

3. His surrogate game is weak. He reacts but rarely gets out in front of a story. Hillary should be reacting to him, not the other way around. He's the frontrunner, not her.

For example. . . the fact that Hillary gets to spout this "popular vote" nonsense sits squarely on Obama's shoulders. He knows that the popular vote has NOTHING to do with picking the nominee. He knows that there's really no such thing as a national "popular vote" when it comes to the primary season. But he rests on the idea that the Party will be FAIR in the end.

He's a better person than I. The Dems are too weak to stand up for themselves as it is. And the Clintons are counting on their belief that they can bully the party into submission. For that reason alone, I'd make sure to squash whatever spin Hillary had the moment I saw it.

Still, even with his mistakes, Obama is in excellent shape. This thing is his to loose. And it's gonna take a lot for him to lose it.

Re: Pennsylvania - She Won..oh well, onto Indiana and North Carolina

B-Serious — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:41:00 -0000

On Edwards. . .

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if he endorsed Clinton, either. I had higher expectations of him. I'm hoping he doesn't disappoint.

But think of this. Is an Edwards endorsement going to carry NC for Clinton?

I don't think so. Knowing that, would Edwards put his pride and rep on the line just to back a losing candidate?

Also, I've yet to see a trend towards Hillary amongst the super delegates. An Edwards endorsement would do nothing more than make things even crazier than they are now. Hillary would get a good new cycle out of it. It would help with her fundraising. But that's about it.

Finally, I still find it hard to think that Edwards could back Clinton after all he said during the primary. I don't care if he likes her health care plan better. He would look like a complete hypocrit and opportunist.

My question. . . Does Edwards WANT to endorse Hillary? Most of her endorsements have come via loyalty to the Clinton name. Is Edwards gonna kiss the ring as well? Especially when he knows that she's not going to be the nominee? Why jump on the Titanic?

Re: Pennsylvania - She Won..oh well, onto Indiana and North Carolina

B-Serious — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:39:00 -0000

rhondacoca,

I'm with you on this.

I think we should really start to lean on our media outlets, particularly people like Roland Martin. We need to let the media know that Democrats can't assume they'll get the black vote in November if Hillary is the nominee.

I'm not voting for her. Neither is anyone in my family. And I know we're not the only ones who feel this way.

For the past month we've heard story after story detailing Obama's trouble reaching the rural working class voter.

Well, Obama's problems with Reagan Democrats are NOTHING compared to the trouble Hillary's gonna have with the black vote if she steals this nomination.

90% is more than an endorsement of Obama. It is also a REJECTION of Clinton!

This gets at a core issue. Black people are people too. It sounds funny when you say it but let's face facts.

Black people are working class voters as well.

Black women are women too.

How can Hillary be the populist candidate when she loses big time in the inner city? I have to check the stats, but I think she loses the "poor" vote. I'm not talking about the "working class." I'm talking about the poor vote, where working class is a step up the economic ladder.

How can Hillary be the "women's" champion if she's losing 80-90% of the black female vote?

I'd really like to see the media pick up on some of these issues. Michell Bernard made a great point on MSNBC. When Obama wins NC by more than 20% the Clintons will be more than happy to dismiss it as a "black state."

Yet Obama struggles with blue collar whites and we're supposed to see this as a threat towards his electability?

Give me a break!

Let's see Hillary win PA without the black vote in Philadelphia. Look at any electoral map. PA is RED with blue spots. Those blue spots? Cities like Philadelphia where blacks can make as much as 50% of the Democratic vote.

Talk about electability issues. We need to get the media to start asking some of these tough questions.

Re: Flipping the Script: WHY Can’t Hillary ‘ Tonya Harding’ Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

B-Serious — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:45:00 -0000

@ truthseeker and "you know it's true"

I share your frustrations.

I'm not talking about going negative. But Obama MUST start getting out ahead of the news cycle. He is REACTING to everything Hillary does. SHE sets the standards. SHE sets the agenda. SHE determines the news cycle.

THAT HAS GOT TO STOP!

Perfect example: Hillary's fuzzy math wherein she miraculously claims to have more popular votes than he does.. .

Now, where is Obama on this issue? Why is Hillary's camp allowed to go on EVERY news outlet and trumpet this LIE?

You say something long enough and people begin to take it as truth. Fact: Popular votes have absolutely NOTHING to do with determining the nominee. Fact: Both he and Hillary are on record as saying this is a delegate race.

Yet Hillary's team goes there. It doesn't matter how absurd the argument. Hillary starts with the absurd and works her way backwards. It's negotiation tactics 101.

No one believes her new popular vote spin. But that was never the point. Hillary's goal was something deeper. . . guess what she's been able to do???

She's been able to reintroduce FL and MI into the political debate. So much that I've heard 3 or 4 pundits say it would be ok to count the FL votes because both of their names were on the ballot.

This is crazy. And it needs to stop. We shouldn't even be having stupid conversations like this. But we are. And that's because Hillary makes the news and Obama responds to it.

It hurts me to say it. But I've seen too many people (e.g., Keith Olbermann, Roland Martin, etc.) make arguments that Obama should be making HIMSELF!

It's like he's playing a prevent defense and Hillary's Peyton Manning with 2 minutes left and all three of her timeouts. It's a dumb move.

And one more thing. Hillary gets a pat on the back every time she goes negative. The media says it shows she's tough. Meanwhile that same media has begun the new narrative: "Obama is a punk."

Re: Flipping the Script: WHY Can’t Hillary ‘ Tonya Harding’ Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

B-Serious — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:29:00 -0000

"Does Rev. Wright want Barack Obama to be POTUS?

craig,

I find it really interesting that this interview hits the news cycle at THE EXACT SAME MOMENT the Jeremiah Wright ad hits in NC. And, if I'm not mistaken, Rev. Wright VOLUNTEERED for this interview. Sorry, but his timing is horrible.

I find it interesting that this ad hits NC of all places. The very state that would rely on racial tensions to charge the white vote as a counterbalance to Obama's overwhelming advantage among African-Americans.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. But it's important to understand that both McCain and Clinton have a mutually shared objective: Knock Obama out of the race. They've been mimmicking each other's talking points for the past 2-3 weeks.

Re: James Clyburn Speaks Plain Truths About the Clintons and the Black Community

B-Serious — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:04:00 -0000

Clyburn's comments are important. But they can't stop with him. They should be echoed by other representatives (black and white) to convey the sincere disgust many African-Americans have with the Clintons.

This isn't petty reflexiveness. We have a long list of reasons (for starters, check out the wiki).

When will black pride ever be a legitimate political issue? If blue collars can base their votes on beer and bowling, I sure as hell can withold my vote from politicians who throw my people under the bus for political gain.

It's an electability argument. The black electorate is REJECTING Hillary Clinton. The progressive community as well. We're those pesky "activists" Clinton complains about all the time.

It's gonna take more than Clyburn to get the message accross. See, this would actually be a good time for the black intelligencia. Dr. Cornel West, Michael E. Dyson. . . all of those people who make a living off of explaining black folk. Well, here's your chance to earn your pay check.

Unfortunately, however, I've been very disappointed with people like West and Dyson and their inability to speak truth to power when that "power" goes by the name of "Clinton" or has a (D) at the end of his or her name.

This is not a civil debate. It stopped being that a long time ago. And I'm tired of seeing Mr. and Mrs. Dyson go from talk show to talk show portraying a lie that blacks are somehow torn between Obama and Clinton. We're NOT! Marcia Dyson is an apologist. Just like Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Bob Johnson, Tavis Smiley and a list of others who put personal loyalty before cultural pride. Dyson's silence is damning, and makes him no better.

You don't have to support Obama just because you're black. I'm not saying that. But I certainly do expect high profile blacks in media and politics to defend the black community when racial politics is at play.

If you'd march against against Trent Lott, you'd BETTER be just as willing to battle the Clintons (or any other Democrat) when they pull the same type of stunts.

Until then. I place all of Hillary's black apologists in the SAME category as Larry Elders and Armstrong Williams. There is no difference. Larry Elders is a mouthpiece for the RNC. . . Tubbs-Jones is a mouthpiece for the DNC. NEITHER speaks for the black community. Cut from the same dependent mentality. They speak for Massa Bush and Massa Clinton. They don't want respect. They want a pat on the head.

Hillary's famed blue collar vote has come at the expense of the Democratic base. Her blue collar vote is fickle. It elected George W. Bush and Reagan.

Yet she puts her faith in them while turning her back on the people that got her there. That blue collar vote is just as likely to vote Republican in the Fall anyways. They're not a given.

Indeed, a Hillary nomination would shift the Democratic Party to the right (forget the center). Her leadership would place Democrats more in line with Joe Lieberman, where politicians boast their "real American" bona fides by trying their best to be Republican-lite. Open your eyes, people. Hillary's biggest defenders are Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Fox News! She is NOT a Democrat.

The media talks about Obama's trouble with the blue collar white vote? Well, Hillary has LOST the black vote.

Clyburn's a good start. But it can't stop there. And it can't be seen as just a "black" thing.

Re: James Clyburn Speaks Plain Truths About the Clintons and the Black Community

B-Serious — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:21:00 -0000

@ sepia,

I agree. Rev. Wright's timing is highly suspect.

I've said it in other threads on this subject. I acknowledge that he is his own man. He has every right to defend himself. That's not Obama's right, that's Wright's right.

Still, if you're Rev. Wright, why even trust the media to begin with. OF COURSE shows like Morning Joe are continuing to twist his words. What did people expect?

You can take on the battle. But at least be prepared for the fight.

And there are OTHER people who can take on this fight for Wright. A couple weeks ago, I saw a stage full of churches (black and WHITE) hold a news conference to say that they were prepared to defend Wright and his church.

Let's here from them (especially the white clergy).

Re: Daily Open Thread - TGIF

B-Serious — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:34:00 -0000

craig,

Thanks for the heads up on the Politico article.

It's possible that Obama already knows he's got this nomination wrapped up. As the article suggests, Obama might already have the critical mass of super delegates needed to put him over 2025, but they're just waiting for the right time. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Looks like we're not the only ones who know the black vote is key, if not decisive.

From Politico.com:

"The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed – and by their very nature are unlikely to.

Essentially, they are three:

(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, “The superdelegates are not going to switch their votes and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations.” Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.

(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.

One Democratic leader told me, “If we overrule the elected delegates there would be mayhem.” Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them – both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, “The rules are that it’s the delegates, period.” (These views are closely aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement earlier this year that the superdelegates should not overrule the votes of the elected delegates.)"

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8215AA90-3048-5C12-0061C552DC2D1F07

Re: Daily Open Thread - TGIF

B-Serious — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:39:00 -0000

Puerto Ricans, as far as I'm aware, aren't as anti-Black as, say, certain central and South American Latinos.

Craig,

I don't think the Puerto Rican vote can be lumped in with the rest of the "Latino" narrative we've seen in places like the Southwest.

Blacks and Puerto Ricans do have their differences. But I think we're more familiar with eachother than with any other Hispanic population.

First you've got the historical, pan-african ties between the two groups.

Second, you've got a great deal of intermingling (interracial relationships, etc.).

Especially amongst younger generations, blacks and latinos grow up together and basically live in the same neighborhoods.

Don't forget, Obama won the Latino vote in CT. Northeast Latinos are Puerto Rican and Dominican. Much closer to the black community than I think you'd find with other groups (e.g., Mexicans in the Southwest).

It's an interesting relationship. I don't mean to suggest it's all positive. But Puerto Rico could surprise a lot of people. Particularly if the youth vote is high.

Re: Daily Open Thread - TGIF

B-Serious — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:57:00 -0000

"One of the pol analysts was a black women...I didn't get her name."

@angela,

That black woman is Michelle Bernard. She's a conservative Independent (President/CEO of the Independent Women's Forum). However, she's been a very strong Barack supporter so far.

I've been impressed with her comments on MSNBC. She seems to get it. That there comes a point where identity and pride trumps political affiliation.

And she's spoken out against a lot of the Clinton race baiting as well as the race/gender dynamics that prevent Obama from attacking Hillary for fear of being labeled "the angry black man."

Now, she could disappoint me come November. But I have to give her credit where credit is due. She's been one of the bright spots in political punditry over the past few months.

Re: Flipping the Script: WHY Can’t Hillary ‘ Tonya Harding’ Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

B-Serious — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:18:00 -0000

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/newsflas... said, "You know Sen. Clinton has an extremely loyal following especially the women who want so badly to see a woman president. They have been incensed at calls for her to drop out and if the superdelegates were to all endorse now and Obama clinches it, they would be very upset at an attempt to force her out before all the votes were counted."

That's what I don't get. Would those super delegate have been willing to extend the SAME curtesy to Obama supporters if the shoe was on the other foot?

Would Obama be allowed to keep changing the goal posts if his campaign was in debt; he lost 11 straight contests by an AVERAGE of 33%; his negatives were above 50%; nearly 60% of the party thought he was dishonest; AND he was using all of his time to bloody the frontrunner and kill the party's chances in November?

When does someone tell Hillary and her supporters to get over it? 'Cause that's EXACTLY what they'd tell Obama supporters in that situation.

Why is Hillary special. No one threw a fit when people asked John Edwards. Same with Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson. . .

Those people didn't have to drop out when they did. This is nothing personal against Hillary. She's being asked to drop out because THE MATH DOES NOT WORK FOR HER.

