And surely, what is helping to make this primary season so hellish are all the attempts to close it down.
In case you haven't heard, and assuming I get this up before anyone else posts on it, a superdelegate Bill Clinton once chose to head the DNC and was up-to-now a declared Hillary-supporter, has just announced today that he is switching his support to Obama, and urging all Hoosier voters to do likewise in order to end the primary process in its tracks after next Tuesday. As part of this strategy, he is also urging his fellow superdelegates to wait no longer to declare their preferences, so we can all unite behind Barack and begin to do battle with McSame.
Joe Andrew may not be a household name, but he is from Indiana and he made his statement in the state, and in a letter published on the Huffington Post.
I have been inspired.
Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.
The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
edit
Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America.
I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.
I ask Hoosiers to come together and vote for Barack Obama to be our next President. In an accident of timing, Indiana has been given the opportunity to truly make a difference. Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.
I ask the leaders of our Party to come together after this Tuesday's primary to heal wounds and unite us around a single nominee. While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our Party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us. John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives. (emphasis mine in all blockquotes)
Well, fuck you, Joe Andrew.
You'll notice after praising Bill and Hill, Mr. Andrew goes on to imply that they and Clinton voters are divisive, negative, uninspired, cynical, and simplistic. Yeah, that's the way to get us all united.
In addition to the honey-coated insults, check out this edition of Memeorandum, wherein the Joe Andrew story is aggregated.
Notice anything? Like the surrounding stories that show Hillary completely competitive with Obama in Indiana, and also in North Carolina. Not to mention the teeter-tottering they're both doing in the national daily tracking polls. I'm of the opinion that we need to throw that damn throwing someone under the bus meme under the nearest bus, but could it be any clearer that what Joe Andrew is trying to do is throw Hillary Clinton under the on-rushing express train that her campaign has recently become?
I'm not particularly pleased by those polls, especially if Hillary's new competitiveness might have come as a result of the Wright blow-up, about which I'll speak at greater length in a different post, for which, please note, neither Senator Clinton nor her campaign deserves condemnation, not having had anything to do with why and how it erupted. But it is a fact that by any measure the Democratic base is almost evenly split between these two candidates. That doesn't mean there is no way for either of them to win legitimately. But it does argue for the necessity of allowing the remaining states to hold relevant primaries, not ones already superseded by superdelegates having closed down the nominating process by uniting behind a single candidate.
Whatever happened to all that concern about those elite delegates being guided by the popular will? Granted, it is mathematically unlikely that Hillary can beat Obama in the pledged delegate count, but she might well garner more of the popular vote than he. That doesn't mean Obama can't win legitimately even if she does, but how can it possibly be a legitimate win, as opposed to a legal, by-the-rules one, if millions of voters are once again disenfranchised by party elites, apparently frightened by vigorous debate, and elections themselves, the very foundation of democratic governance.
So much hot air has been expended by the OFB
and the SCLM warning against the possibility that the fabled Clinton "machine," and we do mean "fabled," will find a way to steal the nomination in some underhanded, against-the-rules manner by convincing superdelegates that she is the better candidate, and thus fatally divide the Democratic Party, (as if there is any way for Obama to win without convincing the superdelegates of exactly the same thing), very few people seem to have noticed that the WWTFBQ faction, in and out of the media, is pushing for a scenario that is just, if not more, undemocratic, and equally as likely to disrupt party unity.
So, while I'm handing out obscenities, fuck you, too Matt Stoller, and your outrageous suggestion that Obama needs to shut down the primary process any way he can, by destroying Hillary, perhaps by catching her upside the head with her own kitchen sink strategy, or so Stoller implies, as if the Obama campaign hasn't been doing that almost from the beginning.
"...the point is that Clinton is running as a full-blown conservative. And why shouldn't she do that and go on O'Reilly? We have rejected her, so she has to find her votes somewhere. Nevertheless, it's time to recognize that she is an opponent of liberals, and act that way.
