-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/al-sharpton-to-clinton-on-rfk-remarks-cool-it/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
::
That's a wrap.
Thank you for saying this so well.
I think of all of the vile effluent that has been spewed at Senator Obama and how enraged it can make me...then I see his serenity under actual threat and I marvel.
-- middle-aged white guy
or brush off HRC and her surrogates' attacks.
And I agree with Craig, what you wrote is great!
Glad to see your mom is seeing the light.
This is the one constant that gets me through the pains of this campaign.
We will never be the same.
The panel touched on every topic: assassination, sexism, the black vote, Obama's religion, McCains religion, McCains talk about military service.
It was very calming for me because I like the truth and that is exactly what it was.
It was the best episode of Meet the Press in this campaign.
Excellent panel.
1st. B/C If it were Barack, something tells me he would suspended his campaign for the good of the party shortly after NC/IND.
2nd. I think the media esp. those channels that are chock filled with HRC (CNN/ABC) supporters would be FUMING for him to leave.
(Could you imagine Begala and Carville on CNN right now if Hillary were up by almost 200 with 3 primaries to go and NO mathmatical way for Barack to catch her?)
FWIW,
Liz Trotta's appeared on Fox News this morning and offered this apology
Trotta: Yes, I am so sorry about what happened yesterday and the lame attempt at humor. I feel all over myself, making it appear that I wished Barack Obama harm or any other candidate, for that matter, and I sincerely regret it and apologize to anybody I have offended. It is a very colorful political season, and many of us are making mistakes and saying things we wish we had not said.
Via Politico
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/Fox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html
Jill, you said it so very eloquently. When Obama first began, I supported him, mainly because I hated Clinton, and because I thought he was as qualified as anyone else AND he was Black. My RESPECT for him, however, has grown enormously over the course of this campaign. As I watched the barrage of attacks come his way, with only, it seems Michelle and some of the Black Blogosphere having his back, the true measure of how far he has come has impressed me to such depths, I can hardly explain. I pray for him. I pray for Michelle. I pray for their babies. There IS hate out there, and he knows it, yet he and Michelle put THEIR LIVES on the line everyday. I believe they've earned our respect, let alone our votes.
Politicalinaction.com
They have a post on MTP.
HRC: Al, you wanted to speak to me?
Rev. Al: Duh. You're f-ckin' up my press-n-curl, gurl.
HRC: Well, Al. That's pretty sexist of you.
Rev. Al: *bleep* *bleep* *bleep*
***bleeeeeeeeeeppppeeeepppeee****
I have to admit though Obama had me from the day I got up at 4:30 in the morning to drive out to Bolingbrook to catch a bus to Springfield and stand in the bitter cold in February 2007 to hear him declare his candidacy. We will get back to the work of making a more perfect union.
I've worked hard trying to get a lot of Democratic candidates elected over the years. I've watched them flounder under swiftboat, brownsuit and Willie Horton attacks. I spent sleepless nights wondering if they'd pull it out, wishing they were better candidates. I'd tell myself I'm too old, too jaded, too much of a political junkie to be inspired by a politician and speeches.
Man was I ever wrong. And these days I sleep like a baby. This country desperately needs a great president. The more I see of Barack Obama the more convinced I am he can be that president.
-Another middle aged white guy
Illinois in da house!
By ROGER COHEN
Published: May 26, 2008
It’s the networks, stupid.
Roger Cohen
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: Passages More than any other factor, it has been Barack Obama’s grasp of the central place of Internet-driven social networking that has propelled his campaign for the Democratic nomination into a seemingly unassailable lead over Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has been so 20th-century. His has been of the century we’re in.
That’s not surprising. Obama spent only 10 years of his adult life in the split world of the cold war, double that in a post-Berlin Wall world of growing interconnectedness. MAC — mutually assured connectivity — has replaced the MAD — mutually assured destruction — of cold-war days.
For Clinton, born in 1947, that ratio is different. Her mental paradigm is division. When her husband last ran for president in 1996, the Internet was marginal. The thinking and people from that campaign have proved unable to fast-forward a dozen years. They’ve been left like deer blinded by the Webcam lights of the Obama juggernaut.
This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.
Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.
Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.
He could not have achieved this without a sense of history, a conviction that the nature of the post-post-9/11 world — the one beyond war without end — is going to be determined by sociability and connectivity. In the globalized world of MySpace, LinkedIn and the rest, sociability is a force as strong as sovereignty.
I’ve searched in vain for a sense of this pivotal historical moment in Clinton. Her threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, her stomach-turning reference to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race, her Bosnian fabrications, all reflect a view of history as something that’s there for political ends rather than as a source of inspiration or reflection.
It’s history as “Me, me, me.” That tends to be blinding.
Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”
Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared, coordinated by newly global conversations in these domains, but in which our politics remains inescapably national, centered in the nation states that are the only loci of sovereign decision making.”
The Bush administration has accentuated global awareness of this disjuncture. Connected people around the world were appalled by Bush policies — from the trashing of habeas corpus to renditions — but felt powerless to influence them.
The overwhelming global interest in the current U.S. election is tied in part to a spreading belief that America’s leader may be as important to French lives, for example, as the incumbent in the Élysée Palace.
Obama’s people get that. Connectivity means going it alone is a fool’s errand: that’s a basic lesson of Iraq. If Obama has promised to appoint a chief technology officer, to open up government via the Web, and to make dialogue rather than war a centerpiece of policy, it’s because he knows he must speak to a 21st-century world.
Grewal writes: “Politics is the only effective countervailing power that we have with which to refashion the structures that emerge through sociability.” Accumulated personal choices expressed through networks fashion sociability. Short of global governance, only sovereignty can channel that will.
In concrete terms, you won’t make globalization more equable in its distribution of income without politics. But first you must see sociability for what it is: a form of 21st-century personal sovereignty that rivals national sovereignty.
Clinton never saw this. McCain, whose Internet fund-raising has been negligible, also shows little grasp of MAC.
Of course, connection is no panacea, or guarantee against violent threats: Al Qaeda uses the Web effectively. But without understanding connectivity, you can no more beat terrorism than win an election.
It’s the networks, stupid, and the generations that go with them.
Many people have noted: If the popular vote mattered then every state would hold it's election on the exact same day, under the exact same set of circumstances.
As it is now, states hold their contest on different days, in different months under different circumstances and different rules.
Some states hold caucuses, other hold primaries. Some states hold caucuses and primaries. Some states are open, others are closed.
Some states vote when there are 10 candidates to choose from; other states vote when there are only two candidates left. Some places, like Puerto Rico, can change their contest mid-stream from a caucus to a primary. I've even heard that some caucus states never record their final vote tallies, but only record percentages.
These are just a few of the obvious reasons why the popular vote is a garbage metric to use in determining the nominee.
If the popular vote mattered, then there'd be no use for delegates and, thus, no magic number that automatically sealed the nomination.
If the popular vote mattered then both Obama and Clinton would have camped out in the largest, most densely populated states in the hopes of running up the score on their oppenents. But the popular vote doesn't matter. So, instead of running up the score in strongholds like IL, MD, etc., Obama spent time and resources campaigning in other states.
Bottom line: The Clintons think we're all really stupid. They expect the media and the Democratic party is too scared to call them on their b.s.
It's been a long road, but, so far, it looks like we're not all as dumb as they hope we are.
One of the truest statements of the campaign came from Bill Maher when he said that Obama had no choice but to run as the "Jackie Robinson" of politics.
PS--having the balls to run for President as a black man does NOT mean you CAN'T be a lightweight. JFK was a lightweight, yet still brave. Abe Lincoln was a manic depressive, yet led the nationa and endured multiple heartaches. But since you've clearly taken a sippy sip of Kool Aid, it appears you don't want to at least parse the distinction...
Bingo. Yes, the American public is stupid and yes the DNC is too scared (DLC too cynical). That's all I'm saying...
I'm born and raised Illinois - I've been MO and GA, but I'm Illinois again.
Those sisters picked the wrong pony, now horse, to win this. If anyone need to give Hillary an earful it is those two.
But don't expect it. They are as weak, as they come.
I read that. I thought it was hilarious.
I was born and raised in rural, Southern Illinois. As far south as you can go. I'm in east central Illinois now, close to the U of I.
Are you near Carbondale? I'm in Peoria looking to get to Chicago.
Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up’
Posted: 10:55 AM ET
From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
Watch Bill Clinton's remarks about the state of the race.
(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.
"I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News. “'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"
The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.”
“Her only position was, ‘Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win — but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,’" he said.
The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development. "If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote,” said Clinton.
“And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan” – which the party would need to do “unless we want to lose the election."
You are correct about the popular vote myth. There are four caucus states - states who did LEGAL ELECTIONS ACCORDING TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES- that DID NOT keep voter tallys...
BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THE METRIC BY WHICH THE ELECTION WAS DECIDED WAS PLEDGED DELEGATES.
So, discount FOUR states that did LEGAL ELECTIONS..
for TWO who did ILLEGAL ELECTIONS?
Hell-to-the-naw.
you see that he can't NAME the ' THEY'. It's totally bogus, and they need to check Bubba's meds.
Unless and until proven otherwise.
2008 is an opportunity to prove otherwise.
Personally, I don't think the American public is as stupid as public officials think. Lazy perhaps, definitely cynical, but not necessarily stupid.