Like others before her, she's reached the point where her personal ambition conflicts with the goals of the party (and quite possibly the country). It's that point where most candidates do the honorable thing and step aside for the good of the party. But I guess it's asking waaaay to much of Hillary to give up her entitlement.

Re: Flipping the Script: WHY Can’t Hillary ‘ Tonya Harding’ Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

B-Serious — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:22:00 -0000

Why is Hillary special. No one threw a fit when people asked John Edwards. Same with Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson. . .

I meant to say:

"No one threw a fit when people asked John Edwards to drop out back in January."

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:50:00 -0000

"White people in this country do not like to hear certain things..."

@rhonda,

I hear you. But I say this. . .

TOO DAMN BAD! White comfort. White privilege. How privileged. . . the privilege to turn your back on the world, plug your fingers in your ears and say, "La la la. I don't want to hear it." How privileged. . . to construct an alternate reality despite the world around you.

Understand this. White folks' worlds would be unrecognizable if they were forced to base their lives on BLACK COMFORT. . . if black comfort had ultimate veto power. It'll never happen, but I wish someone would just stand up and tell some of these critics to just GET OVER IT.

Morning Joe raised an interesting question. . . Where is the endgame, here? Define that slippery slope that Jeremiah Wright poses to the American people.

Do you think Obama is a racist? No.

Do you think Obama hates white people? No.

Has Obama done anything to make you believe he hates white people? Hates America? No.

Are there ANY policy implications to infer from this Obama/Wright relationship? NO.

Okay. . . So WTF are people obsessed about?

Uncomfortable??? Hey, JOIN THE CLUB. Be uncomfortable. Let it burn. It's necessary. Discomfort encourages self-reflection and change. To avoid discomfort is to invite stagnation.

This is a pluralistic society (diverse groups coexisting in one common setting). It's very nature requires a certain level of discomfort. . . a certain level of compromise. . . a level of give and take.

I saw Wright's speech. He didn't say a damn thing that was untoward. It was a speech on change and diversity.

Listen, politically speaking, I don't like Wright's timing. But I ain't stuck on stupid. As said in Wright's introduction, this is bigger than Obama. Obama's the target. But the media has no problem treating black folk, black culture and black expression as collateral damage.

"Different is not deficient." That's all that brotha said. It was actually a very entertaining and light-hearted speech.

People better be careful what they wish for. Black folk straddle a fine line everyday. We all got a little bit of MLK on one shoulder and a little bit of Malcolm X on the other. . . a little bit of "we shall overcome" in one hand, and a little bit of "black power," in the other. Both are equally important to who we are as a people.

Now, we've been pushing our inner MLK through Obama for a while. Keep this up and Black folk are gonna start letting their inner Malcolm X out sooner or later.

This election could reignite black nationalism for an entire generation of African-Americans. Now, I always liked black nationalism. Black is beautiful to me. Let's have more of it.

Folks get sick and tired of biting their tongues. We get tired of turning the other cheek. This election awoke a sleeping giant.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:30:00 -0000

craig,

If the media focuses on the veep line, I will officially lose ALL respect for humanity. It was clearly a joke.

Wright also made it clear that he is not a politician and is not running for any type of office.

People who cling to the viability of that line do so at the expense of all evidence to the contrary.

Might I add. . .It's a damn SHAME that we'd even have to worry about such a response.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:00 -0000

Hey, U.S.A. Keep following the likes of Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as your moral arbiters.

Talk about the Twighlight Zone.

I agree with those who are not sold on Wright's motivations. His timing is horrible.

However, as a larger issue, Rev. Wrights speech today was an excellent defense of the black church, black culture and self autonomy. In that respect, Rev. Wright made me proud.

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:50:00 -0000

nmp said, "We've been told for centuries to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and play by the rules. Well, Senator Obama did that, and he is winning. And we're just lying back while there is serious discussion of taking this nomination away from him on some bull shit argument of electability."

DAMN SKIPPY!

Re: Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:19:00 -0000

Obama had to do it eventually. It's not like Wright gave him any leeway.

The following news cycle will prove whether or not this was just about Wright.

For me, it was never about Rev. Wright or any of his statements. It was about tying Obama to a racial stereotype to damage his candidacy. The target is Obama. Meanwhile, the media sees no trouble in treating black culture and expression as collateral damage.

If it's just about Wright, then fine. Today's press conference was the most Obama could do. All questions should end there.

But we all know it won't end there. Afterwards, Fox News wanted even more. Next step. . . disown the church. Next step . . . publically chastise some black pathology to pivot to the center and ease white discomfort.

As pointed out by others. It would have been something else if Wright wasn't around. The media would have found some other association. . . some other boogey man to terrorize white America and play the Willie Horton role.

Wright fit that role perfectly. Loud. Powerful. Arrogant. Defiant.

Still, Wright is not a complete victim here. I thought his speech yesterday was great. However his conduct during the question and answer portion gave critics all the amunition they needed to paint the narrative they wanted.

Bottom line: Play the game. But at least know the rules. Speak truth to power. But stay focused and don't let your ego get the best of you. Keep focus on the bigger picture. Wright didn't do that.

Re: Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:36:00 -0000

I keep hearing this "20 years" stuff.

Very slick.

We're supposed to assume that for 20 years, every week, Rev. Wright came to the pulpit and shouted "God D*mn America" for 2 hours straight.

It gets spun as though he did this every week for 20 years. Yet, despite this "abundance" of damning evidence, we still get the same 20 second soundbites with the exact same comments from the exact same sermons.

Re: Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:37:00 -0000

Hey Jack and rikyrah,

I sent you an email. Let me know what you think.

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:13:00 -0000

Jack,

Don't you get it?

Catholics, Clinton and McCain don't have to explain anything...

Why?

BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.

They don't have to EXPLAIN themselves to you.

It doesn't matter if you're uncomfortable with something they do. They don't care if you see them as hypocrites. You'll get over it. You have in the past. Why stop now???

What is it conservatives like to say. . . "Life's not fair?" Well, there you go.

It's really that simple. It's like what your mother says to you when you're five years old. Don't question the double standard. You have no authority to do so.

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:18:00 -0000

It's like Jon Stewart said. . .

Hagee doesn't hate America. He just hates certain people in America. See, that's okay!

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:47:00 -0000

"you need to have more faith in your media overlords, sir."

You're right. I forgot how the media overlords work.

Someone mentioned this earlier: First they'll screw Obama out of the nomination. Then they'll make a documentary lamenting the very smear job that they created.

People loooove a black martyr! The media will repent just in time for black history month, 2009.

Will Smith's playing Obama. But who gets to play Michelle?

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:06:00 -0000

ms. martin said, "The MSNBC pundits are saying that they are hearing rumblings that Clinton will not fight until the convention and McAuliffe says Clinton will be the nominee and it will end by June 15."

WHY does that remind me of the night of the Presidential Election, 2000?

Bush sitting with his family (surprisingly calm and high-spirited given the circumstances). . .

reporter: "Hey Governor Bush, the results are in. The networks have called it. You just lost Florida to Al Gore."

Bush: "No I didn't."

reporter: "But, the results are already in. Al Gore is going to be our next president."

Bush: "No he isn't."

reporter: "Wait. How do you know? Where's your proof?"

Bush: (crickets)

reporter: "Guess he knows something we don't know."

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:18:00 -0000

Okay. All joking aside.

Let's not take a defeatist attitude here. We were talking about this over at Field's blog the other day.

The math is the math. And THE MATH DON'T LIE.

I don't care what Hillary does. Unless she can magically create a pledged delegate lead (near impossible at this point) the super delegates would be suicidal to give Hillary a nomination she didn't earn.

It's one thing to be scared of the Clintons. But that doesn't mean the supers are gonna alienate the black vote and piss off a generation of young (would-be) Democratic voters just to give Hillary her "entitlement."

But if they do....if for some crazy reason this talk gets a little more serious...it will be our responsibility as the activist Democratic base to finally stand up for ourselves and teach them a lesson.

Re: Ok, Obama Did His Press Conference. Let’s Call Up Catholics, Clinton and McCain

B-Serious — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:30:00 -0000

I posted this over at Field's blog the other day when people were panicked after Obama lost PA.

Take it for what it's worth. We've come too far. There's no room for doubt.

"I'm going to address this criticsm to Obama supporters as a whole. Not anyone in particular. So, please, don't take any of this personally. I also apologize in advance for the long comment:

As a general concern, I continue to be disturbed by the defeatist attitude I hear from some people.

Calm down. Obama lost a state that everyone said he was going to loose. What's the big deal? We've been here before. Remember March 5th? EVERYONE said Ohio and Texas were going to change the game and give Hillary the momentum she needed to win the nomination. Two weeks later, people looked at the math and realized that there's no way she can catch Obama in pledged delegates. People started calling on her to drop out.

But we're scared because Obama lost PA? Might I remind people that Hillary lost 11 straight by an AVERAGE of 33%. Not ONCE did I see her, her campaign or her supporters doubt themselves. They've been in debt, had campaign shake-ups, you name it. But they never had a defeatist attitude. They dismissed their losses and moved on.

My goodness, they're so happy in their state of denial that they have the audacity to say things like, "the math isn't important." WTF?

Michelle Bernard hit the nail on the head when she said that the Clintons will easily dismiss a 15-20% blow out in NC as "just another black state." You want to know the sad part? A lot of us will buy into that. In the least, we'll let her continue to say such things without ever thinking to challenge her on her BS.

Time after time, we allow the media to scare us back in our "proper" place. You've got the media convincing Obama supporters that he can't win the general election because he lost PA white men by 10%. But no one says a damn thing about the fact that Hillary lost 90% of the black vote.

Rep. Clyburn said that tells him that the media is comfortable to say that black folk don't really matter. Why? Because, if we did, the media would be hounding Hillary about how "out of touch" she is with African-Americans. She'd be forced to play spades and dance the electric slide just to show how "in touch" she is with the black community.

Sounds rediculous, right? Yet we're comfortable seeing Obama drink beers and bowl a 37 just to get the white man's attention. That's an insult to him and the working class white voter.

I've seen far too many Obama supporters cede the terms of engagement to Hillary's side. A state is "important," because SHE SAYS SO. A voter is more important because SHE SAYS SO. It's ok to change the rules and count FL and MI because SHE SAYS SO. It's ok to mistake familiarity for experience; to mistake scorched earth tactics for "toughness" because SHE SAYS SO.

Do we really want to change the way things work in this country? Or are we going to continue to reward bad behavior?

For 8 years we lamented the cowboy politics of George W. Bush. Now some of us have the gall to praise Hillary for being just as "tough" as the Republicans?

She's telling you that she's going to "obliterate" Iran. Her voting record matches her hawkish stance. But I gaurantee you we'll be sitting here 3 years from now, after having invaded Iran, wondering how we ever elected a Joe Lieberman Republican who has us fighting 3 wars at the same time.

Let's forget this hype about being "tough." Americans rarely elect a President whom they DON'T think is tough. I've never seen a voter come out of the voting booth and say, "Yeah, I voted for the punk-a*s."

And look where it gets us. All of that bravado and chest thumping gets us absolutely nowhere.

Obama isn't perfect. He's missed out on political opportunities to control the media narrative and put Hillary on the defensive.

But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that he's WINNING. The rules and math say this thing has been OVER for a long time.

Yet we're the first one's to believe the hype . . . to believe the spin that this thing is a close contest, or that Obama is in trouble. Hillary would kill to be where Obama is right now.

But this is a sad sight to see. Supporters of a WINNING campaign with a loser's mentality.

Did we ever believe in this "hope" for "change" or were we always waiting for the other shoe to drop?"

Re: NYT Editorial On Wright And Hagee

B-Serious — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:54:00 -0000

A-M-E-N!!!

And props to the NY Times.

Please. Make sure this post gets as much exposure as possible.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:03:00 -0000

Alright. If she's telling the truth, this could be BIG NEWS. . .

Senator Claire McCaskill says that the race for super delegates is OVER and Obama won:

http://reachblack.blogspot.com

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/04/very-promising-news-regarding-super.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html

If true, this thing is OVER. And it's just a matter of time before Obama wraps this thing up.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:31:00 -0000

craig,

I agree. They should come out and announce. But rumor says that the DNC wants to let Hillary's side down as gently as possible. It's all about party unity and not giving her supporters an excuse to claim that she was "forced" out of the race.

Funny, but I don't think they'd afford that same luxury to Obama supporters if the roles were reversed.

Hillary supporters act like every state always gets to vote before the nominee is chosen

That's just not true.

By her own words, Hillary expected to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She didn't care about "letting all the states vote" back then.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/newsflash-hillary-aint-special.html

Re: Thursday Open Thread- One more day til the weekend

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:34:00 -0000

Craig,

I'm not trusting that NC poll either. But we should note that most of the polls show a tightening in North Carolina from double to single digits.

Obama's down by 4 in the Gallup daily tracking poll (but that bounces around every week).

I've also noticed a disturbing trend in the last few primaries. He's underperforming via his poll numbers. Exit polling is shot. The Bradley Effect might be at play. The exit polls in PA were closer than the actual results.

Obama needs to build some type of a cushion.

Obama should win NC. I read that the black vote quadrupled since 2004.

But Obama better get on the ball. He's still reacting to the media cycle. STOP THAT! He should be doing EVERYTHING in his power to get ahead of the cycle.

I want to see his face everywhere, on every station for the entire weekend. I want to see him engage the public. I don't care how. Go on the nightly talk shows. . . go on day time talk shows. Make a surprise guest appearance somewhere. Just DO SOMETHING!