Moveon and SEIU are probably the only groups with the capacity to do this, but basically, the Bosnia sniper fire lie needs to be replayed over and over in Indiana, and then spliced with this tax scam and the quote that her plan will lose 300,000 highway jobs because she will say anything to get elected. Clinton needs to be called out as a liar who is a weak candidate, and it is Obama-supporting Moveon members that could do this. Obviously the group would have trouble since many of its members do like Clinton, but honestly, we need a killer instinct here and not more praise of Obama.
Alternatively, SEIU could do it, but they run into a similar institutional hurdle of having ties to Clinton. Maybe the only group that could do it would be a savvy group of wealthy Obama backers who could form a 527 and just get this done."
Democracy in action.
Lambert has already noted the extreme misogyny of the language employed, but let's not fail to notice the hypocrisy of those who have warned us constantly about that fearsome Clinton machine, and are now busy trying to find ways to shut down all elections after Indiana.
And about that kitchen sink strategy the Clinton campaign has supposedly admitted to employing, check out Bob Somerby, who decided to try and discover the actual provenance of this now well-established oft-mentioned trope, and lo and behold, the author is one of the less reliable political reporters at The New York Times, and that's saying something, whose single source is an unnamed Clinton campaign aide. I'll give you the link at the end of the post.
In fairness to Matt, I should note that he has an excellent post up that seeks to bring some sanity to the discussion of whatever problems have developed out of the WVWW voter registeation efforts by reminding readers of "...WVWV's long track record of registering unmarried women and statements from both Obama and Clinton supporters validating their work. WVWV has worked with the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and is a highly respected organization that does real data-driven voter registration oriented towards registering the 20 million unmarried women that were not even registered in 2004."
And yet, these are the kinds of nasty accusations coming at WVWV.
edit
I believe this is the lowest point I have ever seen the blogosphere sink. There is no reason whatsoever for this mob mentality to go after one of the most important voter registration efforts out there designed to empower women. I don't meant that WVWV shouldn't be questioned and held accountable for its incompetence, but there is a difference between arguing that the group made mistakes and making the case that it is a voter suppression effort.
There is simply no motive here for voter suppression. If WVWV was trying to suppress votes in North Carolina for Clinton or Obama, why would they also be doing this work in 24 states at the same time? If they are such an evil anti-progressive group, why would they award 'female blogger of the year to Digby' and run ads encouraging women to vote?
The most likely reason WVWV is engaging in weird voter registration efforts is because they didn't expect the primary to go on this long and their strategy was organized around registering voters for the general election. There's a lot of hype around WVWV sending people information after the voter registration deadline had already passed, as if WVWV was trying to suppress primary votes. But it's quite clear that WVWV is trying to register people for the general election, and that deadline hasn't passed.
Read the whole thing and several others that manage to spread more light than heat on this new "Clinton scandal," in which John Podesta is now being smeared as part of this dark Rovian plot.
What is frustrating is Stoller's inability to see any connection between his own anti-Clinton post and the kind of comment threads he now sees as a low-point for the blogisphere.
For awhile I didn't think it would matter, because so many voters continued to say they would vote for whomever won the nomination, but with the ruination of the Democratic Party always being such a favored media narrative, even non-blog-reading voters are picking up on the divisiveness and the bitterness, and worst of all, on the negative talking points being presented against both candidates.
As much as I think intra-party divisiveness is now something we should be worried about, without clear thinking about the sources of that disunity and some real attempt to genuinely bring both sets of voters together, Obama's and Clinton's, the kind of worry being expressed by Matt Stoller and Joe Andrew and countless other mainly Obama supporters is more more likely to produce yet more discord and bitterness all around.
There are signs from the Clinton campaign that they expect some sort of resolution to happen in June, after the last primary, and Chairman Dean has indicated he sees a similar timetable ahead. The only way it goes to the convention is if Hillary Clinton has made a strong enough showing in the remaining weeks to change the dynamic of what still looks like Obama taking the nomination. But there was never anything certain about that, and it is less certain today. Talk about playing the inevitability card - that may be where Hillary started her campaign, but it appears to be where Obama is ending his, which is okay, as long as he doesn't damage the Democratic Party by telling whole blocs of voters their voices need not be heard, their votes need not be counted.
