-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/thursday-open-thread-let-it-all-hang-out-5/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I am from Chicago, so I recall that Harold Washington was never married.
Would people be suspicious if a man in his late 30's, early 40's had never been married?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/24249/24075/919/529957
Chicago - It would look a little suspect that the candidate wasn't straight. The US is hella puritanical. Either that or he'd be considered promiscuous which could cause scandals again because this country is puritanical.
#5 Demololish the DLC, and the BlueDog Democrats.. Lets face it, these are reublicans who play it safe and vote democrat...
#4. Put the South back in play. As someone from Tx, I long for the day we have a democratic senator. Its been far to long. (since i could vote for one anyhow)
#3. Agressively encourage minority canidates both men and women from all over this country to represent there people in office. Someone mentioned it (i wanna say Craig) we need more asian american, indian and muslim american representation in congress. Far to many old white guys decide the fate of a nation that is far to diverse to allow this.
2. Take Foreign Policy from Republicans and never give it back.. Theyve held on to this little gem for far to long.
1. Make his name stick as the New Face of the Democfatic Party. Ronald Regan did it for the rethugs, Bill did it. (and blew it up)
From Bloomberg -
"The urgency for Clinton, 60, is she has until the Aug. 25-28 Democratic convention to pay off her $11.4 million personal loan. Otherwise, by law she can recoup no more than $250,000.
The rule banning Clinton from paying herself back after the nominating convention is part of a 2002 campaign-finance law co- sponsored by Obama's Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona. The law had several provisions to make it more difficult for people to finance their own campaigns.
Clinton has until the convention "to raise money to retire the loan or else she will have made an $11 million contribution to her campaign,'' former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner said.
Unlike the rules for her personal loan, Clinton can tap her Senate campaign account to pay off the vendor debts. While the account had $277,480 as of March 31, she could ask the donors who gave her $23 million for the general election if they would be willing to re-designate that money for her 2012 Senate re- election campaign. That would give her more than enough cash to repay everyone but herself. "
-------
I say let her eat all of it. She was the one who ran up those bills when she could have conceded 2-3 months ago, but if anybody wants to bail out a woman worth $100M+ go right ahead! Only in America...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaëlle_Jean
It would be cool if Jack and Jill did a "Best of" post listing the highlights and favorites of Obama's historic campaign.
My favorite moment. . .
The night of the South Carolina Primary.
For me, that was even bigger than Iowa simply because of the adversity Obama had to overcome to get there.
Don't forget, that was the time when the Clintons really started to lose their minds. They gave the full court press with Bil and Hillary tag-teaming the brotha. I'm sure they thought Obama was gonna crumble. But he didn't. For the first time, Obama BEAT both Clintons.
Better yet, it was us, black folk, that put him over the top. I don't know about you guys, but that was a very special night for me.
I remember looking over the exit polls, pleased to see a united effort in the black community. Black men, black women, black youth, black seniors. . . all of us, for the first time in a long time, were on the same page. All of us stood up for something we believed in and against the divisive politics of the Clinton camp.
I wrote about it on my blog:
Mr. Obama. . . You Did What You Had to Do
Losing My Religion
Thank You South Carolina
------
Republican John McCain has transformed rival Barack Obama's slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" into his own line, "A Leader We Can Believe In."
McCain's campaign this week posted the personalized motto on its Web site, http://www.johnmccain.com. The white, bold words are posted on a blue background above red and white stripes — a pattern similar to Obama's campaign logo.
"The choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward," follows Sen. McCain's new slogan
----
LAME!!! AND TIRED!!!!
Then, he went on to respond to the question of how "things get said in the heat of a primary" so Hillary's conduct is no different than the rest. Then, went on to state that Hillary gave a great boost to Barack @ AIPAC yesterday morning.
That would be NO. Carville and his wife need to understand that, at best, they are worth about 25% of the population's thinking and they are just out-of-whack. Since when do most folks think that Hillary's conduct was OK? Since when do folks think that Carville's comment about Richardson's endorsement of Obama was just "in the heat of it all?"
The dude and the dudette need to find a job where they work for their check and actually have to learn about living in a culture of fair play and conduct.
They need to return...to the curb.
Triffling
Take Your Campaign Back. Now.
Those portraits always make me feel good whenever I see them.
As for Grandpa McCain, I wish the media would dig up his COTS and talk about that. LOL
COTS = Chick on the Side...starting with his current Barbie-Doll heiress wife.
That shows extremely poor judgment in selecting associates. Why should we want to see that kind of judgment applied as President?
James Buchanan never married and was our only gay president.
Before his presidency, he lived for 15 years with his lover, William Rufus King, an Alabama senator, who became Vice President under Franklin Pierce.
King was called "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy" by Andrew Jackson.
Buchanan's adopted daughter Harriet Lane was his First Lady.
after saturday, the media and most everybody will ignore her.
djchefron,
im pullin hard for Rick Noriega. And like you I want Barack topping any milestone that may come in the fall.
i'm so feeling ya on that one. She's on Hardball a lot and she's never ever correct but always quite privileged when it comes to her analysis.
I love this one from Politico on Black Lawmakers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10858.html
Rep. Clyburn left a victory party to go home and pour him some Jack Daniels to watch Barack's speech.
Bring it on!
For an untouchable change agent, Obama certainly has a lot of questionable associates.
Even though I am an Obama supporter, I am all for people being allowed to express different opinions respectfully. Everyone on this board doesn't feel the way I do, but I can deal with it.
Your comments however are irritating.
1) Man up and post with your real profile.
2) If you would like to see a list of McCain or Clinton contributers that have been convicted of a crime, I'm sure someone can oblige. Name one politican that doesn't know someone that has issues and I'll gladly be quiet.
Basically, if you want to have a debate, that's one thing. Snippy comments do nothing other than show one's own ignorance.
Why Obama Must Go To Iraq
"Since his election to the United States Senate in 2004, Mr. Obama has traveled to Iraq just once – in January 2006."
-Hmmm...
The term "been there, done that" comes to mind.
He certainly has, and the list keeps growing. Here's a short list, just a few of the known ones:
1) Rashid Khalidi ("Rabidly anti-Israel” and the “Obamas were regular dinner guests” at his home). 2) Ali Abunimah ("runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada"). 3) William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn ("Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists"). 4) Reverend Jeremiah Wright (enough said). 5) Samantha Power (former “Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser” for Obama). 6) Robert Malley (another former adviser - “he has been holding talks with Hamas"). 7) Hatem El-Hady. 8) Tony Rezko. 9) Zigniew Brzezinski. 10) Cornel West. 11) Louis Farrakhan. 12) Cynthia K. Miller (a member of the Nation of Islam…former Treasurer of Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign). 13) Jennifer Mason (a member of the Nation of Islam…is Obama’s Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office). 14) Shakir Muhammad (a member of the Nation of Islam…held important roles in Obama’s state senate campaign). 15) Edward Said. 16) Carl Davidson (former vice-president of SDS). 17) Frank Marshall Davis (member of the Communist Party of the United States, and Obama’s childhood mentor). 18) Rev. Michael Pfleger (enough said). 19) Raila Odinga (Obama’s cousin, from the same Kenyan tribe that Obama is. “Odinga supporters are the people that are burning christians alive, trapped inside churches … most of Odinga’s fanatical followers are radical Islamists who have pushed for Islamic Sharia Law”). 20) Abongo “Roy” Obama (a Kenyan Luo activist and a militant Muslim…Obama’s half-brother… Obama admits that Abongo felt that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.").
The point is that he went before the new counterinsurgency strategy took hold.
He's seen the failure; why wouldn't he want to go see the successes and gains that are being made now?
Any one have suggestions on how to extend the olive branch to a Hillary supporter who happens to be your mother???
"All societies are a mix of good and evil, love and hate, wisdom and foolishness. The question is: Upon which scalepan does Barack Obama place the greatest emphasis when weighing America? Oppression or Opportunity?"
If you would like to see a list of McCain or Clinton contributers that have been convicted of a crime, I'm sure someone can oblige. Name one politican that doesn't know someone that has issues and I'll gladly be quiet.
_____________________________________
The issue is not whether a politician doesn't know someone with 'issues,' this is not about 'guilt by association' but rather is there a pattern of poor judgment regarding his associations that calls into question, that politician's ability to make sound decisions. Is he too naive? Too willing to look the other way, if it is to Obama's advantage?
Or, in light of facts that are revealed, will Obama's explanations and denials be believed by the voters come Nov.?