All I know is I see Hillary's face everywhere. And every time you see her, she's got a new spin or narrative for the media to bite at.

There's nothing stopping Obama from doing the same.

Don't get me wrong. I like the fact that Obama's going to be on Meet the Press this Sunday. But he needs more air time that's not related to Rev. Wright.

And if he is asked about Rev. Wright, he should do like Kerry the other day and turn it around on the media. He should memorize a list of important issues that have gone ignored because of the Wright coverage and just throw them all back in the media's face.

He also needs a hook that works with the working class. He might have tapped into something earlier today: prescription drugs.

Plus, someone needs to tell him to get some emotion and passion back in his voice. He looks and sounds tired. He's a better man than I. It must be exhausting. But this is no time to slow down. He's right at the finish line. . . it's about time he crossed it.

Where are his surrogates? What is their central talking point going in to May 6?

I'm with Obama all the way. THE MATH DON'T LIE! He's got this nomination in his control.

But he needs to sharpen his campaigning skills and quick.

Obama doesn't want a dissapointing May 6. Why? Not because of the math, but because of the perception.

Hillary's got two blow out states coming up in Kentucky and West Virginia. They're small states, but Hillary could easily get 60-65% of the vote there. He doesn't want to stumble into Kentucky and West Virginia. Hillary is COUNTING on the headlines she'll get coming out of those two states.

The MATH wins the nomination. But the drama sells ratings. And right now the media is all too happy to sell the drama, regardless of what it does to the Democratic process.

Obama should know this. He should be prepared for this. He needs to fight back against someone or something. I don't care who or what it is. It could be the Clintons as a team. It could be McCain. It could even be the media. But Obama better stop coasting.

A loss in NC or a big loss in IN won't kill his campaign. But it will kill his momentum (which has already taken a huge hit) and cause a major headache as Obama tries to get back on his feet.

I'm not ranting because I think he'll lose the nomination. I repeat, much of this is all spin. The MATH is and will remain the main issue.

But, to the extent he can, Obama needs to END this DRAMA. It's one thing to be the nominee (which I fully expect he will be). But he doesn't want to be a weakened nominee. He's starting to make this much harder than it needs to be.

Hey Obama: GET THE LEAD OUT!

Re: SuperDelegate Joe Andrew Switches from Clinton to Obama

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:30:00 -0000

Absolutely AMAZING letter!!!

You know. . . this movement is something special. You don't see things like this in politics.

People are really thinking. They're thinking for themselves . . . shedding old labels . . . and really challenging themselves and each other to invision the type of America they want to live in.

It's beautiful. It truly is. And yes, it's little things like this that give me HOPE that everything is gonna be alright.

I know. That sounds corny, but I truly believe we're gonna witness a defining moment in American history.

Re: SuperDelegate Joe Andrew Switches from Clinton to Obama

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:20:00 -0000

"Drudge is reporting that Clinton will have an Indiana town hall on Sunday, aired by ABC, and hosted by (drum roll) - George Stephanapolous!"

Ok, I have a SERIOUS problem with this.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as being kind of odd?

My point is this:

Besides the obvious conflict of interest posed by a former Clinton staffer hosting a Clinton town hall event . . .

Aren't there any "EQUAL TIME" legal issues with this town hall event?

Seriously.

I mean, we're basically talking about a 1 hour pro-Hillary event on national broadcast television.

It's not like this is an interview. It's a town hall meeting where she'll likely get to control the direction of the conversation and, quite possibly, the questions themselves.

Why is ABC giving her a 1 hour block of free air time?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but this raises some serious concerns for me.

They'd have to do the same for Obama and McCain.

Re: SuperDelegate Joe Andrew Switches from Clinton to Obama

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:25:00 -0000

"Equal Time" issues? What do you think?:

US CODE: Title 47, sec. 315

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—

(1) bona fide newscast,

(2) bona fide news interview,

(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- One more day til the weekend

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:31:00 -0000

mentioned in the Joe Andrews thread:

"Drudge is reporting that Clinton will have an Indiana town hall on Sunday, aired by ABC, and hosted by (drum roll) - George Stephanapolous!"

Ok, I have a SERIOUS problem with this.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as being kind of odd?

My point is this:

Besides the obvious conflict of interest posed by a former Clinton staffer hosting a Clinton town hall event . . .

Aren't there any "EQUAL TIME" legal issues with this town hall event?

Seriously.

I mean, we're basically talking about a 1 hour pro-Hillary event on national broadcast television.

It's not like this is an interview. It's a town hall meeting where she'll likely get to control the direction of the conversation and, quite possibly, the questions themselves.

Why is ABC giving her a 1 hour block of free air time?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but this raises some serious concerns for me.

They'd have to do the same for Obama and McCain.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- One more day til the weekend

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:33:00 -0000

Re: SuperDelegate Joe Andrew Switches from Clinton to Obama

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:37:00 -0000

KXB,

Yeah, but Obama's appearance on Meet the Press is an interview. Interviews happen all the time. Plus, I don't think "interviews" fall under the Equal Time doctrine.

Hillary's appearance is not an interview, it's a town hall meeting. It's basically an hour long press conference where she'll get to showcase her entire stump speech.

That report said Steph was gonna "host" the town hall. Is he asking her questions or is he just an MC?

Either way, it smells fishy. It looks like a shameless attempt to get around the Equal Time issue.

Don't forget, this is a national broadcast, not cable news. This isn't MSNBC, FoxNews or CNN. It's ABC. A national broadcast is the type of stuff that gets reserved for the President.

It would be like having CBS carry Obama's race speech live on tv. That didn't happen. It got carried on cable news (different standards) but not broadcast television.

If Hillary wants a town hall, she should find a cable station like she did the last time. Pay the Lifetime Network for an hour's worth of air time and handle her business, but leave broadcast tv out of it.

And I don't like the timing. Hillary's broke. She probably spent that 10 million she raised on tv ads in NC and IN. It looks like her old pal at ABC is throwing her a lifeline.

Very Clintonian.

Re: SuperDelegate Joe Andrew Switches from Clinton to Obama

B-Serious — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:43:00 -0000

craig said, "Russert is a snake. I expect more questions about Farrakhan and the Million Man March."

I'm with you on that one. Obama better be prepared for that type of question.

But remember, just about every other member of the CBC has ties to the Million Man March --- including most of those black Clinton apologists Hillary loves so much.

Russert might bring it up. But Hillary (if she's smart) won't touch that issue with a 10-foot pole.

Re: Big Media Finally Writes About What Black Folk Will Do If Clinton Steals The Nomination

B-Serious — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:43:00 -0000

Hey Jack,

Great post!

I was struck by this line as well:

"Democratic National Committee officials acknowledge that there could be some falloff of African-American voters if Obama isn't the nominee. Still, Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman, said the party expects African Americans -- frustrated by the war in Iraq, the sagging economy and high gasoline prices -- to go to the polls in their usual numbers when they compare whomever the Democratic nominee is with McCain."

Might I remind Ms. Finney that this same option also applies to all of those working class white voters everyone keeps talking about. Yet no one's telling them to just suck it up and fall in line.

Ms. Finney's reasoning is EXACTLY why I never registered as a Democrat. I've been an Independent since I was 18 and comments like hers tell me I'll be an Independent for much longer.

Also, props to Jack for saying, "This is a test, my people. It's one of those moments where we get to ask ourselves just what are we worth."

So true. . . so true!

Re: The Empire Strikes Barack

B-Serious — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:52:00 -0000

LOL!

I think it's safe to say. . . Obama has won the artistic/creativity crowd in a landslide!

Re: Sign An Open Letter To Democratic Leaders Demanding They Not Overturn The Will Of Voters

B-Serious — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:13:00 -0000

@ a.non.ymous (1:20pm)

you said"There is literally a fraction between Obama and Hillary in the popular vote (less than 2%)"

I respectfully disagree with your premise.

The "popular vote" is not the metric used to choose a nominee. Delegates are. Both Obama AND Hillary Clinton are on record for saying as much.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote in Democratic primaries. If there were, we'd have a . . . NATIONAL PRIMARY. Yes, one day. Everyone in every state votes and then we're done with it. But that's not the case. If it were, candidates would spend all of their time trying to run up the score in states like NY and CA. Those states would have a strangle-hold on the nominating process which would hurt the Dems in the Fall.

Plus there's a serious question as to whether or not the "popular vote" even counts caucus results. In fact, there are a few caucus states that never released their final tallies.

We have a metric to determine the will of the people. That metric is DELEGATES. That's the way it was when Hillary was "inevitable." And that's the way it is now. The rules don't change just because Hillary's gonna lose.

Yes. Super delegates are allowed to reverse the will of the people. Notice I said "reverse."

Supers would "reverse" the will of the people if they gave the nomination to a candidate who had less delegates.

However, supers would "ratify" the will of the people if they gave the nomination to the person who EARNED the most elected delegates. Reverse v. Ratify. That's what it comes down to.

Supers can "reverse" the will of the people if they want to. But there will be serious consequences that the party will have to live with.

Say goodbye to the black vote. Say goodbye to a generation of would-be Democratic voters (ages 18-30). Say goodbye to most of your activist base of support. Say goodbye to blue cities that are blue because of black votes. Say goodbye to PA if you can't rack up enough popular votes in Philadelphia.

Supers know this. They're not willing to sacrifice the future of the Democratic Party just to make Hillary happy.

you also said,"The fair thing is to wait until the last vote is counted."

Hillary Clinton is on record as saying that she expected to have the nomination wrapped up by February 5.

She wasn't worried about letting everyone vote back then. Why the change of heart now? Of course, we all know why. . . she's loosing.

We weren't worried about letting everyone vote when people asked John Edwards to drop out? Why is that.

Fact is. People drop out all of the time. They do it for the good of the party.

If Obama lost 12 straight by an average of 33% like Hillary did, he would have been forced out of the race a long time ago.

Finally, the idea, "let everyone vote," is misleading. Everyone will vote. But we'll have our nominee. Happens all of the time. People are still voting in the Republican contests as well. It's just that the Republicans have the opportunity to rally behind their nominee and strengthen him for the Fall.

Most supers want that as well. Which is why they keep coming out for Obama. He's picked up 16 supers to Clinton's 10 since his loss in PA. That's with all of the problems he's had.

Obama's camp says the super delegate race (elected supers) is already over. They say they've won. Hillary's camp hasn't really challenged that assertion. All they say is "hold on," "give us more time."

Hillary's the one in the hole. If Hillary had the support, she'd be showing it by now. But she's not. That speaks volumes.

Re: Hillary Clinton’s Star-Crossed Weekend: Dead Horse, Fake Gun and "Elite" Facts

B-Serious — Mon, 05 May 2008 08:05:00 -0000

I am shocked that the supers haven't stepped forward to end this thing.

This goes beyond Obama and Clinton. At this point, it's become a matter of basic Democratic principles.

We have two parties for a reason.

But Hillary's candidacy seeks to shift the Democratic Party completely right of center.

She is one step shy of Joe Lieberman and five steps shy of Zell Miller. Her shameless pandering to CONSERVATIVE rural America is NOT Democratic (capital "D") politics.

Why is the Democratic Party allowing her to do this?

How can you burn bridges with half of the Party; piss off key constituencies; alienate the activist base; bully Democratic colleagues; pander to conservatives and still have a shot at being the Democratic nominee?

Hillary Clinton is NOT a Democrat. Her "you're with us or against us" stance on the gas tax reminds me of Bush. Her "obliterate" Iran, stance is to the RIGHT of most conservatives.

She is NOT a Democrat. So why are the supers letting her stay in this race for the DEMOCRATIC nomination?

Re: Hillary Clinton’s Star-Crossed Weekend: Dead Horse, Fake Gun and "Elite" Facts

B-Serious — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:26:00 -0000

ronnie b,

I sure wouldn't, but the DNC doesn't seem to mind.

Anyone who pays attention can see where this thing is headed:

Obama (the candidate who EARNED the nomination) vs. Hillary (the candidate with the late surge of momentum).

Hillary can't catch Obama. But she sure can hurt him. Hillary's "momentum" is due, in large part, to the fact that she gets to smear Obama left and right with no fear of consequence. None whatsoever. She can say whatever she wants. She can make her own rules. She can move the goalposts. She can create her own reality. No one ever calls her on it.

And the Democratic Party is doing absolutely silent when it comes to stepping in and stopping this thing.

The bar is soooo low for Hillary at this point. All she has to do in win Indiana and she lives to fight for the ENTIRE month of May.

That means more smears, more gutter politics, more division, new goalposts.

And the headached won't stop there. She's got a big win lined up for next week in West Virginia; followed by a probable split with Obama between Kentucky and Oregon.

THE MATH IS THE MATH. THE NUMBERS are not going to change. All signs say Obama is the nominee. So why is the Democratic Party giving Hillary the green light to try and destroy Obama's chances in the Fall?

Re: Monday Open Thread - It’s a New Week!

B-Serious — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:23:00 -0000

What if the Dems FORCE Obama to put Hillary on the ticket?

Something tells me Hillary wants to play King-maker, even though she knows she can't win.

Re: Monday Open Thread - It’s a New Week!

B-Serious — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:58:00 -0000

This is all very frustrating.

I'm 26 years old. And this the first time I've been told that things like numbers and math don't really count. As a matter of fact. . . am I alone or does anyone else find it odd that the media never talked about super delegates until Obama beat Hillary in Iowa?