I'm not just putting this onto Obama voters. The anger and bitterness being expressed on blogs in posts and comments crosses campaign lines. Even here at Corrente, I've found some dispiriting examples of comment threads, and occasional posts in which that late, lamented media critique Lambert rightly criticizes the boiz on the A-blogs for having deserted is similarly absent. In fact, I'll go further; whether its a pro or an anti-Clinton thread, a pro or an anti-Obama thread, too often not only does it seem as if our blogispheric media critique has gone walkabout, but worse still, that
we are beginning to pick up some of the nastier habits of our plutocratic media courtiers.
In my next post, I'll explore the frightening possibility that we're all Maureen Dowd now.
Is intra-party divisiveness something we should be worried about? Yes, we should. But worry without clear thinking about the sources of that disunity and some real attempt to genuinely bring both sets of voters together, Obama's and Clinton's, is not the way to go about it. It's much more likely to produce yet more discord and bitterness all around.
There are signs from the Clinton campaign that they expect some sort of resolution to happen in June, after the last primary, and Chairman Dean has indicated he expects a similar outcome. The only way it goes to the convention is if Hillary Clinton has made a strong enough showing in the remaining weeks to change the dynamic of what still looks like Obama taking the nomination. But there was never anything certain about that, and it is less certain today. Talk about playing the inevitability card - that may be where Hillary started her campaign, but appears to be where Obama is ending his, which is okay, as long as he doesn't damage the Democratic Party by telling whole blocs of voters their voices need not be heard, their votes need not be counted.
Here's that Daily Howler Somerby link; go read.
- leah's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
"Accident of timing"?
Yeah, like the voters didn't have anything to do with it. What's wrong with these people?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Welcome Back, Leah!
I'm glad to see you taking on the Women Voices, Women Vote issue. If either candidate is going to win in November, we're going to need all the women voters we can get. And while Stoller has been driving me crazy lately, I'm glad he's at least still got sense enough to defend WVWV.
Here's Big Tent Democrat on Josh Marshall's* post on Andrew switching:
That's right. The Clinton campaign clearly lived up to Andrew's predictions by noting that he was more a D.C. lobbyist than an Indiana resident. Wow, way to hit him with both barrels.
* I think we should go back to Josh Marshall because it's pretty clear that nobody kidnapped him. This is who he is.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
The OFB is one thing...
and I don't spend any time worrying about them because I just stopped going to DK/TPM and stopped watching MSNBC but...
It seems somewhat unforgivable to see how Obama's campaign has systematically gamed the black voters and the complicit media into this notion that they are all of a sudden racists - as described here on Democratic Underground called "Putting All the Cards on the Table: The Race Memo"
I think it's somewhat unfair to put the divisiveness solely on the various bloggers, regardless of which side because the blogosphere has always been a hostile, intemperate place. The divisiveness was a calculated strategy to beat Hillary in SC by maximizing their AA votes.
Of course Wright has prophetically called the chickens home to roost and Obama's polling numbers from white voters are severely going down the drain...witness the latest poll by Survey USA in NC where Obama was polling only 30% of the white votes overall.
Even more to the issue...the trend is unmistakable.
Rasmussen notes Obama losing 10 points to Hillary in just 3 days
Gallup notes 5 points slippage in just 5 days / 14 points in 10 days
The handwriting is on the wall and what you are seeing / hearing is fear, frustration and desperation from OFB
.
Thanks for the link to memorandum...it may be useful
Nooooooooooo
If I am Maureen Dowd I will have to kill myself. (or something)
happily immune to all religious indoctrination
- “I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Le Bloc ou le mort!
No, LostClown, if you are
No, LostClown, if you are Maureen Dowd you won't kill yourself -- your self-loathing is such that it functions best when working to destroy other women. Barring that, and with the absence of any easily targeted women, your next course of action will be to smear the closest man (preferably a Democrat) with what you view to be negative feminine traits, calling them effeminate and weak. Wasn't it Maureen who proclaimed Al Gore to be so feminine as to be practically lactating? We know she didn't really hate him though, if she really hated him, she would have proclaimed that he menstruated.
Wow, Leah!
Both guns a'blazing! Really good to have you back!
Awesome piece, especially your insightful takedown of Andrews's smarmy endorsement.
One minor note, there's a repeated paragraph at the end.