Today from Stephen Spruiell @ NRO, a conservative blog:
"Obama admitted to the Sun-Times that when he bought the strip of land, he knew Rezko “was going to have some significant legal problems,” and characterized his decision to buy the property anyway as a “boneheaded move.” Obama said he proceeded with the transaction because Rezko had always acted “in an above-board manner with me and I considered him a friend.”
Obama may have thought all of his interactions with Rezko were above-board, but they weren’t. One of the counts against Rezko detailed how he funneled the proceeds of an illegal kickback scheme into Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. Rezko’s co-conspirator, a former trustee of the Illinois Teachers Retirement System (TRS) named Stuart Levine, told the jury that he directed the TRS to invest $50 million with a firm called Glencoe Capital. In exchange, Levine arranged for himself and Rezko to be paid a fraudulent $500,000 “finder’s fee.” Levine routed Rezko’s half to an associate named Joseph Aramanda in March of 2004. That month, Aramanda wrote a $10,000 check to Barack Obama’s campaign.
Of course, Obama may well not have known the details of such a shadowy transaction, and his campaign has donated that $10,000 — and all other Rezko-related money — to charity. But what became clear over the course of the Rezko trial is that this kind of scheme exemplified Rezko’s way of doing business."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/michelle-obama-to-guest-h_n_105347.html
YOU KNOW I'm feeling you on Joan ' My Magazine Actually Called Obama UPPITY' Walsh.
I'd been through with her for awhile, but watching her trying to defend the Deranged Narcissist's Speech from Tuesday...I was like,
Negro, Please.
(You know what I mean).
She's just like her candidate - TRIFLING.
I have to ask....
Just what has Obama done to offend Hillpatine? What is the source of anger?
We have ClintonAttacksObama Wiki that's up to 50 incidents.
I'd just like a Clinton supporter to name me FIVE incidents from Obama and/or his surrogates. NOT the media...if 'we' included the media, that Wiki would be over 100 incidents without exaggeration..
But, what list of insults do the Clintonistas have that Obama and/or his people did towards her?
Obama won the primary, but he needs Clinton supporters unless he wants a re-run of the John Kerry show. And I don't think he can do it.
I posted this yesterday on another thread but I think i was too far down the page. I make my case for why I don't want Obama to be president, so go ahead and call me a crazy racist even though not one of my reasons has to do with race. A lot of people here seem to just cry 'race' at absolutely anything, to the point where I don't think they're capable of discussing anything else. I think my points are worthy of discussion, and should have been before January but guess what we've been talking about instead? Race and gender my fellow Americans....
Hi there Baratunde/Jack Turner,
I just wanted to say thanks for your recent post, it showed some grace and humanity that I haven't seen for a while, anywhere, about the divide in the Democratic nomination battle. Of course you and I don't agree on everything, but I do respect your views. Thanks for reaching out across raw emotions and chaos, much easier to do when your side wins.
For the record I am a 31 year old white woman. And yes, I am a human being who is able to think beyond my uterus and my skin color. It's nice to not be lumped in with some or no identity.
I read the blog because I want to understand people who don't think like me. Groups poison themselves all the time by surrounding themselves with people just like them and then losing perspective- Republicans and Democrats are both guilty.
I stopped reading JJP for a while because I just couldn't stand the name calling, and not just Tonya Harding but also handkerchief-head and stuff like that. It's bad enough that everyone gets reduced to demographic groups every four years to make someone's job at CNN easier- the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote, the Black vote, the women's vote, the values vote etc. Because no woman could possibly also be Catholic or working-class or black or married to a jew or have these elusive things we call values. It drives me crazy, and I just got sad to see JJP and many others resort to similar tactics. But it's one of those four years when we all get lumped into groups.
I hate what this race has become. The Dems were supposed to have a hands-down victory but we are still fighting inside the party. Hello McCain...
The only way I will vote for Obama is if Clinton is on the ticket or at least given a job that gives her the respect she deserves. She won a shitload of votes, all the big states, and most of the swing states. Just please stop the gratuitous character assassination. If you think Obama can win without her supporters then fine... Let's both just work for the McCain campaign instead of picking bones.
At first I thought Obama was all right, but early on I got concerned about his rockstar status in the Democratic party and among the media. Call me crazy but I get a little leery of cults of personality and stadiums full of swooning crowds. Someone who can deliver a speech well doesn't sell me, I am not that thirsty for kool-aid.
Give me a real reason why I should vote for him- because he's black? Because some kid in Pakistan will feel better because his middle name is Hussein? Because his record in the Senate is entirely unremarkable? Because he's pro-choice? Come on, it looks like a house of cards that could so easily fall down.
I am surprised the Wright scandal didn't take him out, and his speech on race in this country didn't impress me. There is a lot more than black and white in this country and I don't think that there's a context for shared experience like there was in the segregated south, e.g. I don't like to oversimplify people's experience and I don't need some politician to get teachy with me.
We this, and we that... Dreams and hopes and change. Obama can't talk about policy specifics to save his life. He's not my kind of politician, I want someone who can mop the floor in a debate and whose eyes don't glaze over when talking about social security. And it worries me that his ego seems to love the crowds and the spotlights.
By the way, the democratic party hasn't cracked yet and is only still alive and viable because of the Clintons. If Obama was going to win anyway, there was no need to slaughter both Clintons on the way to the door, seasoning the dish with rampant MSM collaboration and sexism. I admit it's not all sexism, the media just loves to hate the Clintons and to punish Hillary for Bill's mistakes until the cows come home. It's a good thing poor Chelsea doesn't have braces anymore, but they've gone after her too. But still, there's a lot of sexism out there.
I still remember how important they are- Bill Clinton simply mentioned the word HIV/AIDS and he revolutionized how we treat people, test people, research the disease, and educate people- just one example. Listen, the Clintons are not angels but name a politician who is.
Anyone still standing at this stage in the race has the audacity to think he or she should lead the free world- they are all politicians. And they will all do whatever they have to for election. I am not wowed or astounded by what people will do or say to get elected, they are the most ambitious people in the world. I am suspicious of any candidate who tries to sell 'new politics' and moral cleanliness.
I think that Obama's promise of a 'new politics' is bull, because there are no new politics. If there were then Mike Dukakis or John Kerry would have thought of it. I just don't think Obama can win in the fall, and i like Clinton's policies better, like on health care. Obama's foreign policy kinda weirds me out- let's get rid of all the current policies that umpteen presidents have employed and do everything in a different way? I don't buy it, I don't trust him, I don't know him, and he's green.
I am not a racist crazy person, and everytime JJP talks about so-called racist working class whites in Appalachia I will bring up the Democratic weirdos who go to caucauses in Idaho and Wyoming- not exactly the mainstream of the Democratic party. They all get to vote, but they should be proportionally represented by their delegates and Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't get dibs on who we elect as President.
I really hate most of the system, like the Texas one- primary _and_caucus?. Every time i hear someone from the Obama camp complain about Clinton wanting to seat the delegates from FL and MI I want to scream. Is it really a good idea to piss off voters in big swing states that have cost entire elections before? They were making a good point.... Iowa, farm subsidies, ethanol, and NH should not be able to rig elections. Ethanol is tearing the global economy apart, making food (even beer) more expensive, and making Brazil want to tear down as much of the Amazon it can. Pardon my French but fuck Iowa.
Howard Dean should make a rule- no caucuses, only primaries. And then he should establish a rotating calendar for which states get to vote when. My suggestion- one day a month in an election year, 10 states vote. Five months go by and then it's over- no matter where CA and NY fall in the cards. If NH always wants to be the first state, and if we want to avoid amending the constitution, then fine. But nine other states will vote the same day, on a rotating basis. I know primaries are more expensive than caucuses but they're not nearly as expensive as having a dumb-ass president for 8 years. And sure, group the states geographically if it means that the candidates can save some money by advertising to DC, MD, and VA at the same time. Or NY, NJ, and CT, or whatever.
I am not a Democrat who likes to lose, which seems to be pretty easy in the last couple of decades. I want to win for crying out loud and i don't think Obama can do it. He doesn't get my vote. One thing about republicans is that they are good at winning, and we are good at losing. And we can't blame Karl Rove or the John Kerry windsurfing ad- we just suck at this. Except for the Clintons.
Bests,
Ms. Irish
The question is: Upon which scalepan does Barack Obama place the greatest emphasis when weighing America?
Hmmm... Let's see. When you actually look at what Barack Obama places emphasis on the idiotic question becomes moot.
Judge Obama by the content of his character and message and not by the colour of his friends/associates, etc.
That is unless Karmi and those he quotes are championing Black Separatism. Black folks have "associated" and stayed with the U.S. through a whole lot of bs. Unless Karmi & Co. are suggesting that African-Americans should DENOUNCE and REJECT America in total then they can choke on that racialized fear and STFU.