I just watched two cable new networks spin the polls in a shamelessly pro-Hillary way. They took one of Hillary's strongest polls in IN and matched that with one of Obama's weakest polls in NC to make the narrative that Hillary has IN on lock while Obama is vulnerable to an upset in NC.

Yes, they cherry picked the polls. Completely ignoring the polls that show IN as a virtual toss-up and Obama holding steady at 8-10 points in NC. I even saw MSNBC show a pro-Obama poll (CBS poll) with Hillary's face on top and Obama's on the bottom.

I'm tellin' y'all. . .we need to start calling the media out. The media is beginning to lay out a scenario that will give supers the excuse to take the nomination away from Obama. This has to be stopped.

They'll hang on to this "blue-collar white voter" thing until (a) it brings Obama down; or (b) Obama shuts everyone up with a strong performance.

The media narrative is transparently clear:

For them it would have to start with a surprising loss in NC. After that, the media would hype West Virginia and Kentucky as must win contests, KNOWING fully welll that Obama is (and has always been) slated for a clobbering in those two states.

They'd look at Hillary's winning streak and call her the frontrunner even though she trails in pledged delegates.

They'd use that momentum to turn the volume up on the MI/FL issue, giving Hillary cover to try her "Nuclear Option" (Huffington Post) on May 31st.

Everyone loves a vacation in the tropics, so the media will focus on Puerto Rico like its the end-all-be-all in politics. . . fully expecting Hillary to win there by double digits.

We end with the Dems worst nightmare: Obama played by the rules; he has the numbers, but no momentum. Hillary, on the other hand, continuously changed the rules; she did not EARN the nomination but the media will provide more than enough cover for the supers to reverse the will of the people.

As for Obama? Well, he gets relegated to martyr status. And white folks love a black martyr. They can feel sorry for him. They'll remorsefully say, "Look at what that mean old pastor did to Obama" as they take the nomination away and hand it to Hillary . . . GUILT FREE!

They'll happily reflect on how that inspirational negro came up short but taught us all a valuable lesson in the process. Hillary gets the power, and Obama (if he's lucky) gets a footnote in the history books.

It's absolutely SICKENING, but I can see the writing on the wall. It's not right. It's downright undemocratic. But I question whether offended constituencies (and even Obama himself) will have enough pride to stand up for themselves and say, "enough is enough!"

When will people stand up for themselves?!?!?

We've come too far to turn back now. But we need to keep a look out for the hustle that's coming Obama's way.

With all of that said, Obama can avoid all of this if he:

1. Wins NC by a healthy margin (7+ points); AND

2. Wins or at least keeps it close in IN (not getting blown out by high single or double digits).

I think he can do it. But, we'll have to wait and see.

Re: Monday Open Thread - It’s a New Week!

B-Serious — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:31:00 -0000

rikyrah,

I'm with you. I've already stated why Hillary as veep is a HORRIBLE idea.

I'm just saying. . . Obama might reach a point where it's out of his hands. . . where the supers give him the ultimatum: "Offer Hillary veep or we side with her."

What leverage will Obama have if he has to go through another month of smear tactics and fluctuating poll numbers with no support from the party? Why are supers sitting on the sidelines in all of this?

It tells me those supers want the easy way out. From a PR stance, the famed, "unity/dream-team" ticket is the easy way out.

Don't get me wrong. It's still a bunch of BS. I still wouldn't pick her if I were him. I'd just conduct a media campaign stressing the fact that the nominee has the right to pick his v.p.

But we all know that Hillary has something up her sleave.

I'm just looking for her hustle. I can feel one coming.

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:48:00 -0000

CELEBRATE everybody!

Regardless of what happens in IN, Obama just wrapped up the Democratic nomination tonight!

Such a beautiful thang!!!

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:15:00 -0000

Anyone think Hillary drops out by the end of the week?

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:19:00 -0000

Those Clinton surrogates are backtrackin' tonight!

I missed Lanny Davis, but I did see Donna Brazille get into it with Paul Begala.

I swear. This night has been a rollercoaster.

I was feeling down when I saw those early returns from Indiana around 7:00. But I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when the networks called NC at 7:30 on the dot!

It just got better and better from there on out.

Go OBAMA!!!!

YES WE CAN!

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:21:00 -0000

justice58,

I hear ya. Isn't it funny. . . I didn't see that much of Joe Scarborough tonight.

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:09:00 -0000

Does anyone know what the "controversy" is with the Gary mayor?

They're taking a long time to count the ballots? And?

Didn't we wait a month to get the final results from the Texas caucuses?

This is not the first time we've had to wait until the next day to get results.

By all means, investigate if you think there's something wrong. But this never struck me as a real issue.

Re: Clinton Wins Indiana Via Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Operation Chaos’

B-Serious — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:16:00 -0000

This was all good entertainment.

But this thing is OVER!

I can't see the media caring that much about a 2% win. If they do, then I know something's up.

No more spin.

It's time to move on.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:34:00 -0000

I am so sick and tired of the Clintons and everything they stand for.

Sorry, I just felt the need to say that this morning.

Thank you :)

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:54:00 -0000

Alright, is anyone else sick of this "give Hillary space," crap?

Does anyone buy this?

I'm talking about the new media narrative that says Clinton knows she's lost the nomination, but everyone needs to give her space so she can bow out with grace.

Are you kidding me? Apparently Obama's fine with this. But I'm not buying it.

And, despite what some pundits say, she is still running a negative campaign. She's played the race and gender card in the past 48 hours alone.

Plus, she's still stuck on this FL/MI argument.

I'm watching Morning Joe only to see Howard Wolfson trash Obama's health and economic platforms while basically calling him an elitist.

When are people (Obama included) going to wake up. Hillary doesn't need space. . . SHE NEEDS TIME!!!

She needs time to try and dig up some dirt. She needs time to start some drama. She needs time to play the victim. She needs time to smear.

She needs more time to make Obama the WEAKEST nominee he can possibly be.

She needs time. . . but she's doing this all under the guise of "she needs space."

Obama better have an insurance policy. He better work those super delegates extra hard. And he'd better start rolling them out 8-10 at a time.

No one should trust anything that comes our of Hillary or Bill's mouth.

Haven't we seen this movie before? Hillary shows humility only to turn right back around and slap Obama in the face.

It happened with her cry in New Hampshire. . . her "I'm honored to be on stage with you" moment in Texas. . . and now this.

She needs to get out NOW. And Obama needs to find a way to keep the pressure on her. Screw "space."

Re: Clinton Makes Case For WHITE Appeal

B-Serious — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:54:00 -0000

I'm sticking to my earlier position on this. Obama needs to find a way to force her out.

This "give her space" stuff ain't gonna work; Hillary's race-baiting is just one of many reasons why.

I'm gonna keep saying it. Hillary wants TIME, not space. She needs more time to throw everything she can think of at Obama to see what sticks.

"Giving her space" is giving her an ENTIRE MONTH to keep doing stuff like this.

Obama doesn't have to be confrontational about it. He just needs to start releasing more super delegate endorsements to demonstrate his control on the nomination.

Rachel Maddow asked this question and I agree: Where's the rush of super delegates?

Seriously, how many more hoops does Obama have to jump through before the supers step in to bring this thing to a close?

While on "Meet the Press," Obama said he learned that you have to rip the band-aid off sometimes. You can't always afford to peel it off slowly.

He's got the momentum. He's got the positive press. He's got this nomination on lock.

The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself.

I know he doesn't want to offend Hillary supporters, but, if she's gonna act like this, he needs to rip that band-aid right off right now.

Let it sting for a month and work double-time to heal the party.

Most anti-Obama sentiment coming from some of Hillary's supporters is sour grapes. Nothing more. Obama has been more than respectful to Clinton throughout this entire process. He hasn't cheated or moved the goal posts. He hasn't belittled Hillary's candidacy or her supporters.

Obama's biggest "sin" is nothing more than the fact that he beat her fair and square. He played by the rules and will lead in every metric by the time this thing is over.

He deserves the support he'd get from the super delegates. Supers need to ratify the leader in pledged delegates. It's really simple.

Giving Hillary "space" just gives her more time to try and take him down.

Hillary ain't gonna bow out gracefully. She's not going to run a positive campaign. That's wishful thinking.

Hillary doesn't deserve "space" to heal her bruised ego. That's all we're really talking about, here.

And trust. . . she'll spin her wins in West Virginia and Kentucky for all their worth . . . namely, continuing the "black guy can't get white voters" meme. What happens if it starts to stick? What happens when the media stops talking about ending the race and starts talking about Obama, "the guy who can't lose the nomination, but can't win the general election?" I've heard a few people say that's what the Clintons are trying to push.

Howard Wolfson basically said as much on Hardball this evening.

Enough is enough! Time to put this thing to bed!

Re: Final Indiana Results

B-Serious — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:57:00 -0000

I'm sticking to my earlier position on this. Obama needs to find a way to force Hillary out of the race.

He needs to strike NOW while the iron is hot.

This "give her space" stuff ain't gonna work; Hillary's race-baiting is just one of many reasons why.

I'm gonna keep saying it. Hillary wants TIME, not space. She needs more time to throw everything she can think of at Obama to see what sticks.

"Giving her space" is giving her an ENTIRE MONTH to keep doing stuff like this.

Obama doesn't have to be confrontational about it. He just needs to start releasing more super delegate endorsements to demonstrate his control on the nomination.

Rachel Maddow asked this question and I agree: Where's the rush of super delegates?

Seriously, how many more hoops does Obama have to jump through before the supers step in to bring this thing to a close?

While on "Meet the Press," Obama said he learned that you have to rip the band-aid off sometimes. You can't always afford to peel it off slowly.

He's got the momentum. He's got the positive press. He's got this nomination on lock.

The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself.

I know he doesn't want to offend Hillary supporters, but, if she's gonna act like this, he needs to rip that band-aid right off right now.

Let it sting for a month and work double-time to heal the party.

Most anti-Obama sentiment coming from some of Hillary's supporters is sour grapes. Nothing more. Obama has been more than respectful to Clinton throughout this entire process. He hasn't cheated or moved the goal posts. He hasn't belittled Hillary's candidacy or her supporters.

Obama's biggest "sin" is nothing more than the fact that he beat her fair and square. He played by the rules and will lead in every metric by the time this thing is over.

He deserves the support he'd get from the super delegates. Supers need to ratify the leader in pledged delegates. It's really simple.

Giving Hillary "space" just gives her more time to try and take him down.

Hillary ain't gonna bow out gracefully. She's not going to run a positive campaign. That's wishful thinking.

Hillary doesn't deserve "space" to heal her bruised ego. That's all we're really talking about, here.

And trust. . . she'll spin her wins in West Virginia and Kentucky for all their worth . . . namely, continuing the "black guy can't get white voters" meme. What happens if it starts to stick? What happens when the media stops talking about ending the race and starts talking about Obama, "the guy who can't lose the nomination, but can't win the general election?" I've heard a few people say that's what the Clintons are trying to push.

Howard Wolfson basically said as much on Hardball this evening.

Enough is enough! Time to put this thing to bed!

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

B-Serious — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:19:00 -0000

Rasmussen Calls Democratic Race for Obama. . .

Will turn attention to Presidential race between Obama v. McCain.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Re: James Clyburn -Trying to be the Canary in the Mine

B-Serious — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:15:00 -0000

andyfrombrooklyn said,
"getting worried about the whites , the hard working whites of w.va. and ky. wolf blitzer was starting to get warmed up to their potential to cause trouble last night. just how bad is it going to be? i am worried."

I here ya. That latest poll said Hillary's up by 40% with about 10 or 11% undecided (keep in mind, undecideds tend to break for Clinton).

That's why all this "give her space" talk is crazy.

Look, WV and KY won't have much impact on the math. But Hillary's not looking for a win. . . she's looking to run up the score as high as she can. She's counting on a switch in media narratives once they see her win by an absurd amount (a crazy amount if we are to believe the polls) in WV and KY.

So. . . while Obama plays nice and gives Hillary her "space," she and Bill go around WV playing the race card, trashing Obama's health and economic plans and doing everything in their power to embarass Obama on Tuesday night.

That's what they want. They want 2 straight hours of election coverage where Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove, Joe Scarborough and the like gleefully assess the wreckage.

You can see it now,

Pat Buchanan: "A presumptive nominee for the presidency shouldn't get beat by 35%. Obama's got major problems."

Joe Scarborough: "We're getting a glimpse of Obama's rift with blue collar Americans. I don't know how you sell this to the super delegates. This is Hillary's best hope (points to 5 cherry-picked polls that show Hillary winning in several swing states like OH, PA, and FL)."

News headlines the next morning: "Why Can't He Close the Deal."

Terry McCauliffe and Howard Wolfson: "This is proof that Hillary is the stronger candidate. She has a larger base." (Adding any other talking point that hints: "White people won't vote for the black guy and WV is further proof of that.")

Now, there's nothing new about those WV polls. And Kentucky is going to be bad as well. Obama has known this for some time.

So Obama had BETTER have a plan going into those two states.

Because Hillary is getting ready to pimp slap him on national television. And it's going to be the media's decision as to whether or not they change narratives and give Hillary new life.

I don't trust the media. . . they'll go with the "Hillary as 'comeback kid,' narrative in a heartbeat.

Now, here's my question: What if Obama's numbers start slipping in Oregon as a result? Suddenly Obama's May 20th victory speech gets put on hold. And Hillary gains momentum. That means more spin, more division and a bigger headache for Obama.