Me being a card-carrying mellow-harsher and all, please forgive a quasi-preemptive comment about your criticisms-to-come of fellow fellows' Obama skeptic posts.
I've gotten miffed (or more accurately, have started sulking), when fellow fellows have taken potshots at the Lambert 'n Vastleft Obama critique but haven't stuck around to argue their points.
I respect you bigtime and don't at all shy away from you slapping me silly if you think I've gotten something wrong. I think we'll all grow if we stay in the ring and work these things out, so please hang in with us and don't be shy with your critiques and especially your rebuttals to rebuttals. Unlike the junior Senator from Illinois, I welcome debate and really hope you'll share your voice anytime you've got a beef.
Parallels
I had it with the Bush mob. Sorry, I meant the Obama mob. The confusion is due to the similarities.
- fake reality
- arrogance
- elitism
- nasty
- hate democracy
- it's not us, they are the worst
And my opinion, neither of them is partiularly smart.
KoshemBos
I really don't understand all the hate
I've honestly been stunned at all the hate directed at the Clinton's. The most successful democratic family-really since the Kennedy's and most of the elite party members and elite blogosphere hates them and I mean absolutely hates them.
I use to read the dailyobama on a daily basis but just can't stand it anymore. I started participating on that site within 6 months of its start, long before its host had enough notoriety to get himself on Bill Maher.
who the fuck is Joe Andrew
and why should anyone in Indiana give a fuck what he thinks?
he's a DC lobbyist who wrote a spy novel and founded a mutual fund that invests in companies that give to the democratic party.
and he presumes to tell Indiana voters what they should do?
Arrogant dipshit.
Parodoxes and puzzlements
Somewhat off-thread, since this starts off about Wright, but:
As in so many of the issues, and even more the non-issues, this primary season, I feel pulled in two directions on Wright. Leaving aside Wright's comment on 9/11 (which I interpret as "9/11 is blowback," a truism), I think that many of us would view Wright as, like Edwards or Paul, a marginalized figure who has many on-point ideas to share. See Chris Floyd, Glen Ford, Sarah Robinson, and the great Arther Silber. (Interestingly, and revealingly, the black megachurches don't like Wright at all. The enemy of my enemy...)
At the same time, many of us view Obama's handling of the Wright affair as bungled, either: (a) as a tactical matter ("everyone could and did predict") or (b) as an example of yet another lost opportunity to lead. (If Obama were a leader instead of a meta-leader, and really had started a national conversation on race after his Philly speech, that would have framed and defused Wright brilliantly, in a wonderful "teachable moment." But n-o-o-o-o.)
Such are the tensions hidden beneath the "throwing under the bus" metaphor, itself, paradoxically, true, though on an even more trivially tactical level than failing to prepare for the inevitable eruption.
Another paradox is implicit in wildly oscillating posts like Stoller's -- Stoller having thankfully not descended, at least not yet, to Broder's sludgy depths, where life itself seems hardly possible, let alone wild oscillation. As Leah points out: How is it possible to simultaneously wish for a "killer instinct" to put Hillary away and yet decry the nasty tone of the blogosphere? Doublethink? Phases of the moon? Clintonian Mind Control™ causing otherwise rational Obama supporters to discredit themselves and their candidate?
And of course another paradox is Obama being dragged across the finish line as the inevitable nominee even as -- we'll know Tuesday, I would think -- Hillary seems to close the gap, having begun as the inevitable nominee (a least in the stenography of the press, who love to pick the frontrunner and then tear their wings off).
As far as clear thinking on sources of disunity, see Mandos's excellent post on structural differences between the two wings. Anglachel has a similar post, distinguishing between the Truman wing and the Stevenson wing. Could it be that there is and can be no Unity
Pony
for the Democratic Party either, and that there are real conflicts to be resolved?* I continue to believe that the reason Obama hasn't asked for my vote is that he doesn't want it.
Returning, if I ever left, to tendentiousness, can somebody point me to a haka engineered by the Hillary wing of the party? I can't think of one, though one may exist. However, if all the haka is coming from one side, that, to me, is a sign that the two wings are not "moral equivalents." My team doesn't initiate haka. (We may relax with some popcorn once a haka is underway, but we don't start them? Am I right on this, or merely self-righteous?)