Just what has Obama done to offend Hillpatine? What is the source of anger?
_____________________________________
The circumstances of his ascension within the party is what is offensive.
From a feminist perspective, he is yet another example of a slick, smart, YOUNG MAN, who is jumping over an older, more experienced woman who has been struggling for years to break the 'glass-ceiling'. In this case, the ultimate 'glass-ceiling.'
In their view, MEN in the party have not acknowledged this FACT, thereby prompting charges of 'sexism.'
Obama has not acknowleged their anger and frustration over the fact that as a younger man, he has bolted to the head of the line.
Further, he has yet to ASK Hillary supporters for their votes.
This is of course, just a theory of mine.
I would just say to your mother that we need party unity. At the end of the day their policies are more alike than different. Both candidates had their pros and cons and are in essence imperfect, like most human beings are. McCain and the Republican Party do not have our economic interests in mind and the issue he is most vocal on is not surrendering on a war we should have never gotten into.
Does she believe she should vote against her interets as a woman? There are MANY, MANY strong feminists who support Obama from the start. If she won't believe you, would she respect them and their choice?
Print this for her:
Ten Reasons Why Women Should Unite Behind Obama If He's the Candidate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-bravo/ten-reasons-why-women-sho_b_102973.html
I also want to say that this election where generational differences, gender differences, and racial differences are so pronounced has presented an opportunity for people to discuss what they believe in.
With parents, many, many of them want their kids to reflect their own values and when we don't they are responding to the feeling of not being in control. SO tread lightly, that can't be an easy thing.
One more thing (sorry) many people who oppose Obama have NOT been to the website to read his stance on issues. They are hearing sound bites and pundit distortions. Visit the site WITH HER. Read it together. That act alone will allow you the opportunity to develop your own opinion. Older people have a tendency to just have opinions and rarely allow themselves the intellectual space to develop them by trying to challenge their own beliefs.
anyone with a rag called "Salon" who calls someone uppity is a Hypocrite Extraordinaire.
I won't call her what I'd like to call her, but Ms Walsh needs to quit it. She wouldn't know how to run Obama's campaign if someone gave her a guided tour.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/jon-stewart-mocks-hillary_n_105386.html
As far as I am concerned, you can shove you vote up your *ss.
Regards,
Junglecat
I actually read the entire of your post and walked away learning this.
1st. You must NOT be a democrat, b/c if you were, you'd support the nominee.
2nd. No one doubts the Clintons efforts of the 90's. If those Clintons weere running HER campaign then it probably wouldve been a different outcome.
Your canidate used every dirty republican trick in the book, and had to be LITERALLY forced out by Party Elders. (stop and think about that..If the shoe were on the other foot, do you honestly think from what youve seen from Barack, that this would be the case?)
3rd. Youre more then likely venting. Its ok, i to hate losing to. But, and these are your words, I think your affair with Hillary is more cultist then anything. What has SHE done in the SENATE that Barack hasnt? Your canidate has made this clear as well as her husband, they voted identically about 95% of the time. IM NOT ASKING ABOUT BILL, Im asking about her. Alot of you Clinton people like to remind people of the 90's. Fine, but SHE cant have it both ways. Either she was for Nafta or against it. Either she was for gays in the military or against it. She cherry-picked her husbands accomplishments, and walked away from all his failures..
4th. Since you brought up things that can bring a canidate down (ie Wright) Your canidate has made it clear they are not releasing the Donor list to the library. Wander why that is. She knows its one of MANY things that goes along in the vetting of a VP. Yet, she wont do it. Not to mention, as your canidate says once again, what do think the republicans were gonna do if it had been Hillary? You think Cattle Farms, whitewater, Vince Foster, and all those women were just gonna vanish?
Mrs Irish,
This is not a post to bash you or your canidate. Its a rebuttle to yours nothing more. We the Democratic party needs every vote. If you hate losing, then come join a winner. If it still tears you up, when you walk in the booth, cross your fingers, hold your nose, take a shot, do whatever you have to ease your pain, but in the end, vote Barack for President.
Oh and your MI and FL post..Its simple, I tell my son all the times life is governed by rules. When you break those rules expect punishment.
Please try to help me understand your attitude and respond to some of the substance of what I wrote.
-Ms. Irish
Junglecat
I understand your support for your candidate. But I think some of your reasons for not supporting Obama are based in lack of historical fact. Your assertion that he wants to "get rid of" the foriegn policy directives that "umpteen presidents" has employed is simply not accurate. Tough, reasoned diplomacy by certain presidents has long been regarded as some of the greatest moments in presidential politics. I can point to a few on both sides of the aisle. Harry Truman, FDR, Richard Nixon with China, Ronald Reagan with Russia.
It might be worth your while to go to Senator Obama's website so that you can fully understand his positions. And you can cross reference many of his stands with detailed analysis in the Economist or the Wall Street Journal--both pro and con.
Hillary Clinton has YET to leave the race. You and every other non Clinton supporter knew this was over. Oh yes, except for Hillary supporters who felt like the one name that CAN change the rules mid election would.
Once she leaves the race (now its kicking and screaming and without ANY grace, maturity, or care for the party) Obama will do the right thing. He's done everything to respect her brand and they have taken every opportunity to assert their inevitability over the will of the people. Who is really drinking the Kool aid?
Once Hillary leaves, he'll deal with you- respectfully I'm sure.
And just a bit on the young man BS. As a young woman and professional there is much to be said for experience. However, experience does not mean skill. It does not mean vision. It does not mean leadership, intelligence, or good judgment.
His youth has shown a capacity to our fund raise, out organize, out manage an amazing organization. Hillary's mismanagement of their funds required to loan herself money twice. If the Obama was HALF as intelligent, half the leader, etc he could NOT have gotten out of the hole Hillary got her into... So you are drunk off her so called experience so much so that you don't see the HUGE mistakes she made. If she can't balance her campaign funds, how is she going to balance the national budget? Will she throw more money (she doesn't have,) to fix the problems of the nation ie: gas tax?
Right now, as a Latina FEMINIST he has shown himself to have all of the characteristics of a GREAT leader. Perhaps not the qualities of our traditional leadership read, but homegirl he's going for greatness- and I'm going with him.
White feminists OWE ME an apology- for disgracing feminsim, again and again.
Sorry Rikyah... this pissed me off
I know all of the foolishness--alot of what has happened to her campaign has to do with her allowing a bunch of type A men dictate the direction of her campaign. Ms. Solis Doyle and others on staff implored her to recognize that change was what should have been her core message--not all the negative foolishness her one polster, Mr. Penn was all about.
Mismanagment and misreading of the public. I broke it down against my mom on my blog.
But what I think has also happened is that many Hillary supporters became unwilling to listen to what Obama has to say. All the see is the images of the rallys, and all they feel is the pain that they have been waiting for her to run all this time and now it is gone. Rational objectivity for her most rabid supporters has gone out the door.
Just look at the arguments put forth by so many who say they "just don't trust him." Their arguments are mostly based on "I heard..." b.s like Bonita Batrell is knows everything. The independents are the most likely to be objective, look at the issues, and play close attention to what both sides say.
And in my opinion, us Obama supporters, have had some hand in pushing some Hillary supporters that were only minorly vitrolic into the fully raving lunatic column. At this point, even seasoned reasoning won't work with them.
Now, I don't even bother to debate with them. I do engage folks who are interested in the issues and are only slightly leaning or on the fence.
S,
I think your assertion that he has not "asked for" Hillary supporters vote is based in not seeing him lately or in not noting the very big step he took after his speech in Saint Paul.
Perhaps, he was even being respectful by allowing your candidate to decide what she was going to do first. Perhaps, y'all would have cried foul if didn't wait for you guys to "go to [her] website, www.hillaryclinton.com," and tell [her] what you think she should do next.]
I hope she kicks their asses.
Michelle Obama To Guest Host "The View"
I'm not a Hillary supporter, and I am simply taking a stab at rikyrah's question.
What do think about the first part of my comment? I think there is resentment towards Obama because he is a man who had shot over an older woman who has 'paid her dues.'
Will the outreach he has shown, or overtures he will make in the future, or calls from Hillary to unite behind Obama, really erase the deep-seeded resentment many women have towards men continually succeeding at a woman's expense?
s,
She had more advantages than ANY modern Political Candidate - including George W. Bush.
Remember,
EVERYTHING
and I do mean EVERYTHING
was done in this Primary Season..
TO STACK THE DECK FOR HILLARY CLINTON.
Period.
Super Tuesday?
Done to stack the deck in her favor.