That's why Obama needs to end this thing as soon as possible! Forget all this "give her space" talk!

Re: James Clyburn -Trying to be the Canary in the Mine

B-Serious — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:00:00 -0000

truthseeker and adam,

You're correct. Oregon is a mail-in ballot. But Hillary was in Oregon yesterday urging people to wait a little longer before they mail it in. Some will listen, some won't.

I understand what you're saying.

Trust. I know this thing is over. She's not going to catch him. I don't care how well she does in WV and/or KY. The math just isn't there for her.

But I'm not sure if Obama's even campaigning in WV. Why make it so easy for Clinton in the first place?

For me, the bottom line is this: The media has just as much control over this nomination as any primary or caucus.

I know he's a rock star again. But trust. . . the media is NOT his friend. And neither are those spineless uncommitted super delegates. All of them are bandwagon jumpers, devoid of principle and integrity -- consumed by self-promotion and self-preservation.

The fact that super delegates continue to allow Obama to flail in the wind as Hillary, McCain and the RNC take turns smearing him is highly disturbing. In the past, the party has rallied quicker and stronger behind lesser men. What's with the delay?

The media is fickle. Again, despite the resurgent rock star treatment, the media is NOT Obama's friend. . . he's just the popular story for the moment.

The media doesn't care about process, rules, fairness or the Democratic Party. No, the media will focus on whatever gets high ratings.

Clinton knows this. And she knows that a 40+ loss for Obama is EMBARASSING. It threatens to undermine Obama's credibility as a viable candidate.

You and I both know that WV is one of 50 states. We know that WV only has 28 delegates. That's an honest, objective assessment.

But the media doesn't care about honesty. They care about ratings.

And Hillary's drama. . . her "comeback kid" narrative is good for ratings, despite how disingenous it might be.

This is not the time for Obama to let his guard down. This is the time for Obama to watch his back.

Re: James Clyburn -Trying to be the Canary in the Mine

B-Serious — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:29:00 -0000

craig,

You're right. That would be the perfect time to make that Edwards endorsement.

And I still think Obama's got Al Gore waiting in the wings if he needs him. Although, at this point, poetry might see Obama use Gore's endorsement to symbolize the end of the Clinton era.

I'm keeping my cool. The math is the math (and that won't change after WV and KY). But I'd just like to see the supers move a little faster than they are.

Democrats rally behind the frontrunner all of the time. It just frustrates me that some want to see Obama jump through just one more hoop before they endorse. They can end this thing right now. It's time to move on.

Re: James Clyburn -Trying to be the Canary in the Mine

B-Serious — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:31:00 -0000

An interesting article from Politico:

"Under Clinton rules, Obama still wins"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10247.html

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:28:00 -0000

craig,

Nice link.

Yes, Democrats should not placate to racist sentiment. Seems simple to me. And the idea that some in the party might ever consider such a backwards argument is sickening and all the more proof that a vote for Hillary is not the way to go.

My favorite part was this:

"Here's my response - who gives a fuck about those racists?

Honestly - I don't care if people in PA and OH are so racist that they won't vote for Obama. We'll just have to find votes for Obama elsewhere...and we will.

That's EXACTLY why I'm for Obama in the first place. He's brought new people to the process. We don't have to rely on the old paradigm. . . we can make our own.

Now, I'm not gonna call all those people racist. But Hillary's argument was racist. And anyone who buys into that argument needs to check themselves real quick.

The author was right. We wouldn't accept a candidate who played off of anti-semetic fears to get the nomination. It's called principle and integrity, of which, as spoofed in last night's SNL skit, Hillary has none.

Old-school politics has traditionally EXCLUDED millions of hard-working, blue collar Americans who aren't white and who don't necessarily succumb to conservative wedge issues of fear and intolerance.

Obama woke a sleeping giant. Furthermore, Barack is getting the "stupid" out of politics. He's talking to us like adults (how refreshing). He's entrusted his political career in the HOPE that we, the American people, are smarter than we're often given credit for. He's appealing to our greater angels. And that only happens when you empower people from the bottom up.

It's grassroots politics on steroids. . . such a beautiful thing!

Anyone who's ever been involved in grassroots political organization knows just how beautiful this actually is. It's building leadership from the ground up; sharing the power; and encouraging ordinary people to believe in themselves to do extraordinary things. Hillary doesn't know anything about that.

Obama's message: Yes WE can.

Hillary's message: She'll fight for you.

One message is inclusive and self-empowering in its approach to political action.

The other is passive in it's loyalty to the power of one person.

It's no wonder Obama won the nomination (yes, I am already speaking in past tense - this thing is over).

People are starting to come around. Slowly but surely. America is waaaaay bigger than NASCAR dads, soccer moms and blue collar voters. And, despite the Hillary spin, this country is waaaay bigger than WV, KY and rural PA.

New people. . . new issues . . . new approach. . . new voice. . . new HOPE. That's what it's all about.

And we don't have to discriminate to get our point across, either. The tent's big. There's always room for more. And we'll have plenty of room when the rest of those blue collar whites decide to come around.

Such a beautiful thang!

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:09:00 -0000

nquest,

Pardon the long post, but your comments raise an intriguing issue.

This is how I see it. . . I've said it before:

MLK or Malcolm X. . .

America makes you choose. . .you can either have your Malcolm X or your Martin Luther King Jr.

But you can't have both at the same time.

That's the game.

And history has shown us that black leaders like Martin and Malcolm often play off of eachother to achieve their mutually shared goal, black liberation.

MLK wouldn't have been so successful if he didn't have a Malcolm X to play off of.

"We shall overcome" means little without "By ANY means necessary," to back it up.

It's yin and yang. They go together even when conventional wisdom suggests they should remain at odds.

Thus, from a black perspective, "Yes we can" is fine as an aspiration so long as we don't sacrifice "unapologetically/unashamedly black."

nquest, I understand your anger. But my point is this:

There's a reason why Martin has a holiday and Malcolm doesn't.

There's a reason why W. E. B. Dubois got more accomplished than Marcus Garvey.

Some fight the system. . . others master the game.

Malcolm fought the system. . . Martin mastered the game. Likewise, Wright fights the system. . . but Obama's mastered the game.

It doesn't make one side better or worse. They just provide different forms of leadership. . . each with their ideal place and time.

By definition, the presidency is an aspect of "the system." Thus it's time to master the game. That means more Obama and less Wright for the moment.

I love the fire and passion of black folk like Malcolm and Wright. As a matter of fact, my spirit is a little more Malcolm than Martin, more SNCC than SCLC.

But we know the game and how it's played. For all of his greatness (indeed some attributes more inspiring than King, himself) Malcolm X was never gonna pass a 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was never gonna influence a 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why?

Because he was made to FIGHT the system, not master it.

Policy and politics is all about compromise. None of us like it, but that's the nature of the beast. We live in a pluralistic society (ultimately, that's a good thing).

Sad to say, but baby steps are the price we pay for progressive politics in a stagnant nation.

The question is how much you and I are willing to compromise.

And that brings us back to Rev. Wright and his comments during the question and answer phase at the National Press Club. Please, note that I stress the question and answer phase because Wright's actual speech (for the most part) was focused and on point.

Black folk know the deal. And Rev. Wright's sin, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't "hate speech" so much as it was HNIC syndrome.

In essence, Wright sought to force us to fight the system at a time when we were invested in mastering the game.

There's a time and place for everything. Wright's voice is important. However, Wright's words at the National Press Club, however accurate, were neither the time nor place to raise them. Play the game, but know the rules. If you must, make your speech at the NPC, waive and say goodbye. But don't get sucked into a chest-thumping contest with the very people who control the microphone, control the news headlines and control the media spin. That's just not smart.

I have no problem with much of what Wright had to say. But I have a major problem with the fact that he fell victim to the game and gave the National Press Club every type of sound bite they had been waiting for. His performance (and sadly, it was a performance) exploited the limelight to simplify matters of race and religion and make it a battle about himself.

He had every right to defend his honor and reputation. But Obama doesn't have to fight that battle for him (at least not on Rev. Wright's terms), especially when Wright doesn't give him anything to work with. That's a personal battle between Wright and the media. Sadly, it got hard to discern where defense of the black church ended and Rev. Wright's ego began.

Unfortunately, Wright's timing (and mentioning of his new book) undermined much of his message.

Similarly, MLK didn't have to fight Malcolm's battle over those famous words in the wake of Pres. Kennedy's assassination, "chickens have come home to roost." Despite it's accuracy, it was neither the time nor place. And Malcolm faced backlash (both from the SCLC crowd and the NOI) when he appeared to make the movement personal.

Listen, I embrace many forms of black nationalism. I love my black people. I'm all for self-determination and self-affirmation.

But don't get it twisted. . . self-determination will NEVER be realized through purely political means. It goes deeper than that. . . it's political. . . it's social. . . it's economic . . . it's spiritual.

MLK was never the be-all-end-all of black leadership. But he got stuff done on a policy level. I love Malcolm X. But his style (like Wright's) -- NECESSARILY hostile -- was more about self-affirmation than policy. And that's ok. Black self-affirmation is, and should always remain, exclusive of white approval. Just know your audience and stay mindful of the bigger picture. Speak truth to power, but be mindful of the game.

I didn't catch it when I first saw it. But, looking back, it appears Wright's timing had more to do with ego, than fighting the system.

Unlike black culture, the law, legislation and politics are not exclusive of white influence. They're not beholden to white approval either, but they do require white involvement. That entails a willingness to reach across the table and a discipline to pick and choose your battles.

I think Obama did that with his speech on race. He didn't disown his pastor. He reached across the table to contextualize black anger. He defended the controversy for the complexity it was. The easy path would have been to disown him then.

Wright's a smart man. He knows this. So why reintroduce himself into the public spotlight just when things were starting to die down?

Wright was inviting people to question his motives.

And, my goodness, why discuss controversial topics without providing evidence to back it up For example, I wouldn't automatically dismiss the contention that our government pushed AIDS in the black community. But I'd make damn sure I had a stack of evidence prepared before I made such an argument? Conspiracy minus evidence equals no credibility. Wright left too many accusations dangling in the wind. He left them bare; exposed and waiting for the media to spin them in their most harmful light.

Wright doesn't have to defend himself in his church or amongst his own people. We get the context. We know the history (well, most of us). But Wright wasn't amongst his own people at the National Press Club. He stepped into foreign territory without a plan. As Roland Martin said, be cognizant of the fact that, by speaking before the National Press Club, you are playing in someone else's house, by someone else's rules.

Now back to Obama. . .

Like King, Obama will not end all racism. I've never expected as much. However, Obama is in a position to get stuff done. And the success of his campaign proves that he's got a plan to break down historic barriers and open the flood-gates of inclusion for millions of Americans who've been systematically disenfranchised over the years. That's a paradigmatic shift. That's a movement. Not surprisingly, he's determined that he'll get there if he's more Martin than Malcolm. Now, that might be his honest approach (I have no reason to doubt that). But, either way, it's too late to change now.

Again, it's a question of how much we're willing to compromise. Where do we pick and choose our battles? Where do we draw the line?

Personally, I draw the line at black identity. Even in his most stark denunciation, Obama never crossed that line between the person and the people. He has not disowned the black community. He did not disown the black church. He has not shunned his black identity.

He has challenged his people, but not disowned them. There's a difference.

Juxtapose that to the Clinton apologists who place personal loyalties over cultural pride; defending race-baiting comments from the Clinton campaign for personal gain in an ever-improbable Clinton administration.

They too know the game, yet they choose to ignore the same type of race-baiting tactics that they'd quickly rebuke if spoken from the lips of a conservative. Ironically, they are the ones who place their hopes in the power of one person, Clinton. They don't want to change the game or even master the system. . . they just want to champion a different "master" (politically speaking) who will throw them a few more crumbs once she gets in office. They're perfectly happy with the way things work in Washington. For them, it's not a matter of challenging the status quo, but accepting the status quo and waiting their turn in line. Sadly they appear to define victory as a matter of WHO gets in office rather than WHAT actually gets done. Very partisan. . . highly cynical. . . extremely predictable.

Trust, I'm with you nquest. My IDEAL picture of black leadership is a little more defiant. I've always preferred Malcolm's style over Martin's.

But, let's understand that this is about baby steps. . .

The first black President will be more Martin than Malcolm. If we're honest, I think most of us understood that going in to this.

Now about Michelle Obama:

As for Michelle, I agree, I would have liked to have seen more passion in Obama's response to her critics. But he did respond. . . just maybe not as forcefully as you or I might have liked.

It's like the movie CRASH. Remember that scene where Terrence Howard and his wife were pulled over by the cops? And how that officer sexually groped Terrence's wife in front of him? Remember the wife's reaction towards Terrence? She wanted him to "be a man." She wanted him to fight the police . . . KNOWING damn well that, if he had, it could have meant a bullet in the brain for both of them.

Obama's in a similar position with Michelle. He's Terrence Howard and Sean Hannity is the cop with gun drawn and aimed, just begging for Obama to "give me a reason!"

He should defend his wife. But he also needs to pick and choose his battles. He can't fly off the handle every time Sean Hannity picks a fight. He'd be fighting every day if he did that.

You beat people like Hannity by staying focused on the bigger issue. The issue is the right's monopoly on "patriotism" and how they use that as a sledge-hammer to beat down anyone who disagrees with them. Michelle is the flavor of the month, but she's not the focus. The focus, is painting Obama as an outsider who doesn't mesh with "traditional" American values.