NOTE * For example, I continue to insist that a candidate's base is important; surely that's one lesson we can draw from Bush. Remember, "God is in the White House"? And one might also draw the corallary that when there are very similar candidates, vote the base. Therefore, if you believe, as I do, that really vile misogyny is prevalent in comment sections of the A list blogs that support Obama, that's not something separate from his candidacy, but intrinsic to it. Consider the Supreme Court. Do you want the candidate whose base will drive them to uphold a woman's right to control her own body, or a candidate whose base is tepid about that, because such issues, to put it in the mildest form, abstract to them? 'Tis a puzzlement...
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Remaining Primaries Must Remain relevant
in order for the stalemate to be broken in a way that meets a reasonable standard of fairness. You pinpoint an extremely important dilemma facing our party. If the primaries are fucked with in any way -- by not counting votes, urging voters to end it now, promoting the inevitability of one candidate over the other, disenfranchising voters, and any other crap the leadership seems to be willing to stoop to - fully half of our voters will be really fucking pissed off. This holds true for Obama supporters as much as for Clinton backers. Come back and vote for our guy now that we've forced your guy out of the race! yeah, sure. Dont hold your fucking breath.
And FL/MI need to be re-enfranchised
In a way that's fair, and is seen to be fair. None of this 50/50 shit that Obama's trying to pull, where what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. (It's really too bad this whole Unity
schtick applies only to Republicans.)
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Re: Paradoxes & Puzzlements...
lambert...
It's the (c) option...all of the above.
Is that 5 weeks ago, Wright was family, the crazy uncle that he loved and couldn't disown to now unloved, disowned. While many have applauded his disowning Wright and even called it courageous, it clearly identifies that he values nothing at all...not friends, not mentors, not family...only becoming president.
I Think Clinton Tried a Haka
Early on, that's what all that inevitability bullshit was about. Now, it didn't really have an on-line component and didn't really hit the levels we've seen recently, but it was definitely to intimidate her rivals.
It was also a really bad strategy for her to win the nomination, just as it's a bad strategy for Obama to win the nomination. The inevitability haka is mostly about trying to get your opponent to think he/she has lost and/or has no chance, which means it's not so much about you winning the nomination as not losing it. And if you simply don't lose the nomination - as opposed to win it - you're a much weaker candidate.
This has been Obama's problem for at least a month. All that WWTSBQ
? stuff ultimately made him look weaker because, of course, she would quit if he won the nomination.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
HuffPo's latest entry...
in an attempt to compete for the most Clinton Deranged site with DK, along comes...
Peter Dreier - Sydney Blumenthal Uses Former Right Wing Foes to Attack Obama which is rather low-level batshittery, though clearly a recitation of all of the things that are a problem for Obama BUT...check out the comments - WOW!
The party is already split...
Hilary haka
My sense is exactly the same as yours Lambert -- clinton supporters dont do haka. Maybe that's because there hasnt been any large-scale netroots support system in which mob-mentality can get drummed up into a lovely haka-froth, but that might be a tautological observation. Without a mob there can be no mob mentality I guess.
What about right before New Hampshire when there seemed to be a rallying around Hillary by voters and even some commentators and bloggers. Does that qualify as haka?
Hillary supporters, not mobsters.
Totally agree with you about considering the base. Nice to see someone treat body-sovereignty issues as top priorities for all democrats rather than super-secret special interests. At first I thought you meant that it's important for candidates to be loyal to their natural bases and ergo since most democrats are women, then the candidate most loyal to the base should be rallied around, but then I got your point. It goes both ways for me -- If I really believed that an integral part of the clinton base was actually motivated by racism I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat.
Hmmm, "haka froth"...