When she announced that she would NOT be taking federal matching funds, I will remind people that was done as an act of INTIMIDATION, because NOBODY was supposed to be able to keep up with the Exalted Clinton Money Machine.
The ONLY thing they couldn't stack the deck with was the ONE thing that punched them - THE IOWA CAUCUS.
It's the reason I like the Iowa Caucus. It's as close to old-fashioned retail politicking as you'll get in America these days.
They couldn't control that. They couldn't stack the deck for that.
But everything else had been SET UP FOR HER.
Before a vote was cast, she had 200 SuperDelegates - that's the ONLY way she could claim a delegate lead, because Obama has led in Pledged Delegates FROM THE VERY FIRST CONTEST.
I never bought that she ' paid her dues', because I saw her always as someone who NEVER accomplished anything professionally without being pulled on Bill Clinton's coattails, and that goes back to her partnership in the Rose Law Firm.
She was NEVER a feminist, and she was NEVER entitled to be President of the United States because she let that man humiliate her in public.
I think this time, it has been more about generational difference than anything. I think the fact that so many young people have become in some ways "post-racial" and "post gender" is different than what many older folks have lived with all their lives--and instead of seeing how far we have come (and for that matter how far we have to go), they still don't see that what they struggled for is in some ways on our doorstep.
What I think is most interesting is that the mis-trustfulness demonstrated by some of Dr. Wrights statements--just like Obama said--are too rooted in the race and gender issues that have long been prevelant, just like a number of Hillary supporters who feel Obama is stepping on Hillary as a "man" on the back of a more experienced woman.
I am not arguing the merits of youth over experience. Your arguments are valid, but that is not the point.
These women are resentful towards men. Obama first and foremost is a man, and he has leap-frogged over an older woman who has worked hard and paid her dues and he has, in their view, by the nature of his sex, prevented her from breaking the ultimate glass-ceiling.
I do not advocate this viewpoint, but can you deny that this type of resentment exists and that it is behind the charges, valid or not, of sexism?
Thanks for your response and for being rational. My support for Clinton is not cultish in any way though; I just like her better on the issues, she debates better, and she has more experience.
I am about as Democratic as they come, the only time I voted for a Republican was in '96 or something when I couldn't bring myself to vote Marion Barry for mayor of DC.
But the older I get the more I can't stand the talking heads telling me who I will vote for based on my gender, race, class, or education level. It just leads to politicians who take me for granted and then ignore me once they're in office. call me crazy, but I think those people should actually earn their jobs. So I am less rank-and-file than I used to be.
And Clinton has been a much more active Senator than Obama. Don't look at the voting records, look at committee involvement, sponsoring legislation, and reaching acrosss the aisle. She knows how Capitol Hill works, and from what I can tell Obama just shows up and raises his hand.
Sure, she's acted like a politician who wants to be the leader of the free world- kitchen sink and all. I can live with that. Who knows, maybe I'll change my mind but I really don't like Obama's foreign policy and his pandering. I am not seeing any new politics out there, and Clinton can get out of the race whenever she decides it's time to- I've never seen such a big deal made of this issue.
-Ms. Irish
I say we RAMP up voter registration. Get our organizing together with buses, cars and vans to polls and say F the angry ones.
This is a valid question, and I apologize for being so pissy- but hell if I am not fed up with needing to focus all of my attention on the angry white women. As a powerful woman of color, I'm over it. Do you know how often we have to stop and pay attention to the crying white woman, the angry red faced white woman etc. I'm over. For once this is NOT ABOUT THEM.
Obama never fully received credit for his merits or even the nomination. I want one week of not talking about other people!
-------------
This is silly. There's no resentment on Obama because he's a man who shot over an older woman who paid her dues.
Hillary Clinton did not "pay her dues." Hillary Clinton did not have any experience beside being First Lady that qualified her to leapfrog over other qualified candidates in New York state to run for Senate. She had no connections to New York whatsoever. The only reason she got paid attention to was because of who she was sleeping with.
If John Edwards or Chris Dodd or Joe Biden were the nominee, we wouldn't be hearing about all this "sexism" because most of the fake feminists would fall back and accept the white dude as the nominee.
The only reason the fake feminists hate Obama is because he's black and didn't know his place. Harriet Christian didn't go off on him because he was an "inadequate male," she made sure to say he was an "inadequate BLACK male." If it was all about his maleness the black part wouldn't have been said.
If a white dude were the presumptive nominee, most of these fake feminists would be the first ones wishing for the Gong to be rang on Hillary.
There's nothing Obama can do to get a Harriet Christian to vote for him. She wasn't going to vote for his half-black ass anyway, whether he beat Hillary or not. The fight could be between Obama and Edwards and Harriet Christian would still have something to say about his blackness.
What kills me, though, is how many people smell a funky fart in the room and pretend that their eyes aren't watering and they aren't dry heaving to the funk. We all know there's a signficant chunk of people who will not vote for Obama because of his skin color. They ask "What can Obama do to win over he KKK crowd or Harriet Christian?" Beyond killing himself for committing the mortal sin of being born with brown skin OR asking Michael Jackson for a hookup on skin lighteners, there's nothing he can do about them. But those people weren't voting Democratic ANYWAY.
Now you have Ms. Irish or whatever tipping up on a black blog, stating "I'm not racist but why y'all expect me to vote for Obama? Cuz he's black?" I don't recall Obama or his campaign ever stating "Vote for me cuz I'm black," but Missy Hillary sure did put on the tears and started sharing heartwarming, tender Hallmark(TM) moments with other women and blatantly said "Vote for me cuz I'm a woman."
The way I see it, either you're gonna vote for Obama or you're not. If you're having a psychological struggle with that, that's on you and you need to work it out on your own instead of coming on a pro-black, pro-Obama blog and trying to work out your struggles by fussing on a blog that is not aligned with your ideologies.
That's exactly right.
While it is historic and laudable that the Democrats nominated an African-American AND a woman, doing so at the same time has placed the party in conflict with it's basic principle of equality. Equality above all else.
Both powerful, highly engaged and vocal groups in the party, blacks and women, have been promised and have worked long and hard to achieve equality. As long as the interests of both groups did not compete or conflict with each other all was well.
But, equality is an ideal, and in the end, life is not fair, someone wins and someone loses.
It takes time to get over a loss.
To be fair, I think alot of Clinton supporters have selective amneisa. The same media they hate, crowned her the "Invevitable Nominee" when this campaign begin 17 months ago. Then, when the same media was literally givng her the Dem. Nomination, you heard nill from any other canidate.
Can we atleast BOTH agree that her campaign were in love with the media, at least until she started losing.
To your second Point, "she knows how capitol hill works." Ms Irish, I will submit to you this is the MAJOR reason why she lost, and if McCain plans to run as an insider he to will lose. People are tired of insiders. This isnt to say she isnt good at it, it just speaks to the frustration common folk have when having to hear a Washington Insider explain to them why there broke, tired and hungry.
Your canidate was at her very best when she wasnt being the capital hil vet.
I say agan, if its a loyalty thing, I completly understand, but when ya think about it, if Foriegn Policy and pandering are your issues, then you should probably go back to Baracks page and read again.
Will get you over here somehow or another Ms Irish, YOU SOUND LIKE A VERY LOYAL PERSON, and thats something as a fellow democrat I think we need alot more of..
No one gave him this turn, the American people gave him his turn. They voted him to the position.
Over 18 million people (not counting the votes in the caucus states) wanted him as the nominee. And those 18 million people were not all men.
Hillary had every advantage and opportunity including the ones she created by turning race against race and SHE LOST.
It's sad that Irish and S thinks that people should have ignored every factor and said oh well, it's her turn let's give it to her.
What idiocy!
The Democrats nominated one person, Barack Obama.
They did not nominate a man and a woman as you said.
They nominated one black man, get over it.
This is not my issue.
Rikyrah wanted to know:
"Just what has Obama done to offend Hillpatine? What is the source of anger?"
I was attempting to offer an explanation. Do I accept the premise of the explanation, no. But does the premise exists, yes.
Has the nomination of Obama over Hillary divided the party? Yes.
How does the party unite? Your response is one approach. I'm not sure how well it will work.
The animosity that exists between the Obama and Hillary camps, if allowed to fester, will only help McCain.
In his speech Wednesday before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama sounded a bit like the more hawkish officials in the Bush administration.
He said the military option is “on the table” for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders “if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States.”
Obama’s tone was strikingly different from it has been in the past.
During a debate last summer, he said he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders and other American adversaries “without preconditions” during the first year of his presidency. Today, he made it clear that we should not expect a President Obama to be sitting down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any time soon:
“[A]s president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear.”