The media goes with whatever sells ratings. . . which is neither scared nor courageous, but more opportunistic than anything else.
Democrats are scared and spineless. However, Obama's candidacy stands as a challenge to Clinton power and relevancy within the party. An Obama victory is a defeat for the DLC wing of the party. That alone speaks volumes.
I think we are on the brink of a paradigm shift. Higher registration means new blood and fresh ideas to effectively change the scope of the electorate. It's placed the activist base of the party front and center, thus providing more influence than in years past.
The media will continue to go with whomever or whatever is best for ratings. With that said, a movement can be very good for ratings.
Obviously, the Democrats are undergoing an inner struggle for control of the party. 2006 set the table for such struggle. And that struggle will be won once Obama defeats Hillary for the nomination. . . it will take hold once Obama is elected President. This is a fight over the definition of "Democratic politics."
The new Democratic party will be challenged to reflect the changing demographics within the Democratic electorate.
Obama's following is unorthodox. The Clinton/DLC orthodoxy is on life support at the moment. The Democratic Party can pull the plug on June 4th if it wants to (actually, it can pull the plug right now). The opportunity is there.
An unconventional electorate MIGHT elect unconventional Democratic politicians. Again, 2006 set the stage for 2008.
The opportunity is there for a new direction. Whether it happens is still an open question. But odds seem better than 50%.
We're gonna learn A LOT over the next 2 weeks. Meaning, there are NO excuses after June 3rd for those uncommitted super delegates. They will have full cover to boot Bill and Hillary out of the race and marginalize their relevance to the party. Will they seize that opportunity???
I've been disappointed thus far, but I have not lost all hope. I'll stay optimistic.
Given his very Clintonest math, she would pull something like 190 del. to Baracks 98 orso.
Black American Princess,
If Bill and Hillary are on crack, then Lanny must be the psher who's gettin high on his own supply...
Mind you, the Clinton camp is not running on ideas.
Obama is the one who's engaging McCain on ideas and substance. Hillary is not.
Hillary is running for personal reasons at this point. She's not making policy arguments anymore. Everything she says centers around her personal and political ambition . . .NOT the American people.
The Clintons are in the midst of a breakdown. Obama should stay clear and keep his guard up.
I have to thank whatever blogger called Michigan the ' Soviet Style Election', because it's on the money. Obama wasn't even on the ballott, and they believe it should be seated, AS IS.
HELL NO.
b-serious, this relates to what you are talking about the re-alignment of the Democratic Party.
I can't bring my self to watch Lanny Davis anymore, but his is the first face I want to see after Obama secures the nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n9gZnEozGU&eurl;
I immediately thought of you and your post when Brody starting describing Obama's faith-based outreach initiative (I think that's what he called it).
Though McCain Should carry my state(texas) with ease, i should point out that Hagee's bunch down here in San Antonio ARE NOT HAPPY WITH MC CAIN..
His insiders looked at McCain pulling the endorsement as a slap in the face..Plus, alot of these evangelicals are speakin more and more about the war...(and not in GOP friendly terms)
It wouldnt shock me one bit if you saw Huckabee out there more and more in the MSM trying to diffuse your point..
No one fears Hillary Clinton. The Republicans know exactly what they're gonna get with her. They're comfortable with that type of fight.
But Obama's different. For reasons you've pointed out, Obama is expanding the electoral map. He's waking a sleeping giant.
Everything. . . from his ever-growing list of donors to expanding registration tells anyone with half a brain that something big is about to happen.
It seems McCain made an ass of himself when he said Obama had no right to question his position when he had not served.
Someone pointed out that Obama was too young for Vietnam and probably too old for Desert Storm.
His stance on the G.I. Bill makes no sense to me, but then again, it goes in with a PATTERN. He hasn't been on the common soldier's side AT ALL. look at his record.
And he took the most ridiculous stance - a non-vote on it.You can defend a NO-vote...even if I think it's wrong, you can find a way to defend it.
You can't be ' Mr. POW', and then disrespect soldiers like that. Completely incompatible.
Not only did he not vote, he's been outspoken about it.
I think he's against the cost - 2 billion; which someone pointed out is what we are spending a week in Iraq.
He also wants the soldiers benefits determined by the time of service.
OK...I know you don't want to hear this....again, but I was over at TPMcafe and saw a post titled "Obama, you are something else". by Bserious
The post is a copy of this post entry. However, he did reference Jack and Jill. But he doesn't say that he copied the words of Jill. The commentors think he wrote it.
Very odd.
I did 9yrs in the navy, I can PREACH as to why McCains GI Bill is utter BS, and Webbs is the way to go..