Reminds me.... Reminds me... of frothy mix... That would be an interesting test of this Blogosphere 2.0 concept, to see if we could propagate that one, absent the cooperation of the Lost Boiz.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I want links on the "inevitability" meme
I could be wrong, that's why I want links, but I've always regarded that as a created media narrative, rather than something engineered by Hillary's campaign. They always annoint a front runner.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
definitely created
Until someone posts a corrente or shakesville worthy post of "inevitability" haka by genuine instigators of haka (Boiz? were they all jumping on Hillary's bandwagon and screaming inevitable to shut up and shut down every worthy opponent back in december and january?) full of linky goodness then I'm sticking with my original reaction to the inevitability story -- it was the only news in the dem primary until that story itself goosed subsequent news about her "sudden" un-inevitability. A perfect msm narrative.
You guys have done such an amazing job of culling and cataloguing and spreading the links to actual cases of haka and WWTSBQ
and WORM
and ugly misogyny -- you've set a new standard. Honestly. That standard is now being put to excellent and worthy use in nipping the WVWV bullshit in the bud.
The media critique has found its way home -- right here.
Last minute "evidence" of racist tactics tied to clinton campaign? Sounds a helluva fucking lot like those orange and red terrorist alerts we used to laugh (and pull our hair out) about.
Murphy, that would be Big Orange...
... terra alert, right?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I hate to pick a nit
But it seems the voters in the Democratic race are split. The Democratic Base seems to be solidly in Clinton's camp.
phat
Am reporting Leah to the Truth Squad
Dear Barack,
*scribble, scribble, scribble*
Leah is....*scribble, scribble*
literate....*scribble*
knows where the Great Lakes are *scribble scribble*
she needs to be shut down immediately,
sincerely,
One of your well-placed spies
PS: My cousin Bobby also needs to be turned in, *scribble* address is: *scribble, scribble, scribble*
"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules," --Bill Clinton
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
No clip
I tried to find a clip of that 30 Rock scene with Alec Baldwin's character talking with "Maureen" (Dowd) on the phone. It's hilarious but not online, alas. Not legally, anyway.
Huffpo piece...
wow, the Obots just don't get it. They are smearing Blumenthal because he's sending out emails telling people what the right is saying about Obama...
But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative
, and The National Review.
Nevermind that every single one of these publications/organizations has been legitimized by the mainstream media -- and have a lot of influence on what the media discusses and the frames in which the discussion takes place.
Obots would rather put in their earplugs and put on their eyeshades than confront Obama's vulnerabilities. We were saying that Wright would be a problem for Obama well before he became a problem--and we were ignored. And when Wright first became a problem, and Obama delivered "the greatest speech on race EVAH", and we said that Wright would still be a problem, we were ignored. And when Wright became a problem again, and Obama denounced him, we're still staying that Wright will still be a problem -- and we're still being ignored -- or attacked.
The DK headline was even better
It read "Blumenthal caught..."
Yeah, Blumenthal "caught" sending out emails under his own name! The dastardly cunning of it!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
What is/was the Wright problem?
except a perceptual problem that linked Obama with blacks?
The fact is that the Pew Research report that tracked through 4/27 showed that Obama was tanking even before last weekend's NAACP event and Monday's Press Club interview gave Wright the stage...undoubtedly from his really stupid 'bitter' comments, an exceptionally poor performance in the debate carried by ABC to the largest audience thus far in the primary season and then losing badly in PA.
So in the face of this, he disowns the guy he loved too much to disown 5 weeks earlier as if his political life depended upon it which has garnished a lot of disrespect everywhere.
I'm not a fan of Real Clear Politics but I stumbled upon this tonight which would probably make a good diary but I'm too tired now so I'll toss it out here for anyone who wants to pick up the ball...
The Link - "Renewed Wright Imbroglio Exposes Fissures in Black Voters which ends with...
Call me crazy but I think that Obama made a huge mistake by 'disowning' Wright on so many levels...
* It demonstrated that his commitment to ideas/people including 'family' is at best tentative and abandoned if they have a political cost
* It demonstrated to the black community once again that they are simply buying a black candidate who will sell them out whenever convenient.
* Obama cares more about being president than anything else.
* Obama continually steers away from discussions on race. Even his 'major speech on race' wasn't really about race but rather about how Obama recalibrates people's expectations about what constitutes a discussion on race.
My issue...I really wanted the Dems to win this year and I am so dissatisfied with the notion of Obama and entirely pessimistic about his chances.
damn...
just stumbled onto this...Denver Post editorial
Don't I recall people mentioning that Obama could take Colorado?