The Obama campaign insisted that Obama has not changed his position, but ABC quotes him verbatim from last July’s YouTube debate to demonstrate the extent of his shift. He made clear his opposition to the notion that direct, head-of-state level talks with terrorist nations endorsed and encouraged their terrorism. Now he has adopted that premise in arguing against talks prior to the Iranians suspending their uranium enrichment.
As ABC points out, that is also the Bush administration position. Condoleezza Rice has publicly stated that the US would be willing to meet at the highest levels if the Iranians verifiably suspended uranium enrichment and stopped funding terrorists. This White House held ambassador-level talks with Iran about the security issues in Iraq even without those preconditions, talks which the Iranians refused to continue. Obama’s arguing for the Bush policy that he claims has gone so wrong.
Ms. Martin- I never said that. Obama won, but i supported Clinton on issues- not race or gender. Don't put words in my mouth please.
Town,
Thanks for making me feel so welcome among people who I think I should be able to agree with, at least on some things. Go ahead and put up a sign that says 'blacks only' or 'people like me only', or whatever. Obama's skin color has nothing to do with my not supporting his candidacy, and I just have to trust you can accept that there are other reasons why I don't support him.
For the record, no one gets to define my feminism except for me. I cancelled my subscription to Ms. Magazine years ago, so please don't lump me in with whatever you think feminism is.
Yes, I am venting but I am not crying nor am I red-faced and angry. No one likes to lose, and I get frustrated when I just don't understand things that I see.
Jonzee- It might be true that I haven't read 500 pages on Obama's foreign policy but i really thought I was going to hear more specifics in the debates and in his speeches- like when he's on national TV with a huge audience.
And yes, all the lofty rhetoric and carefully staged and prepared speeches about hope make me not really want to listen to him and read about him. I want to hear about policy and concrete ideas. I admit that, but any politician should be able to give a speech. I want someone who can roll up their sleeves and get things done.
Smoothie- Oh listen, anyone running for office loves the media when things are going well. In general I really hate the media and how political and fatuous it's become. The NYT op-ed page used to be worth reading but IMO pretty much only Tom Friedman is worth reading now. Maureen Dowd, who basically makes a living by hating the Clintons and using movie titles, makes my brain ache. You could write a computer program to spew out her pop culture nonsense and get the same thing. And Gail Collins is Mistress of the Obvious and everything that occurred to me five days ago. That's just one example- I'll spare you the rest.
I know that Washington insiders don't sell too well in an election year for a lot of people, but I think it's really useful to have a prez who knows how to run bills through the Senate like clockwork, which phone calls to make, who's gonna flip on an issue if you offer enough pork -oh sorry, we call them 'earmarks' now, etc. That's just the reality of our system.
Time will tell who I vote for in November. I finally moved out of DC, where my vote never counted for anything and I didn't have representation in congress. I live in VA now, which is very purple, and where my vote counts. I guess I need to see how much McCain panders to social conservatives and how much Obama panders to whoever.
Thanks for the actual dialogue and listening.
Peace,
Ms. Irish
Jonzee, good luck in recruiting your Mom. I think she will get use to the idea that hillary is out in time. Please tell me, how does she justify the race baiting that they did?
S, I actually agree with your hypothesis on feminist anger. Part of my problem is that they feel they are above Black people, so they can take their anger out on Obama as opposed to Bush. They hate Obama but they don't hate Bush, and they are willing to vote for Mccain to hurt Obama, even though McCain WILL repeal Roe v Wade & RECENTLY VOTED AGAINST EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. So my question is, are they REALLY feminists or are they just recists?
I didn't read all of Ms. Irish's post, but from what I did read, I've gathered that O doesn't appeal to her and she isn't interested in knowing his positions on issues & other substanitive things. Disliking him because he is popular and can fill a stadium? That's petty. Did you dislike caucases before hillary started losing them? If not, why not? I hope we keep our prima-caucus here in TX forever. If you condem Obama for his association with Wright, do you also condem hillary for her association bill? After all, he has been continuously cheating on her for years. How can you have a champion who disrespects his wife and daughter like that? I remember seeing Ashton Crusher on Jay Leno a few years ago. He expressed his shock & amazement that when he met Pres. clinton with his wife, Demi Moore, clinton was hitting on his wife right in front of him! He was probably thinking, do I feel like getting my ass kicked by the secret service right now or am I gonna let this slide? What is feminist about tolerating a whorish husband? Nada.
Ms. Irish said: Every time i hear someone from the Obama camp complain about Clinton wanting to seat the delegates from FL and MI I want to scream. Is it really a good idea to piss off voters in big swing states that have cost entire elections before?
Why is this Obama's fault to you?
Why aren't you launching a campaign against the politicians who broke the rules thus nullifying the votes of THEIR CONSTITUENTS? All this happened before Obama even announced his candidacy! The Local politicians were willing to sacrifice the votes of their constituents to make a point instead of working within the system or selecting a different form of protest. If I go to a store and take an item without paying for it, I will be punished (arrested,jailed, fined). Why? Because I would be breaking the RULE that states that I must pay before I leave the store with the item. Even if I give 101 reasons/excuses on why I should be able to take the item, everyone is going to insist that I either follow the rules or deal with the consequences of not following them. To take the item without paying is called STEALING, and that is what hillary did when she was given those illegal votes. And she STILL lost even thought she cheated. How can you have a champion who is a cheater?
Ms. Irish, I could go on, but I'll spare you and invite you to examine your feelings about race & sexism again. Let me also say that I feel that this forum is a place where I can express myself, even if I say things you don't necessarily approve of. The internet is a big place, and I'm sure you can find a like-minded group. Best wishes.
You have said two things that will allow me to tune you out:
"we just suck at this. Except for the Clintons."
Hillary Clinton lost - so she must suck at it too!
something about you're tired of losing and you will not vote for Obama, a Democrat. So I guess you're willing to further that loss.
Hillary isn't as smart as you think she is or she would've figured out a way to compile delegates instead of weak-minded, under-educated racists.
I agree with the person who earlier told you to take your vote and stick it up your ass.
I'll be out registering new voters 2 for your 1.
BTW, why hasn't your and S's support for Hillary evolved into some cash for her bankrupt ass campaign?
Leader my ass.
http://www.blackwomenvote.com
This Saturday, Hillary Clinton has promised to admit what everyone already knows: that Democratic nomination as the POTUS is no longer within her reach. She is saying that she will endorse Barack Obama and will campaign for him.
Sadly, her exit from the race has lost it's moment to become a unifying, energizing event -- and instead, the acrimony in the Democratic Party has soared to the highest levels ever. Black women and white women now eye each other with the highest levels of suspicion.
Hillary Clinton's persona is even more polarizing today that it was before she entered this race.
I hope that can change. The only way for the Democratic party to heal it's deep rift would be for Hillary to quickly make this transition from nomination candidate to Obama champion... but I find it hard to believe that she could really do that.
I do not believe that she thinks that Obama is cut out for the job of POTUS, and wonder how she could suddenly become an Obama champion after claiming many times that he was inexperienced and would not be ready to lead.
Like my reader Faith, I hope that Hillary Clinton's concession speech will be the Speech of Hillary's Life, one that will stop the bleeding in the Democratic Party, and begin to rehabilitate her relationship to the many Democrats who were hurt by things she and her surrogates have said and done.
She must also find a way to soothe the hurt feelings of her own supporters, because many of them are so deeply upset by this loss that they will not be able to hear anything that Mr. Obama has to say. Right now, I am actually hearing a few accusations of sexism and reverse racism because of my rant against her yesterday. My my my... I guess sexism and outright racism is something that black women couldn't possibly know anything about.
This rift between black women and white women should never have happened, and that division was caused by HRC herself. She MUST own that.
Hillary Clinton could have been the next President of the United States, but it was not sexism or reverse racism that kept her from capturing that title, although those two evils did rear their heads during this race.
Mrs. Clinton lost because she did nothing to curb racist innuendo against Barack Obama, but demanded that he immediately curb sexist innuendo against her.
Mrs. Clinton lost because she underestimated how seriously black women take racial injury, and was slow on the uptake to address statements made by her surrogates that were racially tinged.
Mrs. Clinton lost because she has many 'old guard' black male politicians on her team -- who are precisely the kind of people that black women are sick of.
Mrs. Clinton lost because she tried to run a Karl Rove-esque campaign, which would have worked with right-wing Republicans, but never with Democrats. If Democrats wanted Republican methods, they would have become Republicans. That should have been obvious to her strategists.
Hillary Clinton's good ideas (and there were many) were eclipsed by personal pot shots against her opponent, ugly innuendo and doublespeak by her surrogates , and poor logistical mobilization. Those things, combined with a constantly changing message, and took her down.