Under the current plan the GI Bill pays out 1051 Dollars Monthly and this is based on 36 months. Thats 12,612 dollars..The 1051 represents the number if you plan to go full time. That number slides to 750 if youre going 3/4 of the time, and to 550 if your going half the time. Oh, and once you start school you have 3yrs to finish it, or you lose it. If you dont start, you have 10yrs from the time you get out to take adv. of it.
To go to Texas AM or UT it cost about 15K annually. This number is before labs, living expenses etc..
McCain figures if you stay in, he'll pay you more. He leaves out the FACT that his plan doesnt rise to pay the cost of a Local or State College. It just gives you a $500 bump (if you qualify) His plan adds another scale of not only time served (so if you only did one four yr tour, youre not gettin the full 1500) plus the scale still requires you to do full time or your monthly figure os lower.
In Lamens, If McCain's bill were to pass, and lets say you did a 4yr tour. You get out, and decide to go to the local CC full time.
You go from getting 1051 full, to about 750 monthly. (you only did one tour suck it up!) Remember, the scale has to bottom out and he's made it clear that people who did 1 tour should not be getting paid like people who did 2 and 3 tours.
His second Arguement is that it diminisghes the role of NCO's ..Again utter BS..NCO' start out at the E-4 Ranking. (many come in as e-2's and pick up e4 within 1yr)
Someone on the "fasttrack" can rise to the rank of e-6 within 4 yrs.
The military is overflowing with NCO's . E-5's are Seargents as you may know them make up the largest block of the any military branch.
You can get to the rank of E-5 (SGT) all 4 branches at a min. of 2 yrs.
Webbs plan adjust to local and State rates for Colleges. It doesnt matter how long you served.
Webbs plan also calls for living expenses to be factored into seperate funds. This is huge, as the biggest problem I see with guys who are getting out now is they can afford the tuition, but thats it. Many have to go back to livin with thre parents.
I am interested in the GE, and how the campaigns will be fought. There's a lot of organizing going on, but will these bodies show up come voting time? Folks may slack off if they assume an easy win for Obama.
As for Billary, they will continue to be negative, backstabbing, and sabotaging throughout the GE. They can't help themselves.
I am in NO WAY advocating for John McCain. Just pointing out is idiocy and hoping that Americans will see this so-called patriot for what he really is.
He didn't need money after service, he had Ciindy McCain, her family, and their money.
I have always thought it an atrocity the way service people are treated. Sure there's all the lip service. Thank you's mostly, but I would like to see them put their money where their mouths are.
I agree with as much as I know about the Webb Bill.
Thank you for your service.
----------
Obama was like 10 years old when Vietnam was going on and was 30 when Desert Storm hit the scene. I don't know how old is too old to enlist but I'm not sure that the Armed Svcs. would have taken a 30 year old first time recruit back in 1991.
What's Dick "5 Deferments" Cheney's excuse? Or George "I Showed Up a couple of Times" Bush Jr.'s?
OK...I know you don't want to hear this....again, but I was over at TPMcafe and saw a post titled "Obama, you are something else". by Bserious
The post is a copy of this post entry. However, he did reference Jack and Jill. But he doesn't say that he copied the words of Jill. The commentors think he wrote it.
Very odd."
Thanks for the heads up.
Click on that guys name. You'll see that he's copied other blogs as well.
You'll see my blog post from February. He calls it "Poor Hillary," but it's my post. Here's the original here:
Double Standard Facing Barack Obama
I tried to write a comment letting everyone know that he's not the author, but the comment never got posted.
Take another look at his TPM page. You'll also see that he copied another blog post from Field Negro.
It's really annoying. I'm gonna end up sending an email to TPM.
Your 741pm comment should be expanded to a diary at kos. I'd really like to read something more substantial about this primary than the usual tit for tat.
I agree, I'm so burned out on the HRC saga.
And OT for Tuesday Open thread:
Jubilee Act is up for vote in the Senate on Tuesday to cancel African debt.
http://www.jubileeusa.org
no problem I didnt tihnk you were advocating mccains plan
i just love to point out how mc cain is in fact screwin people over with his plan.
Im out now, but thanks for the comment
due to hate can be called a man without courage, purpose, grit and determination."
Absolutely beautiful! You've nailed it for me. And it almost brings me to tears thinking about how this man gets up everyday, knowing that some nut could murder and/or severely disable him or any member of his family. But he does it because he has courage.
This is why I was very annoyed and disappointed with some who so casually tossed insults like "coward, spineless, and even bitch ass" at this man.
How dare anyone who is sitting in the safety of their homes, typing on their computer, call Senator Obama a damn coward?
Sorry for my passion on this. I guess I'm still a little ticked at some of the comments that were made on other black blogs about Senator Obama being a coward.
Peace,
A