I'll give you the start...
I feel the same way on the entrusting....
It's all about asking for my vote. Maybe I'm an outlier, but Obama would have had my enthusiastic support if he'd gone all in on FISA; but when he didn't, my reservations on Social Security and UHC really crystallized. If he'd followed through on the Philly speech, which seems an eternity ago, at least I'd be comparing him seriously with Hillary, but nothing was done, no national conversation, and now when Wright blows up again, he looks like he got rolled by the media narrative. So, with no reason to vote for the guy, yet half the primary votes (not the Democratic votes) for him so far, and a bunch of people yammering at me to give up because he's already won (and using the same tactics I've been fighting for five years).... It's fucking discouraging, is what it is. OTOH, I felt exactly the same sense of doom and angst before OH/TX and PA, so maybe feeling awful is a good sign...
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't think you're an outlier...
I think that fear/panic has set in for all the OFB
and will make them ever more militant.
I am certain that IN (remember IN, the one Obama himself called the tiebreaker) will be a double digit victory for Hillary and if Obama only pulls 30% of the white vote in NC as SUSA suggests, it's a Hillary victory (or an Obama loss is probably a more correct notion) regardless of the fact that he still may pull off a 3-5% win.
Obama's polling numbers have been steadily dropping for 10 days now and only a miracle can change that between now and Tuesday
Blumenthal caught...
Aren't you legally obligated to mention Obama 527 every time you refer to DK/Big Orange Cheeto?
lambert
Obama didn't ask for your vote because he doesn't think he needs it.
And he may not to get the nomination.
The only strategy available to him to win the nomination was to expand his possible voter pool, via open primaries and caucuses and use the already accepted narrative among "independent leaning" Democrats of Clinton's divisiveness.
This isn't much different than what the Republicans have been doing for years. They've spent a lot of effort over a long time pushing the idea that politicians and politics are corrupt. This message has been widely accepted for quite some time, it's along the same lines as your typical lawyer joke.
Obama could never win the nomination by appealing to the Democratic base as a whole. Clinton had that sewn up a year ago. He had to expand his pool of possible voters. In a state like Nebraska, that's not very difficult. There are thousands of disaffected liberals who have felt left out of the process for a long time. It only took a well crafted message to appeal to them, no matter the policy differences involved in the primary or the general.
With that voter pool expansion, he has been able to appeal to the party faithful in some states because it seems that he's helping them add to their power base. It's likely true that Obama has helped Democratic registration. But that's not what he cares about much. Certainly he's not unhappy about it. Obama's not a partisan, though, at least his rhetoric doesn't show it.
The problem with this strategy, and I think it's obvious that this is a problem, is that he was forced to do things that wouldn't normally be allowed in a Democratic nomination race. How do you undercut Maya Angelou in a political campaign that has these unusual dynamics? When was the last time a Democratic candidate was smeared with the "racist" label?
If you want to beat the odds on favorite of partisans in a nomination fight, you need to overwhelm the partisans with people who aren't loyal to the party.
At first, I thought the Obama campaign was brilliant and certainly we are likely on the verge of a re-alignment. His campaign seemed to be tapping into that possibility. However, I've come to the conclusion that his campaign isn't about facilitating that re-alignment. He's using the frustrations that could give us a true change in public policy to change the topic towards something that has little to do with public policy. I'm left wondering, though, what's the point?
Granted, he could be a "stealth progressive" or "stealth liberal" but I really can't say as I want to count on that.
phat
"Well, fuck you, Joe Andrew."
Exactly what I said, leah!
He's been inspired. Inspired, my ass. Pressured, I'm sure.
Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions." Lol, no cynics in America!
"Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions." What?? Yes, we've all forgotten the uninformation of recent inspiring elections. And keep telling me how inspirational someone is and I'll be less inspired. Uh oh, is that my cynicism showing?
So shut up Joe whoever you are and keep your opinions to yourself. All these delegates and super delegates deciding (and conniving?) are surely leading up to the republicons pulling out their Supreme Delegates in the Fall. No?
And why the hell can't everybody have their primary and feel at least for a little while as if their vote counted?