To simply claim that it was sexism and reverse racism is a cop out.
The fact that Bob Johnson (founder of BET) was the first voice out of the gate yesterday morning, proved to me that Hillary Clinton truly doesn't get it when it comes to black women. Her deep commitment to Bob Johnson sealed my opposition to this woman and made me write the first rant on this blog.
To send the black man who became a billionaire by lifting black minstrelsy and black female exploitation to a world stage, and to allow him to try to strong-arm blacks in Congress into supporting her VP bid was a slap in our faces.
Bob Johnson wasn't making a 'suggestion' to the CBC. He was basically telling them that their gravy train would stop if they didn't support Hillary Clinton as VP.
This talk about Hillary not sending him is nonsense. Nobody can convince me that The Greatest Negro Opportunist of All Time made that move out of the goodness of his heart. He did it because he had something to gain by a Clinton presidency. That fact alone seals it for me that the Democrats made the right choice.
My warning to the CBC: you should not have been taking that man's money in the first place. We will not forget if you give this man any sway in politics.
This is my last post on Hillary Clinton's poorly run campaign. I hope that she can make the transition from candidate to champion for ALL women, and not just white ones.
The first thing that she can do to mend fences between black and white women is fire Bob Johnson from her inner circle, and denounce the exploitation of and violence against black women and girls done by his evil work. (And I hope that you're taking notes, Barack, because you're next!)
Let's move on and allow the rift to be repaired.
What do you think? Will HRC's supporters 'buy' her sudden turnaround into the role of an Obama champion?
Thanks for making me feel so welcome among people who I think I should be able to agree with, at least on some things. Go ahead and put up a sign that says 'blacks only' or 'people like me only', or whatever. Obama's skin color has nothing to do with my not supporting his candidacy, and I just have to trust you can accept that there are other reasons why I don't support him.
--------------
Cut the bullshit. You came up on this blog crying about "Do you expect me to vote for Obama because he's black?" Cut that bullshit out right now. Bullshitters should never feel "welcome" in my presence:
Where was the outrage when Ferraro and B. Clinton and H. Clinton basically said through their words and actions "This is a WHITES ONLY party and Barack is trespassing?"
You cry, "Nobody gets to define my feminism." Well, nobody gets to define why I prefer Obama to Clinton. You don't get to come up on a predominately black blog and whine that Obama supporters expect you to vote for him because he's black, and expect that you won't get called out for that!
Clinton and her supporters don't get to throw the whole racial kitchen at Obama, then when they get called out on it, cry victim! If that makes you feel "unwelcome," so be it!
Bottom line, Obama played by the rules and won! NOBODY respects a cheater or a sore loser and that's why, in the end, it was Clinton's own supporters who pulled the plug on her behind her back. But I guess that's Obama's fault, too.
Chicagopolitical-GO FOR IT!!! The single population is huge. Our nation needs all kinds of diversity. I think it is a minor issue. Best wishes.
Thanks. I feel comfortable speaking on the issue, b/c Barack wasnt my first choice, if im being honest. Bill Richardson was. My guy lost focus on a debate, and his campaign was essentially over after that. I was with Barack for the most part ever since. (down to BO &JE;) Something about Edwards bothered me. He couldnt carry his home state, thats a troubling sign to ME if your constituents have doubts about you..
oh, and when i get back to the Shaka, I'll be right back there lookin for someone to unseat Sheila Jackson lee to.
Ms Irish,
Your vote COUNTS everywhere. I live in San Antonio (if i think this is where you were going) and In my district Barack walked away with 1 Delegate . Hillz 4. BEST BELIEVE I caucused for him even though it was pointless. Its that mentality, that in my personal opinion is what is crushing dems.
Old party logic, moving where you think it will make a diff, rather then standing firm where you are and fighting. Once again, go read Baracks page when you get free time and look into how he pretty much did all of what he's doing from one PRIMARY SOURCE..GRASS ROOTING VOTERS.
Did you know he was in your area today attemting to reconnect with not only his base but Hillary supporters as well. Ya gotta give him credit, many a pundit, said he shouldnt even be out there.
He's gonna fight for your vote, and I think if you honestly consider the stakes, (your canidates words) you'll really want to hear what he has to say....
http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2395
Probably the best way to lose an election is to misunderstand the people who support your opponent (e.g. calling them all racists or feminists (read- white feminists, go ahead and add red-faced if you want) who think they are above black people) and then insult them to no end.
Even when someone (me) checks out a blog someone she went to high school with contributes to, just out of curiosity, and then responds to what I perceived as and outstretched hand after a bitter primary season.
Thanks to anyone who's been civil to me (Smoothie in particular). And the rest of you know what you can do. Why the hell would I want to get near you when you can't even discuss basic campaign issues and go crazy whenever a white person mentions race?
I'm out,
E Irish
And I have never payed this much attention to politics in my life before, plus I never knew the intricacies of the nomination process before. In 2004, John Kerry was crowned the nominee after 2 contests and I was using most of my spare time to read about how horrible Bush/Cheney are and what was happening in Iraq.
It is very clear to me that the nominating process needs to change, no matter who I vote for or who wins in November.
-E Irish
--------------
Please. If you decide not to vote for Barack Obama because of what somebody said on a blog, you weren't going to vote for him anyway.
WOMAN UP and just don't vote for him. Own that decision instead of passing the buck and the blame. Don't blame his ability to draw crowds or the fact that he's black or the fact that he wouldn't let Hillary cheat or somebody was mean to you on a blog as the reason why you won't vote for him.
As I said before, bullshitters should never "welcome" in my presence.
-E Irish
-------------------
Why does the nominating process need to be changed?
It was working JUST FINE until Hillary started losing. All of a sudden it "needs to be changed."
BULLSHIT. The only reason you want it changed is because Barack Obama played by the rules put in place by Hillary and her crew and HE WON by the rules put in place by Hillary and her crew. He didn't "steal" nothing, he straight up won.
Oh, but we can't have that. The rules need to be "changed." If the shoe was on the other foot, you know damn well you'd be wagging your finger like Bill Clinton and shrieking "the rules are the rules."
Yeah, the rules are all good as long as you are the one winning. Once somebody starts winning by the rules you put in place, you want to CHEAT or change the rules altogether. Yeah, ok, whatever.
So you were blessing us and your high school classmate with your white presence here?
You want us to beg you to vote for Obama all while you tell us why illary is a better candidate and the rules created by her and her advisers weren't fair.
You want us to welcome you and your bullshit.
Please!
For the record, you will have nothing to do with my vote, don't even flatter yourself. My vote is not on the table, and it means a lot to me- I am calling you on your attitude and trying to understand by talking about issues.
And Smoothie, I moved to VA because I fell in love with someone and could afford more house here. It was only after I moved here that I really appreciated having congressional reps, senators, a governor, etc., which I never had before as a DC native.
-Ms. Irish
So you know, McCains top Supporter is Phill Gramm. Lobbyst, for companies that support ARMs that stick it to people who by houses.
Catch Olbermann?(i know thats tough for a hill suporter to watch)
and he details with FACTS as to how Phil Gramm is sticking it to homeowners, and is on McCains staff.
There's a lot of passion on this blog. ALOT. We are invested for a lot more reasons that just a presidential candidate. Its centuries of conversations that we had together in our dining room that is NOW making it onto the national stage. What most people don't understand is this: what the civil rights did for us is say out loud that we are equal, so if you (meaning Hillary,) is trying to take away the piece of MY PIE then I'm busting you up.
Obama deserves an equal share of that dream that she had. Sure she's been dreaming a lot longer than Obama, but this is not to say that i has been harder.
I can see being guided by the "logic" of experience and policy etc, but there is another school o thought that is then inherently diminished by you "standard." That standard was created by European Americans of a particular class. The standard is white and male and upper middle class.
I'll speak for myself and not the other people on here: I will not be shut down again by white people asserting what the right standard is for this position. Your language is codified- even if you do not intend it. This is more than an election. It is an expression of history and the very fight that must happen, every day, until we all change.
I feel like with this election I am finally invested enough to learn- which is why I came to JJill- and I have. A lot of smart, experienced people in here that are no better primed to assert who is the better candidate than I am. I may not have as much education or knowledge of politics, but that is just a reflection of my personal history. I came here to struggle... Sometimes I don;t understand half the stuff people say, but I struggle. You may not agree, but you can still struggle.
If you give up this opportunity to struggle with us- about these matters, then you are losing out. Segregation in force.
May you be blessed on your path.
The rules need to be changed, not bc Clinton lost, but because they are not fair. One person in Wyoming gets more of a vote at the convention than one person in California. That is not very fair, they should all get the same representation.