The way for Obama to fight that smear is to provide an alternative, yet equally patriotic, vision for America (again, Obama might do well by looking towards MLK for this). His campaign has done that by bringing in new voters. For example, this year might not focus on NASCAR dads so much as youth voters.

People like Hannity like to keep it simple. Simple audiences require simple messages. But they can't handle the prospect of an educated electorate that sees these wedge issues for what they are. This will only happen if Obama gives people an alternate "American patriotism" to buy into.

Continued attacks on Obama's wife and kids will play HORRIBLY with Independents (both left and right-leaning) in the General election. McCain's viability rests in his separation from the A-hole wing of the Republican Party. Yes, there are 527s, but overkill is easy when you attack someone's family.

In closing, I'd like to see more fight in Obama as well.

But I know that his fight is directly proportional to the leverage he has - thus, for example, you'll see me rant about how Obama should use his leverage to push Hillary out of the race. Again, it's about timing and picking the right battle at the right time.

But the general election is a new monster. There will be new dynamics at play. Fortunately, despite my worries, thus far Obama's shown he's smart enough to anticipate them and master the system.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:45:00 -0000

kgekp said,"If Senator Obama was trailing and poised to exit the race after a big win in let’s say in DC, which has as favorable a demographic for Senator Obama as WV has for Senator Clinton, would anyone be giving DC the importance some are trying to give WV for Senator Clinton, that is if they weren’t trying to make the argument that poor white voters are more important than African American?"

Bingo!!!

Great analogy.

Only one small consideration. . . African-Americans are actually part of the Democratic base. Which makes Hillary's argument even dumber than at first glance.

Plus does anyone have the stats as to whether low-income rural white voters are even part of the traditional Democratic base to begin with?

The entire premise for her argument is specious if you ask me.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

B-Serious — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:08:00 -0000

nquest,

Civil disobedience is a compromise. So is nonviolence.

MLK's nonviolent movement was a compromise. Turning the other cheek is a compromise.

You quote king's statement: "A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."

As if nonviolence in the face of violence is not "bending one's back," to assume the position one must in order to make the change they want to see.

A lot of people called King an accomodationist. They accused him of doing the very thing that particular quote warns against. Well, in the end, King's style got more accomplished. In fact, King's style has become a template for other movements over they years. He saw the bigger picture.

Was King an accomodationist? Judging by his goals, I say no. Yet many obviously felt that subjecting black men and women to violence was the definition of bending one's back to let the man ride on it.

Compromise (strategic compromise) is not a sign of weakness. It can be a sign of immense strength.

The Civil Rights Movement was built with a belief that "black" struggles must take on a more universal appeal if things were to change. That's strategic compromise.

That's what a minority group often does. It doesn't have the numbers on its side. Instead, it finds leverage to maximize the opportunity at hand.

As a practical matter, King and others realized that they could not change the wheels of power with a purely "black" message. But you find a way around the zero-sum equation. You make a win-win situation out of a win-lose situation. That's strategic compromise.

Thus, they transformed the concept of black liberation into wider, more universal, appeals of equality, humanity and spirituality. And yes, even symbolic politics has its place in moving the country forward.

That's mastering the game. That's finding a way to make the game work for you. It's beating the majority at it's own game. . . slowly, but surely, one step (one generation, even) at a time. That's understanding the forces at play and seizing the opportunity at hand.

The perfect storm surrounding the Civil Rights Movement presented a unique moment, which allowed King to repackage black rights in a more palatable manner and create a paradigmatic shift.

Civil rights was no longer a "black" issue for blacks to bear alone. The Civil Rights Movement was a coalition of black and white designed to pressure government into specific legislative action on generic matters like voting rights, education, equal protection and employment.

Malcolm didn't create that type of a coalition. Rev. Wright won't create that coalition.

That doesn't make them better or worse, just different. Their less concerned with universal appeal and more concerned with "speaking truth to power."

My point is you need both. Obama is building a coalition to affect change. . . just as King did. He's taking advantage of a perfect storm that is ripe for another paradigm shift.

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: What’s Up, People?

B-Serious — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:35:00 -0000

Ok. . . I've had many a rant about Obama's "give her space" strategy to allow Hillary to exit with grace.

I don't think "grace" and "Clinton" fit in the same sentence.

Now, Rachel Maddow thinks tonight will spark a turning point in how Obama treats Hillary. Basically, she thinks Hillary's gonna run up the score and rub it in Obama's face.

I happen to agree with Maddow on this. I think Hillary takes a bunch of shots at Obama during her victory speech. I think her campaign goes even more negative than it has the past week.

They will push the "he can't win (*ahem. . . white votes*) argument like never before.

Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson will be on steroids tonight.

So here's the question. . . Does the media take the bait? Does the media switch narratives? If so, is it a bump in the road or will it have a lasting impact?

Obama's gonna have to FORCE Hillary out of this race. And it will be all the more clear by about 8:30pm tonight.

Don't worry, this nomination is his. But he's gonna have a few more headaches on his hands if he's not careful.

And PLEASE. . . find a way to kill the "popular vote" nonsense coming from camp Hillary.

Re: Biggest Election of the Night - Mississippi’s First District

B-Serious — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:56:00 -0000

Gotta love them Obama coattails!!!

And they tried to use Rev. Wright as a wedge? Didn't work.

Super delegates. . . take notice!!!

It's time to move on!

Obama '08!

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

B-Serious — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:26:00 -0000

It's gonna be interesting to see the media narrative for the next couple of days.

So far, it doesn't look like they're taking the bait. No one's questioning whether or not Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

But the right wing is using this as Exhibit A as to why they think Obama can't win the general. Gretta from Fox News was all, "this is a bright neon sign" screaming Obama can't win. Disgusting.

Plus I'm starting to notice that some "democratic" pundits are gonna give a half-a*sed defense of Obama for the general election.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

B-Serious — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:00:00 -0000

And what's with this 2209 crap?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton's been arguing MI/FL for 3 months. Why is she just coming up with that 2209 mark now?

Why is the party even considering this? Why is the media even giving this air-time. WHY are people letting her move the goal-posts like this?

Obama needs to squash this right now.

Again, Rachel Maddow was spot-on when she said Obama fails to explain the damage that this prolonged race is doing to the Party. Of course, Hillary thinks it's good for the party. . . she's not gonna be the nominee. She doesn't have to campaign in the Fall.

I am convinced that she is staying in to weaken Obama for the general and poison the well of voters. She's giving her members permission to vote against their interests and party. And for what? What did Obama do to deserve the "I won't vote for him under any circumstances" bs?

Lanny Davis was spreading that meme all night. Larry King asked him 2 or 3 times why. Why do some people have such anger towards Obama? He never answered the question.

It's one thing to say you don't like someone or he doesn't "share your values." It's another thing entirely for DEMOCRATS to openly say they'll NEVER vote for another Democrat --- especially when Obama's treated Hillary with kid gloves this entire process.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if you paid me. But at least I have reasons. It's not pure emotion. I can point to policy stances, campaign tactics and divisive comments that shaped my opinion of Hillary. I've yet to hear a logical reasoned argument as to why some Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama. It always comes back to the same thing: he didn't wait his turn. Sorry, but that's not good enough.

Someone from Clinton's camp actually told the media that it was "Hillary first, party second." And no one called her on this. Are you kidding me?

Lanny Davis said that Clinton won't concede even if/when Obama hits 2025. WTF?

And let's stop this "she's a fighter" bs. No, she's delusional.

Listen, I could challenge Lebron James to a game of one-on-one. I could lose 10-0. I could turn around and say best two out of three; best three out of five. I could do this for the rest of my life. I'm not "fighting" . . . I'm just wasting his time.

Hillary Clinton is a waste of time! Every day she stays in is a day wasted on her ego-trip. Every day she stays in is a day she distracts the party from beating McCain. Every dollar spent to campaign against her is a dollar that could have been spent on McCain. Enough already!

She has NO mathematical path to the nomination. Her camp has no shame in telling the press that she's only staying in because she hopes something bad happens to a fellow Democrat so she can steal the nomination.

This is the cost of "give her space." Obama gave her space and she used that "space" to move the goal posts once again and push this "2209" spin.

Re: Johnny "Come Lately" Edwards To Endorse Democratic Nominee

B-Serious — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:48:00 -0000

It's time for them to ban together and run that she devil not only out of the race, but clear out of the democratic party.

@ ms martin,

That's why I like the endorsement. It gets Obama one step closer to the nomination and Clinton one step closer to the exit. It closes the ranks and gives voice to the "let's move on" part of of the Democratic party.

Obama can't let Hillary's bruised ego dictate the pace and direction of this race. The sooner this ends, the better. Obama has to rip that bandaid off right now. He can't try to peel it off. The Clintons and her supporters are not going to play nice.

They will whine and complain. I already saw one try to play the gender card tonight (i.e., the boys ganging up on Hillary meme).

As for the endorsement, I was talking to my sister and she was not impressed with Edwards' performance. She almost threw a shoe at the tv when he started to praise Clinton for her "strength."

Personally, I'll judge Edwards' endorsement by how hard he campaigns for Obama. If he works his butt off then I'm cool.

I was an "Obama/Edwards '08" kind of guy when this whole process started. I'd still be open to the idea -- but it's hard to see whether Edwards can deliver a state or demographic.

But, I gotta admit, the mere aesthetics of an Obama/Edwards ticket are appealing. But I've got my eyes on a few other possibilities right now:

Obama/Richardson

Obama/Webb

Obama/Sebelius

Obama/Clark (Clinton olive branch)

Obama/Baye (Clinton olive branch)

There are a lot of possibilities. It's gonna be an interesting month.

Re: Johnny "Come Lately" Edwards To Endorse Democratic Nominee

B-Serious — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:52:00 -0000

@ craig,

I remember your prediction. Good call!

Now what about Gore????

I'm thinking he might get the "magic number endorsement". . . meaning he'll be number 2025 for poetic purposes.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:22:00 -0000

bpm,

I didn't realize Hillary could force herself on the ticket like that.

With that said, it seems clear that she'd have to literally FORCE her way on the ticket if that were to happen. She can't be cute about it, it'll be transparent if she tries.

But, let's say Obama doesn't offer her the spot. What if Obama chooses his veep a couple of weeks after the primareis conclude? If Obama chooses his veep in late June, then he'll have two whole months to campaign with him/her before the convention. People move on. At that point, Hillary would have to bumrush the process to get on the ticket. That's a hard sell to make.

I mean, she'd have to go and TAKE the veep spot away from someone else.

I'm not saying Hillary's not shameless enough to try it. But her motives will be clear for all to see. She might as well switch to Republican if she tries that because she won't have any bridges left to burn after a stunt like that.

Which is why I actally prefer the Edwards veep talk. . .

It's one step closer to making Hillary IRRELEVANT. That's what Obama needs right now.

As long as Hillary's relevant she's buying time. The more time she gets, the higher the chances for Clinton mischief. I don't want her hanging around when her surrogates keep saying "anything can happen," to Obama. It makes me think she's plotting something. . . or, in the very least, prepared to create a controversy at the 11th hour.

The Democratic Party can't move forward as long as she's seen as a viable candidate of any sort (president or veep).

Howard Wolfson said so himself. . . the only way Obama gets Hillary to concede is to BEAT her. My take: well, fine then. Just BEAT her.

Ignore all of the whining from the Clinton crowd. Call her bluff and beat her. Start wheeling out those super delegate endorsements. Work those backrooms. FORCE HER OUT. Put this thing to bed. The sooner the better.

Any discussion of Hillary as veep (positive or negative) still keeps her relevant. . . it keeps her spin relevant. . . her surrogates relevant. Enough already.

Hillary's got more power than Edwards. She's got the potential to destroy the Democratic Party if she puts her heart in it. Edwards doesn't have that power.

Obama could turn his back on Edwards the second he gets the nomination and there's not much Edwards could do about it.

Hillary, on the other hand, could declare all out war on the party. Unfortunately, she's got the numbers and support (blind loyalists) to try it.

That's why I think it's of the utmost importance that she be forced out of this race as soon as possible. Keep rolling out the endorsements and keep closing every door.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:18:00 -0000

bpm,

Independent is the place to be. I'm with you on that. I've been a registered Independent since I turned 18 (left-leaning Independent).

Dems = the party of no ideas (at least not ones they're willing to fight for). . .

vs.

Repubs = the party of BAD ideas.

But I appreciate the inner turmoil within the Democratic Party between the DLC's and the Progressive wing. The Dems could be something special if they had the courage to ever grew a backbone.

But I agree with you on this: those super dels are not Obama's friends. The media is NOT Obama's friend.

And the party has given far more support to lesser men in the past than what they've shown to Obama.

My message to Obama: Don't believe the hype!

I hope Obama realizes this and doesn't let his guard down. Thankfully, he's stayed ahead of the curve thus far.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:47:00 -0000

Obama suffocates third-party (527-type) group:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/david_brocks_toughtalking_thir.php

Inspiring? Principled? Stupid?

or

All of the above?

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:05:00 -0000

First thoughts: Now Obama's party?

Let's hope so.

It's hard for some to believe...but, there is life after the Clintons.

Keep closing those doors!

Go Obama!

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:14:00 -0000

craig,

Here's the link again:

here

It should lead you to the story at Talking Points Memo.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:34:00 -0000

sepia,

Are people still talking about that?

He called and apologized to the woman. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but not earth-shattering.