Thanks, leah.
Take care, Jan
Ah yes. The cynics who have "been taught"
Same denial of moral agency that appears in "cling to."
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Who is Joe Andrews
and why the fuck should I care?
------------------------------------------------
No wonder they like to pretend they’re the high-information creative class.
It’s better than being an emotionally-arrested under-educated Cheeto-stained dweeb.
- Reclusive Leftist
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Joe Andrew Theory
A friend of mine's theory - Andrew was already in the bag for Obama and the campaign has been waiting to bring him out after an Obama win to try to build momentum for him. But, Obama needs the momentum now.
The basis for the theory is the fact that nothing about why Andrew is switching now makes a lick of sense. But it would've made more sense a a month or so ago. And so would his talking points about the Clintons. Add to that the way the story was initially covered - as if he's some sort of big defector, which is probably how the Obama campaign pushed it. Coming now, it has very little effect. But imagine if Obama had won Pennsylvania and Andrew had announced the next day. Or if Obama wins Indiana and NC and Andrew was announced Wednesday. It's just he needed good news now given all the bad polls. Something to make him look stronger.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Everybody's first question
Who the fuck is Joe Andrew?
It's like we're in the middle of a pennant race, Team A is ahead by 1, and they bring up "Joe Andrews" from the minors. And everybody goes "Who the fuck is Joe Andrews"? And then "What are they thinking"? And then "What's wrong with these guys?" And then "What's wrong with the sports writers, they're pushing this? There's a reason I've never heard of Joe Andrew."
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
BDB, there's simply no question...
... that anyone coming out for Obama right now is "new-old stock" they've had in inventory. Obama and his camp are doing nothing to make his case right now.
No debate, more trumped up HRC "scandals," throwing his mentor under the bus (sorry, Leah, when the cliché fits...).
The Accommodating-Talk express is simply running aground, and it's going to take more bullying, bullshitting, and the awesome power of inertia to make him the nominee. Good news for him, he can probably make that work.
Totally agree VL
except for one point. It wont work. When Clinton wins next week, the OFB
and their henchmen trying to force a sinking loser on the Dem Party will become a story in itself. Once the narrative becomes "who can explain the suicide of the democratic party?" and "are the dems truly fucking crazy?" the CV about obama's mathematical inevitability will vanish into thin air like the hot air it always was.
Let's not count our chickens
Of course, Obama has to win NC by 20, and IN by 5. But even so.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
but, but
I thought they were coming home to roost!
just kidding. I just sometimes feel the need to buck people up. I never expected Hillary to win easily, and aside from not wishing misogynistic attacks on anyone, I'm glad she's had the chance to show what a tenacious and graceful fighter she is. In the long run her performance in this looong primary will be a great credit to her legacy. So no easy win, but ever since NH I've been convinced that she can and will win. the nomination and the presidency.
Obama Appears to Have Run Out of New SDs
He now appears to be recycling old ones. See http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch..., first announcing the endorsement and then realizing it's old news.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Emergent gameplay
The only strategy available to him to win the nomination was to expand his possible voter pool, via open primaries and caucuses and use the already accepted narrative among “independent leaning” Democrats of Clinton’s divisiveness.
I agree that this was an important strategy, I think you can take a step back and go up a level of abstraction.
The Obama primary campaign is an example of "emergent gameplay."
Wikipedia has a good quick definition:
Emergent gameplay is the creative use of a game in ways unexpected by the game designer's original intent. It commonly appears as complex behaviors that emerge from the interaction of simple game mechanisms.
When people talk about him "gaming the system", I'm pretty sure this is what they mean.
It wasn't the intent of the designers of the primary rules that candidates with a small dedicated vanguard and weak support among mainstream democrats could end up with a little over half the delegates at the convention.
They have used corner-cases of the rules to achieve results they have. Look at what they've done at the caucuses. Look at what they've done in the states with half-caucuses and half-elections. Look what they've done in the states where delegates are counted by electoral district -- lose the popular vote, but win more delegates, etc.
It's clear that a small majority of Democratic primary voters prefer Clinton, but Obama has a small lead in delegates.
Game designers generally consider emergent gameplay to be a bad thing.