I admit, Obama won fair and square and by the rules. He deserved to win and Clinton deserved to lose. He had a better campaign. Don't ask me to love him for it though. I liked her better on policies. Period.
Ms. Martin-
I just want to be treated with civility by people I know I don't agree with. I want to understand this. It's called a discussion. I am discussing issues, for fuck's sake.
I've been told to shove my vote up my (white) ass, I've been called a racist white feminist (apparently all bad words). You call the Clintons mean and cheap, and to what have you reduced yourself?
By all means, don't beg for my vote.
Earn it.
-Ms. Irish
I respectfully disagree with you about your notion that Senator Obama has not demonstrated the ability to "roll up his sleeves" and get things done. First, if you ever done community organizing, rolling up you sleeve is an understatement. Second, it is widely known, that what your city councilman, your local community development agency, your mayoral adminstration do is much more directly related to your everyday life than anything that occurs on the hill. To that end, Senator Obama's work as a successful organizer at the local level has carried over to his ability to motivate folks on the national level. If the fact that millions of folks have been mobilized by this campaign and his message is not for you, then I feel like I can rightly assume that you prefer that your politicians do all the work not 'we' but them.
Second. Just because the media has only played catchy sound bites, doesn't mean that there is not more meat on the bone. I have watched all of the debates, and I don't see any candidate getting into the wonkish play-by-play necessaery when debating policy--it is TV after all. But if you go look at speeches to policy groups. You might find your answer. And as simple as you want it to be, most policy doc are pages and pages long.
Third. If you want to debate records on the hill--you can compare apples to apples. More bi-partisan authored bills with Senator Obama than Clinton. And at some point, if we are going to move forward as a nation, the partisanship that started going haywire with Nixon and went full steam with Regan has to end.
In the end, I respectfully disagree with you, simply because there are too many issues on the table to allow McCain to schmaltz his way into the White House. But, if 8 years of Bush didn't bother you, then I guess we can only expect that you will choose to pull the lever for McCain.
Though I know I hope and pray not.
I'm defending S in this instance. I think S is bringing up some interesting debate points--points based in rational fact based thinking, and I think some of us are getting just as "kool-aid drinky" about Obama as many of the Clintonistas.
It is a fact that Senator Obama said he would meet with Iran without precondition. S is right to express some concern over whether the statement that he would meet with Iranian leaders "if it is in the best interst" of the US is slightly to the left of what he originally said and could be seen as waffling if he is not careful. Personally, I disagree that it is all that different than what senator obama first said. One can meet someone "without precondition" and as long as its in one's interest.
Also, S's premises about how older women feel about Obama's meteoric rise is probably accurate. And it is in someways no different who are fiercely protective of attacks against Barack that are racist or are percieved as such.
I don't have to beg or earn your vote. I'm not a candidate. What I will do is ensure that the person that I support has the very best chance of winning by putting my money and my time where my mouth is.
You have identified as a lost cause by your own definition so I won't waste any more time on you. There are millions who have been left out of this white is right process for hundreds of years who will be more than happy to take a seat at the table that you choose to push away from.
I don't know what you're looking for here.
Also, you're a little late for the discussion issue. Obama is the nominee, we should be discussing McCain issues v. Obama, not whether the rules were fair enough to allow Hillary a win.
McCain has some issues for your ass. Let's talk about those.
I beg to differ with your support of what S identified that older white women are feeling and how we feel about racism.
The two are not comparable. Racism is horrible, destructive and holds us back as a nation.
Barack being elected by the American people as the Democratic nominee is, a push back against that very racism, and, the process by which we choose our leaders.
There is no turn to wait for. Their feelings are based on entitlement and I suggest you and S not encourage that sentiment.
It ends like it begins. I just tried to read Joan Walsh's piece on Obama's need to reach out to women voters. I believe that, but not because of Hillary, just because you should treat all members that you want in coalition like customers who could easily make another choice. Anyway I was humming along in the piece I then I hit this disgusting bit:
We saw the face of the angry white female backlash against Obama over the weekend, and it was hard not to turn away. On Friday, Geraldine Ferraro complained in a Boston Globe Op-Ed that she's been demonized for saying that Obama's presidential run benefited from his being black, and called her treatment "reverse racism." On Saturday, Harriet Christian replaced Ferraro as the overwrought voice of white female resentment. There she was at the Democratic National Committee meeting, screaming at reporters that Democrats were about to nominate "an inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for president."
Beyond Christian's deplorable reference to Obama as an "inadequate black male" was a wail worth hearing. She also said, "I'm proud to be an older American woman!" I can feel her pain. Reading the sexist attacks on Clinton and her white female supporters, as well as on female journalists and bloggers who've occasionally tried to defend her or critique Obama, has been, well, consciousness-raising. Prejudice against older women, apparently, is one of the last non-taboo biases. I've been stunned by the extent to which trashing Clinton supporters as washed up old white women is acceptable.
Once I heard Walsh invoking the words of two bigots to make her point, I checked out. Physician heal-thy-mutherfucking-self. Ferraro is the same woman who argued that "racial resentment" was OK. Walsh apparently thinks Harriet's description of Obama as an inadequate black male, "was a wail worth hearing." I'm physically sick reading that. I never much agreed with Walsh's take on the Clinton's, but for my money, she just fell into Pat Buchanan territory. Anyone who thinks there's something to take from someone who says it's fine to resent black people racially, who claims that there's something worth hearing in describing the first black man to ever win a major party's nomination as "an inadequate black male" is the moral equivalent of a racist to me.
I don't play these word games. I don't much care about what's in your heart. I don't make any distinction between people who think I'm less than, and the cowards who know the truth, but still run with bigoted fools anyway. There's nothing feminist about siding with worst impulses of white America. The fact is we're tied to each other. The same fuckers who've turned the incarceration of black men into a business, are the same fuckers who'd love nothing better than to drag women back into the dark ages.
I want to see Barack Obama out there courting the vote of all women. I want to see him talking specifically about what his plans are. But I've got no interest in seeing him court those who would use feminism, as a cover for their own blackaphoic views. Later for them. Let them vote McCain, and go join the party where bigotry is part of the platform. The rest of us have a country to save.
UPDATE: To be clear, Obama should compete for the votes of ALL women--older, younger, white, black, purple whatever. But I don't accept that people who refer to him as an "inadequate black male." or people who think "racial resentment" is acceptable, or people (read: Joan Walsh) who think there's some truth to be gleaned from those opinions are represenative of that older, white female bloc. It's not I think older white women shouldn't be courted by Obama--they most certainly should. It's that I don't accept Walsh\Ferraro\Christian as a rep for them, any more than I would want someone to accept Al Sharpton as a rep for me.
I saw that Walsh called Christian's remarks "deplorable" but she undercuts even that weak declaration by embracing the racist Ferraro as someone who has something to say to Obama. Please. Ferraro was part of the worst Democratic ticket in modern memory. She helped invent the Reagan Democrats. I didn't even know she was still involved in politics until she decided to reveal her inner James Eastland. The idea that she somehow reps for women is fucking laughable.
That said, anyone who'd be willing to put the health of women, the chance to expand childcare, the chance to revisit equal pay, on the line in the name of electing a dude who called his own wife a cunt, who laughed as one of his supporters referred to Hillary Clinton as a bitch, who would most assuredly appoint judges that would reverse Roe v Wade, is a joke. There ain't nothing feminist, or "empowering" about gambling on the future of our daughters. It's a ego and sore loser-ism writ large. If that's your angle, take a hike.