It's a non-story. . .right up there with "the snub" and "you're likable enough."

So is this the new excuse to vote against Obama? Or is it a tired attempt by Taylor Marsh-types to play the gender card as payback for the race-card they say Obama played against the Clintons?

Has N.O.W. called Obama a misogynist pig yet?

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:15:00 -0000

bmp said,"Get the media to repeat a narrative and people will believe it after enough repetitions."

Enter. . . the "popular vote" myth.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see this whole popular vote spin from the Clintons:

1. Nominee is chosen by delegates, not popular vote. That alone should make all of this a non-issue.

2. If the Party wanted to use popular vote, they'd just hold one giant primary in June and be done with it.

3. Popular vote totals are often skewed because they usually don't account for the caucus states.

4. That ABC popular vote number is soooooo misleading and disingenuous it makes me want to hurl. The only way Hillary even gets close (or slightly ahead) to Obama in the popular vote is if she counts MI and FL and gives Obama absolutely NOTHING from MI....and still discounts the caucus states.

5. State popular votes help determine state delegate counts. The DELEGATES vote on the nominee. That's why we don't have 35 million people show up in Denver to pick the nominee.

6. If the party validated the "popular vote" myth (which I don't think they ever have) then there'd be nothing to stop a candidate from parking his or her butt in the most densely populated states to run up the score. . . smaller states would virtually have no say. . . and the nominee would be chosen by NY and CA every year.

7. I heard that there are 5 or 6 caucus states that never even recorded/saved they're final tallies.

8. If the popular vote determined the nominee, then caucus states wouldn't be allowed. But that's not the way things work. Some states choose primaries, others choose caucuses. Some choose primaries and caucuses.

We have a metric. . . it's delegates . . . Clinton can't catch Obama in delegates unless she gets super delegates to reverse the will of the people and give it to her (for what reason, I really don't know).

Or....the super delegates could RATIFY the will of the people and put Obama over the magic number (I'm sticking with 2025). . . as it should be.

It's not impossible for Hillary to catch Obama in the popular vote if you count MI (zero votes for Obama), FL and Puerto Rico (which doesn't even vote in the general election). It's unlikely, but not impossible.

Which is why I'd like to see the Obama camp do a better job of stopping this spin dead in it's tracks. It's hard to argue process to an uninformed electorate if Hillary's screaming "one man, one vote."

Re: Bush Attacks Obama in Israel; Joe Biden Responds-"This is bullshit"

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:32:00 -0000

"Bullsh*t"

Damn right!

I never thought of an Obama/Biden ticket either.

But I agree. If you're willing to call "bullsh*t" on the President, I'd like to explore an Obama/Biden veep a little bit more.

I don't know if he delivers a state. But it'd be nice to have a ticket that fights back like this.

Obama/Biden???????

I'm just sayin'.

Re: Bush Attacks Obama in Israel; Joe Biden Responds-"This is bullshit"

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:00 -0000

@kat,

"Democratic leadership getting Obama's back? Can it be?"

I was thinking the same thing.

I've been listening to this on talk radio and it seems the Dems are coming out of the woodworks to get Obama's back for once.

Democratic Party uniting behind Obama???? I'll try not to read too much into it, but it's good to see for a change.

Re: Bush Attacks Obama in Israel; Joe Biden Responds-"This is bullshit"

B-Serious — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:28:00 -0000

LOL!!!

Chris Matthews laid a classic smackdown on Hardball just now!

Re: Daily Open Thread - TGIF

B-Serious — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:00:00 -0000

ronnie b,

No doubt. I've been thinking of a list myself.

But I'll probably hold off until June. . .I'm confident that Obama's the nominee, but I don't want to jinx him.

For now, I'll try and separate them into three columns: forgive and forget; rehabilitation; and lost causes.

Re: Obama Returns To Iowa

B-Serious — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:01:00 -0000

Great to see. That'll help him control the news cycle coming out of May 20. It will also help soften the blow he's gonna take in Kentucky (another 20-30% loss).

Speaking of Kentucky. . .

WHY is Obama NOT in Kentucky????

He's just begging Hillary to run the score up on him in the popular vote.

It's not likely, but there's still a slim chance that she can catch him in the popular vote.

What's he gonna do if Hillary catches him and decides to run a media campaign screaming "one man, one vote."

She could try to paint herself as Al Gore and draw comparisons to the 2000 Election (trust, I know that this would be a disingenuous argument, but it might work with low-information voters).

She'd probably still lose the nomination if she tries this. But her media spin could go a long way to deligitimize Obama's nomination.

I'm sorry, but Obama seems a little TOO calm right now. This is no time for him to let his guard down.

Does he know something we don't? Because I wouldn't put all my faith in the super delegates to do the right thing. Obama should be closing all doors and cutting off any paths/arguments Hillary might try to make for the nomination.

Re: Obama Returns To Iowa

B-Serious — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:18:00 -0000

Obama Skips Kentucky, Blames Fox News and Email Smears

I'm for Obama all the way. . . but this seems like a really dumb political move.

It makes him look small.

Yes. . . Fox News sucks and those emails are bs. But neither Fox News nor those emails are particular to the state of Kentucky. Fox News broadcasts all over the world . . . and those emails go far beyond the state lines of Kentucky.

He's making excuses.

I don't care if he looses by 50%, he should still show his face to let the voters know that:

1. He fully expects to be the Democratic nominee; and

2. He's dedicated to broadening his coalition (and fighting those smears) with them in the future.

That's all he has to do. He did it in PA. Why not in Kentucky?

Zero appearances in Kentucky for Obama (although Michelle is supposed to be there on Monday). Yet, Hillary's got FIVE appearances planned between now and Tuesday. That doesn't even include all the campaign stops Bill plans to do over the next few days.

Obama should face the problem head on. But this makes it look like he's ducking for cover.

And you KNOW Hillary's team is ready to pounce on any sign of weakness they can find.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:54:00 -0000

Clinton's entire message to the super delegates is that the black guy can't win. And she plays off of racist sentiment to proclaim her electability as the safer more familiar choice in a country hostile to change.

It was Clinton's camp that said Latinos wouldn't support a black candidate back in January.

It was Clinton's camp (via Ed Rendell) that started the whole "whites won't vote for Obama" meme back in early March.

It was Clinton's camp (via Geraldine Ferraro) that started the whole "affirmative action candidate" meme back in early march.

It was Clinton, herself, who came out and said Obama can't win white votes in her interview with USA Today a couple of weeks ago.

That's called injecting race into the campaign. . . hiding behind polling data to ask that the Democratic party placate bigoted negative voting patterns in the name of "smart politics."

Mind you, Obama hasn't sought to exploit similarly hostile sentiments based on gender. Although he could have taken the same approach under the guise of "shrewd politics."

Yes. . . . the Clintons have played the race card. It has been a central theme of Hillary's campaign. It's their passive aggressive attempt at a self-fulfilling prophesy. . . say it long enough and the people do what they're told.

Some people vote for the Clintons because that's what they think they're supposed to do. She is the default candidate for a lot of low-information voters. Couple that with her high regard (up until now) within the Democratic party and you've got a lot of people who are pre-programmed to to trust what they hear and do as they're told. They're pre-programmed to give Hillary a pass and excuse her actions. They're pre-programmed by the same partisan political warfare that makes a rank-and-file Republican defend everything that comes out of Bush's mouth.

It has nothing to do with getting things done for the people, but everything to do with choosing sides and protecting the captain at all costs.

I've heard far too many Hillary supporters argue, "it's her turn" or "it's payback time." That's what this is to some people. It's payback for 8 years of Bush. . . it's payback for 20 years of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." It's focused on the personal politics of Clinton rather than the party politics of the Democratic party or the noble politics of elected officials (Republican, Democrat or Independent) who just want to get stuff done regardless of who's up and who's down.

So we excuse the race-baiting from Hillary when we KNOW that a lot of those CBC negroes would be the first to march on Washington if the same thing were said by a Republican. Why? Because it's our team this time, that's why.

Obama's not perfect, but he has given the Democratic Party a choice when it comes to picking the type of party the Dems want to be going forward.

Obama has not made Hillary's gender a central focus of this campaign as Hillary's done with Obama's race.

What if Obama came out and said, "You know, we've got a lot of polling data that says this country isn't ready for a female president." What if Obama preyed on this nation's sexism the way Hillary's preyed on this nation's racism?

Ironically enough, Hillary also shamelessly plays her gender card every chance she gets.

Now, what would happen if Obama, himself, came out and blamed everything on the white man? What would happen if the NAACP characterized every pro-hillary endorsement as a "betrayal" of the black community? He'd have been kicked out of the race so fast it would make your head spin.

Yet Hillary said the "all-boys-club" ganged up on her when she tanked a debate in Philadelphia last fall. The NY chapter of N.O.W. likens Hillary's obstacles to a "gangbang," and calls the pro-Obama endorsement by Ted Kennedy a "betrayal" of all women. Just as some of her supporters claimed "betrayal" when NARAL had the audacity to endorse Obama last week.

The word "betrayal" implies entitlement.

And the Democratic Party will never find it's spine if it can't break that "entitlement" and find a way to make a clean break from the Clintons and they're self-serving game of plurality politics.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:29:00 -0000

@inkognegro

I wouldn't mind Wesley Clark if the party forced Obama to choose a former Clinton surrogate to heal the party. As far as I know, he played it straight down the middle by sticking to pro-Hillary arguments rather than anti-Obama spin. The problem, however, is that he doesn't deliver a state for the general election.

Rendell would be a strategic choice for PA and "unity. . . BUT, as I just implied, I'd have a big problem getting past his race-baiting in early March.

Ted Strickland would also be a strategic choice for the same reasons as Rendell. But, whenever I hear his name, all I can think of is that sheepish look he had, nodding in approval, as he watched Hillary yell, "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA." I can't get that image out of my head.

Don't know much about Bayh. He's rubbed me the wrong way, but he hasn't been as bad as some of the other Clinton surrogates.

Right now, I do like the sound of:

Obama/Richardson

Obama/Biden

Obama/Sebelius

Obama/Webb

I'd narrow that list down to Obama/Biden, Obama/Webb and Obama/Sebelius.

I like the idea of Obama/Richardson. But that ticket might have problems uniting the party. I'm not saying it's right, but I could easily see Clinton's base villify and demonize Richardson throughout the entire general election. Camp Clinton appears to have a personal beef with him that seems a little unhealthy.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:47:00 -0000

rhondacoca said, "The point is yes, the Clintons race baited but her and her campaign did not create some of the problems that they crudely exploited for political gain."

I agree. And that's one of my major beefs with the Clintons. Because, to me, that's just as bad as creating the problem themselves.

How cynical. . .

How divisive . . .

And the thing that gets me is one would think that the first serious female candidate would be careful not to play such a game.

Again. . . It would have been soooo easy to marginalize Hillary as the "female" candidate; to play on the sexist fears of a woman in charge; to site polling data showing the country's reluctance to vote for a female president and spin that into an electability argument. . .

But Obama didn't do that. It's called integrity. . . the Clintons have shown that they have none.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 19:52:00 -0000

@rikyrah,

Thanks for the compliment.

@craig,

First, that's one beautiful picture.

Second, Obama/Gore is an interesting ticket. But I'd guess Gore has no intentions of being anyone else's veep ever again. I think 8 years with the Clintons scarred him pretty bad.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:33:00 -0000

texas girl said, "I read a comment over at NBC First Read that said that Obama will be holding a rally in Tampa next week and some of Hillary's supporters will be there to "turn backs" in protest; regarding the re-vote.

Weak. Yet entirely consistent with Hillary's passive agressive tone and "woe-is-me" victimology. Secluded in their state of denial. . .Hillaryland. . . where math and pledges aren't important so long as they get between Clinton and her entitlement.

This is the type of stuff that really pisses me off. They know the damn rules. They're not that stupid.

My question for those protesters is this: If they're so self-righteous, then where the hell was their protest when the DNC made it's decision LAST YEAR? As a matter of fact, where was their savior, Hillary Clinton? After all, her boy Harold Ickes played a role and Hillary signed the pledge along with every other candidate. She's on record as saying the state would not count.

This is why Hillary gets no love. She'd rather spread false propoganda than accept defeat. No, instead she wants to blame everything on Obama. Rules are rules. Those two states broke the rules. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Obama played by the rules. He has no obligation to help Hillary bend and break the rules for her favor.

Hillary gave her word and then took it back when she saw she wasn't gonna win.

Her word is useless.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:47:00 -0000

Link: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/... going after the media again. Here's Clinton at a KY rally:

"I would bet every single one of those folks, they’ve got a job; we can see that. They’ve got good health care; we know that. They can pay whatever the charge is at the gas pump most likely. They can send their child to college. I’m not running to represent them, I’m running to fight for you and to be your champion."

Yeah. . . because Tim Russert and Chuck Todd can do MATH. That's soooo elitist.

The connection is scary. . . Bush don't like readin' and Hillary don't like math. That's leadership for you.

She also said she's leading in the popular vote, which is not true.

How can anyone look at this person and think she's softening her rhetoric to bring the party together? Unity is the last thing on her mind. She's rallying her base to stir resentment.

And now we've got Hillary supporters planning protests at future Obama events????

Yep. . . sounds like unity to me.

Re: Obama Draws Crowd of 75,000 in Oregon

B-Serious — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:18:00 -0000

Off topic, but I'll put it here since there's no open thread.

Here's an example of sour grapes if I've ever seen any. The NY Times did a piece:

Supporters Debate Whether Hillary Lost Because of Sexism

This is the passage that got my blood boiling. . . unsubstantiated claims of sexism and misguided aggression towards Obama for the alleged sins of the media.

This article also oozes with a sense of (white) privilege and entitlement that makes my stomach turn.

Read for yourselves and tell me what you think.

"Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton “likeable enough” as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would “absolutely, positively not” vote for him come fall.

Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. “I think Obama was terribly sexist,” she said.

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.

Yep, that's it. These women are so privileged that they can't even imagine a world in which the black guy could win on his own merits. It's that whole affirmative action argument again. How ironic.

Seriously??? That's all you've got???

Obama's biggest sins: "You're likeable enough" and the nerve to defend Hillary's choice to stay in the race????

That's sexism? Wow.

They should just cut to the chase and say what they really feel. . . "That uppity Nigger cut in line!"

It'll save us a lot of time.

Re: Obama Draws Crowd of 75,000 in Oregon

B-Serious — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:20:00 -0000

re: my last post. . .emphasis (bold) was added by me.

Re: Monday Open Thread - What’s Going On?

B-Serious — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:11:00 -0000

@ Anonymous 10:51am

PLEASE give me a link to that post.

I HAVE NEVER posted on Talking Points Memo. That "Bserious" guy is NOT me.

Don't get me wrong, I DID write that particular post "Poor Hillary," a couple of months ago. But I never put it on TPM.

That "Poor Hillary" post was written in the comments section on this (JJP) website. I re-posted it on my blog and encouraged others to pass it around (as some did).

But I have a problem with someone using my screen name and posting as though they are me.

I just had this conversation with "Big Man" from the blog, Raving Black Lunatic. That other Bserious guy posted one of Big Man's posts and he thought I did it.

Once again, I didn't have a problem with people re-posting that "Poor Hillary" comment. But that "Bserious" guy over at TPM is NOT me, and I'd hope that he's not trying to assume my blogging identity.

Please give me the link if you can.

Re: Monday Open Thread - What’s Going On?

B-Serious — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:31:00 -0000

OK. . . who is this other "Bserious" guy over at TPM Cafe???

He's got my post, a post from Big Man and a recent post from Field Negro under his name.

He lists Field Negro's and Big Man's websites for attribution (at the tale end).

He doesn't attribute me whatsoever.

Once again. I AM NOT the "Bserious" over at TPM.

Does anyone know who this person is? It would help to avoid further confusion in the future.

Re: Open Thread — Dancing with the Stars

B-Serious — Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:00 -0000

IMPORTANT. . .

Alright. . . there's some person over at Talking Points Memo Cafe who posts under the name "Bserious."

THIS IS NOT ME.

Does anyone know who this person is?

I'm asking because he or she (let's just say, "he") has a habit of posting other people's work without proper attribution.

I won't speak to motive, but his posts are very misleading. He basically copies someone else's work without mentioning the author. In my case (and in that of at least one other post) he failed to even list the link back to the original blog.

It's misleading because people over there think it's his work. IT'S NOT!

It's particularly frustrating for me because he uses my screen name. So now some people might think that I'm the one who's doing this.

I already had one person contact me who thought I lifted his work without attributing the source.

Let me repeat. . . I AM NOT the person over at TPM.

I don't know who it is, but it seems to be someone who frequents the black blogospher quite often.

In the past day I've noticed that several of his posts were taken from bloggers such as:

myself (B-Serious)

Field Negro

Big Man (Raving Black Lunatic)

Kellybelle (ephphatha)

Again, sometimes he lists the link at the tail end of the post (which most people miss and think it's his work anyways). Other times (such as with my piece) he skips attribution altogether.

If anyone knows who this is, I ask that this person stop and would prefer that he change his screen name so as to avoid further confusion.

I tried to post a clarification in the comments section of his latest blog ("Poor Hillary"), but it never showed up. And, as far as I can tell, there's no email address where one can reach this person.

I DO NOT want people thinking that I go around posting other people's work in my own name.

Re: Open Thread — Dancing with the Stars

B-Serious — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:35:00 -0000

LOL! Good one, d.

But I think I'll stick with diplomacy.

Re: Open Thread — Dancing with the Stars

B-Serious — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:05:00 -0000

bpm,

I might just have to do that. I just wanted to see if anyone knew what's up before I write the email.

Re: Open Thread — Dancing with the Stars

B-Serious — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:08:00 -0000

"Ferraro also said that Hillary had to endure somebody showing up at her rally with a sign saying IRON MY SHIRT but everyone would have been in an uproar if somebody showed up at Obama's rally with a sign saying SHINE MY SHOES."

No. They just put a monkey on a t-shirt and say it's Obama.

They just joke about assassinating the guy.

Could someone please tell Ms. Ferraro to shut up?

This all started with that dumb a*s article that Gloria Steinem wrote for the NY Times back in January.

Secondly, what does any of this have to do with Obama???? Let me get this straight. She's mad at some jerk with a sign. . . soooo it's Obama's fault? Doesn't make any sense.

I find it funny how some of these feminists call Obama a sexist one day, yet cozy up to Bill Clinton the next. . . the guy who actually has been sued for sexual harassment. . . the guy who actually does have a long history of womanizing.

Amazing!

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

B-Serious — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:38:00 -0000

Hillary Points Finger at Misogyny

Hillary follows Ferraro's lead. I highlighted some interesting parts:

"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said. "I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here."

Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

Yep. She calling people misogynists. Note, she won't say who these people are. She doesn't really give any examples. She just shouts sexism, and let's her supporters guess who's to blame.

People aren't saying the race is over because they're sexist. They're saying it's over because of MATH.

She's not the first candidate to face pressure to drop out when the math didn't add up. And I find it disgusting that she'd use victimhood as a shield.

Obama played by the rules. He had a better strategy, a more inclusive message and far superior organization. There's no sexism there.

First Ferraro, now Hillary. This looks like a deliberate attempt to stir emotions amongst her supporters, knowing that they're gonna look for someone to blame. And we already know who the scapegoat's gonna be. It's wreckless.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:04:00 -0000

Well. . . CNN just gave Hillary and Ferraro their next campaign ad:

CNN Analyst: Sometimes "Bi*ch is Accurate

I guess Ferraro's gonna blame Obama for this too.

Let me be consistent here. I'd rather the pundits not try to rationalize the word, "bi*ch," just like (as some say in the TPM comments section) I'd rather Pat Buchanan not try to rationalize racism.

Problem is, Hillary is the type of person to mock outrage for purely political gain. And stuff like this gives her the perfect opportunity to play the victim card.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:19:00 -0000

ronnie b said, "What's the best way to get the message to Team Obama that his core constituency cannot tolerate the idea of Clinton being offered the VP job?"

My guess is that there's enough support within the party to say that Obama should have the right to choose whomever he wishes.

However . . .

This is why myself and others wanted Obama to campaign in KY and WV. You force her out. . .be the "bad guy" for a few weeks, but maintain full control over your fall campaign.

Everyday she stays in the race is a day she:

1. makes Obama look weaker

2. distracts Obama from McCain

3. increases her leverage to hinder Obama's fall campaign.

4. increases her prospects for 2012

Worst case scenario is this: The Democratic party FORCES Obama to give Hillary the veep spot. Pundits are already asking whether or not she's EARNED the veep spot. What happens if the Party makes the dream ticket a precondition for super delegate support? In that case, it would be out of Obama's hands.

bpm already pointed out that she could technically try to force her way on the ticket at the convention.

I'd encourage Obama to name his veep by late June. Make it clear that Hillary would have to force her way on the ticket and literally take the v.p slot away from someone else.

Make the selection in late June go into full general election mode and move the party forward.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:34:00 -0000

justice 58

Hillary is in $31 million dollars worth of debt!

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Wow. She can talk about "experience," all she wants. But I have a hard time trusting the leadership of someone who's 31 million in debt.

Shouldn't debt precede some type of humility? How do you talk trash when you're 31 million dollars in debt?

Sorry. . .but don't talk to me if you're 31 million dollars in debt. Whatever you're saying, it seems I've got 31 million good reason to think you're delusional.

But don't forget. . . she's ready on "day one."

Wow!

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:35:00 -0000

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:36:00 -0000

My mistake. Sorry for the double-post.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:01:00 -0000

Thank you Donna Brazile!

"No one has ever won a majority of pledged delegates and lost the nomination."

That's the perfect talking point from now until Hillary drops out. Puts everything into perspective.

That pledged delegate milestone was a big deal. Let's hope that a lot more super delegates endorse Obama with the same logic.

Re: Shufflin On Hardball

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:48:00 -0000

I know she has a fairly conservative background.

But Michelle's been one of the few people to have Obama's back on matters of race and politics.

I've been impressed by most of her appearances. "Race riot," probably wasn't the best word choice. But I don't think it's a big deal. I didn't take offense.

Now. . . she might do a 180 and back McCain once Obama gets the nomination. But maybe not. Something tells me that her compliments are genuine.

Seems like some of these talking heads are going through a real crossroads in their political thinking -- particular those pundits of color.

Maybe. . . just maybe, Michelle Bernard is one of them.

We'll see.

Re: Shufflin On Hardball

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:18:00 -0000

She's married to CNN's Joe John?

Lucky guy.

Re: Shufflin On Hardball

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:01:00 -0000

re: "nigga"

I'm not for "niggaz."

But I'm also dead set against censorship.

I'm all for choice.

And I'd rather help cultivate a positive environment where black youth CHOOSE not to use the word, rather than have someone tell them what they can and cannot say.

"Nigga" is more than a word. It is a mentality. And the NAACP can bury that word as many times as they want. . . they can demonize and protest every rapper they can find. . . but nothing's gonna change until black folk stop thinking and acting like "niggaz."

I am nobody's "nigga." I don't call anyone nigga and nobody calls me one. That's a choice I make with the people I associate myself with. It's not about the word, it's about respect. If you respect me as a person, then you'll treat me as I demand to be treated (and vise versa).

But I'm not with the Al Sharpton crowd that seeks to boycott every music artist, comedian, etc, that says the word.

Why?

First. . .those "artists," hold no power or authority over my life. Now, I'll be right there with Al the second a politician/legislator shows his a*s. But I always have the power to turn the tv off or change the channel if my favorite rap artist crosses the line.

Here's another reason why I'm not in the Al Sharpton movement:

Because no one is pure. Spellman protested Nellie but I bet you 80% of them had his music in their cd-players.

I was amazed when Essence gave hip hop a hard time, but had the nerve to advertise shows like Monique's "Charm School," . . . a show where you saw more booty and heard more "bi*ches" than most rap videos.

I'm not pointing this out because I'm some prude. Personally, I say to each is own. . . live your life. But I think that this does show a disconnect between our rhetoric and our actions.

If we're gonna say one thing and do another, then I suggest we have a little more introspection before we take to the streets.

Again, our protest means very little so long as our actions don't match our words.

Don't lecture me about the lyrics in rap music and let me find you shakin your a*s to that same music in the club on Friday night.

So I maintain. . . for myself, it's about choice. I choose not to use certain language. At the same time I listen to hip hop and I love Richard Pryor, Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle.

That's because they have . . . TALENT.

They may not use the sweetest language, but there are times when their words are more prophetic and speak more truth to power than any black politician, community organizer or preacher. Language can be ugly. . . but so is life sometimes.

Choice. Life is much more complex than a list of bad words.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:38:00 -0000

Lanny Davis Switches to the Dark Side

We can't save him, folks. He and Ferraro are so gone.

Re: Shufflin On Hardball

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:10:00 -0000

@trughtseeker,

That was a wreckless speech Hillary gave today. Highly insincere and disingenuous.

She wraps her selfish motives in a civil rights message for personal political gain. Disgusting.

Plus, she even gave the Republicans a tv ad to use in the fall when she raised the question: Why vote Democrat when the party abandoned you during the primary season?

I'm telling you, someone's gonna hurt her feelings really soon. She's gonna push the wrong button just one too many times and get forced out of the race by the rest of the super delegates.

You can see how people's patience is wearing thin with her.

Re: The Onion Foresaw All This Years Ago

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:18:00 -0000

Craig said, "He needs to put her down."

Yes. I've been saying that for a while now.

End it now. End it YESTERDAY.

For some reason, people seem scared to call Hillary out for the jerk she is.

All those super delegates need to come out right NOW.

There is absolutely no reason for this race to go one second further. The only reason provided is Hillary's bruised ego and the assumption that she's doing this for historical purposes.

Fine. . . bring out all the super delegates save 10-15. Let her finish the race. But make it clear that under no circumstances is she going to be the nominee.

There is NO reason why the supers can't come out right NOW.

Re: The Onion Foresaw All This Years Ago

B-Serious — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:23:00 -0000

And screw this, "anything can happen," garbage we keep hearing from the Clinton camp.

That tells me they're up to something.

They are literally admitting that their only reason for staying in the race is the hope that something very bad happens to Obama. Why are the super delegates even tolerating this nonsense.

I saw someone point out that we're gonna have about 2 weeks before the next contest. That's 2 weeks of down time for the media. . . 2 weeks to scrutinize every syllable that comes out of Obama's mouth in the hopes for that magical gaffe. . .2 weeks for someone to try and start some trouble. . . 2 weeks to manufacture a controversy.

End it now.

Obama's bent over backwards to praise Hillary over the past two weeks. Hillary has done nothing to return the favor.

End this now.