There is also an ugly subtext to that "unqualified" remark. Exactly how many terms in the Senate did John Edwards have? Was he also unqualified? Would we be hearing that label from Hillary-supporters if he'd won?
i don't think this political season is the beginning of the rift between black women and white women for a multitude of reasons.
i think that this season has the potential to shine the light on the other side of the white supremacy coin. for centuries white women have been written passes by both black men (for obvious reasons) and black women.
just as with Chisholm, when all the sisterhood, feminism, anti- sexism, women must stand together talk stops...white women will scurry right to the sides of those that have elevated them above all others, given them untold social privilege, labelled them minorities so they could successfully usurp the benefits black folks died to obtain, and the list goes on and on... all roads lead right back to the sides of white men. hrc has already endorsed in so many words mccain. remember? anything else at this point is more lies. she has demonstrated she will sell lie after lie as long as people are willing to buy.
white women are the flip side of the white man coin. for those of us that pay attention, hrc has only made us wonder if all the johnny come latelys to the truth were getting the message. i have blogged about it well before the priest came out talking about her entitlement. her "right" to be president has been hard to miss since the beginning for me. her supporters tend to be the entitled, shrill, pushy, aggressive "feminists" that couldn't care less about the voices or concerns of w.o.c. these women seem to want us to focus on our vaginas and leave everything else alone...as we would have to in order to stand in unity with white women while they refuse to acknowledge their active, diligent white supremacy/racism. considering that hrc has w.o.c. supporters it would be interesting to hear their voices right about now. anyone? anyone?
i don't think that black women should be entertaining negative energy on behalf of black men with anyone. black men do not belong to black women. black men belong to black men and that is typically who they look out for---even O. God knows rocking the boat on behalf of black women isn't being done by black men to any great degree; as in most cases black men would have to stand against themselves to protect black women. if someone knows otherwise, please point me in the direction where i can see black men of their own volition stand on behalf of black women and girls; i could use some encouragement right about now. maybe i could even get back to blogging. usually when black men stand they stand for their own interests. BlkSeagoat i see you and give you mad props and respect! out of curiosity, where are the straight men? hello?:-)
we are NOT the protectors of black men. just as O hasn't come out about any of the atrocities, challenges. concerns black women face on the regular; i think he weighed in on Jena 6, no? i get the distinct impression that he wishes folks would "lay off" black women in general, but he isn't quite prepared to make a fuss. so...neither am i on behalf of him and others like him. reciprocity. when i see him consistently "change" i will and not a moment sooner.
black men are focused on the interests of black men and we are as well. this is why black women are faring so poorly. in fact, as we wait to see if O can make a stand on anything, it would be wise to keep in mind that we are simply seeing white women behave as i have witnessed being a southern american black woman numerous times. at the end of the day quite a few black men will still hold an unnatural love of white women, and will treat them gently, with respect, courtesy, consideration; even when she affords them none of that. for those that have white mothers i get it. i wish the black man collective would get that, too. but that's a whole other Oprah:-)
white women will still decide they are God's gift to the univers, all that come before them should bow and worship; that the rules don’t apply to them as with hrc. ( and many will fall, obediently, at the white altar and worship! all colors) white men will reinforce the notion and protect them fiercely against all that challenge the white is right crock. at the end of the day black women will still need to focus on ourselves, our own issues, concerns, agenda and learn to protect/provide for ourselves. in most cases by our selves. there is nothing in this political season that suggests anything otherwise to me.
b.e.t. johnson's presence just reinforces the notion that the acceptable, historical and on-going mistreatment of black women has nothing to do with white women. i have never seen white women stand against it and i don't think i ever will. how else would they be superior if we were not inferior? this is the same woman that breathed fire at the mention of her daughter and pimping. she has no problem with pimping, even as a feminist, just not her daughter. we all know that america would never allow unchallenged her white daughters to be depicted in that manner, just ask the i can’t stay out of jail francis guy; or even hefner and flynt---they were not left unchallenged in their quest to make white women the face of porn. (and we all know there are plenty white women that can't wait to...go wild...on camera.)
so as i watch the white women scurry to the sides of their powerful white men i for one will not be surprised. white women, too, as they seek to be like their men; love black men for sex and financial exploitation. the claws come out when colored and black folks start reaching for their white institutions. the place white women hold in our society is only secure as long as these constructs remain in tact as far as i can see. call me cynical but i never thought for a moment they named the house, in this nation's capital, white because of the color of the building.
thanks for allowing me share.
blessings,
focusedpurpose
i don't think this political season is the beginning of the rift between black women and white women for a multitude of reasons.
i think that this season has the potential to shine the light on the other side of the white supremacy coin. for centuries white women have been written passes by both black men (for obvious reasons) and black women.
just as with Chisholm, when all the sisterhood, feminism, anti- sexism, women must stand together talk stops...white women will scurry right to the sides of those that have elevated them above all others, given them untold social privilege, labelled them minorities so they could successfully usurp the benefits black folks died to obtain, and the list goes on and on... all roads lead right back to the sides of white men. hrc has already endorsed in so many words mccain. remember? anything else at this point is more lies. she has demonstrated she will sell lie after lie as long as people are willing to buy.
white women are the flip side of the white man coin. for those of us that pay attention, hrc has only made us wonder if all the johnny come latelys to the truth were getting the message. i have blogged about it well before the priest came out talking about her entitlement. her "right" to be president has been hard to miss since the beginning for me. her supporters tend to be the entitled, shrill, pushy, aggressive "feminists" that couldn't care less about the voices or concerns of w.o.c. these women seem to want us to focus on our vaginas and leave everything else alone...as we would have to in order to stand in unity with white women while they refuse to acknowledge their active, diligent white supremacy/racism. considering that hrc has w.o.c. supporters it would be interesting to hear their voices right about now. anyone? anyone?
i don't think that black women should be entertaining negative energy on behalf of black men with anyone. black men do not belong to black women. black men belong to black men and that is typically who they look out for---even O. God knows rocking the boat on behalf of black women isn't being done by black men to any great degree; as in most cases black men would have to stand against themselves to protect black women. if someone knows otherwise, please point me in the direction where i can see black men of their own volition stand on behalf of black women and girls; i could use some encouragement right about now. maybe i could even get back to blogging. usually when black men stand they stand for their own interests. BlkSeagoat i see you and give you mad props and respect! out of curiosity, where are the straight men? hello?:-)
we are NOT the protectors of black men. just as O hasn't come out about any of the atrocities, challenges. concerns black women face on the regular; i think he weighed in on Jena 6, no? i get the distinct impression that he wishes folks would "lay off" black women in general, but he isn't quite prepared to make a fuss. so...neither am i on behalf of him and others like him. reciprocity. when i see him consistently "change" i will and not a moment sooner.
black men are focused on the interests of black men and we are as well. this is why black women are faring so poorly. in fact, as we wait to see if O can make a stand on anything, it would be wise to keep in mind that we are simply seeing white women behave as i have witnessed being a southern american black woman numerous times. at the end of the day quite a few black men will still hold an unnatural love of white women, and will treat them gently, with respect, courtesy, consideration; even when she affords them none of that. for those that have white mothers i get it. i wish the black man collective would get that, too. but that's a whole other Oprah:-)
white women will still decide they are God's gift to the univers, all that come before them should bow and worship; that the rules don’t apply to them as with hrc. ( and many will fall, obediently, at the white altar and worship! all colors) white men will reinforce the notion and protect them fiercely against all that challenge the white is right crock. at the end of the day black women will still need to focus on ourselves, our own issues, concerns, agenda and learn to protect/provide for ourselves. in most cases by our selves. there is nothing in this political season that suggests anything otherwise to me.
b.e.t. johnson's presence just reinforces the notion that the acceptable, historical and on-going mistreatment of black women has nothing to do with white women. i have never seen white women stand against it and i don't think i ever will. how else would they be superior if we were not inferior? this is the same woman that breathed fire at the mention of her daughter and pimping. she has no problem with pimping, even as a feminist, just not her daughter. we all know that america would never allow unchallenged her white daughters to be depicted in that manner, just ask the i can’t stay out of jail francis guy; or even hefner and flynt---they were not left unchallenged in their quest to make white women the face of porn. (and we all know there are plenty white women that can't wait to...go wild...on camera.)
so as i watch the white women scurry to the sides of their powerful white men i for one will not be surprised. white women, too, as they seek to be like their men; love black men for sex and financial exploitation. the claws come out when colored and black folks start reaching for their white institutions. the place white women hold in our society is only secure as long as these constructs remain in tact as far as i can see. call me cynical but i never thought for a moment they named the house, in this nation's capital, white because of the color of the building.
thanks for allowing me share.
blessings,
focusedpurpose
Obama and his supporters are not responsible for the way a Hillary supporter votes. They must take responsibility for their own actions and not blame everyone else for their dissatisfaction.
I don't deny that the women we are talking about feel entitled. Again, I don't agree with it, I just state it as a fact. Acknowledging it is not the same as encouraging it.
I don't know how women who truly feel this way can be brought over to support Obama.
Further, it is unknown what impact this dilemma will have on the party come Nov.
TELL THA TRUTH!!!!!!! [snapping, clapping, jumping up and down]
Ms Irish- before you get mad at what was said remember that women of color were marginalized or sent to the fringes of the "women's movement," so all of this is not being thought of all of sudden now. This is at the heart of Black Feminism, multicultural feminism, or womanism depending on what side of the fence you studied on. It is what happens when we acknowledge the complexities of intersecting identities...
Thanks for sharing that Teacher... makes me feel like I have another site I need to frequent.
I can't wait to see Michelle on the view. Hasselback is so full of Obama hate she can barely contain herself.
I'm sure Michelle will handle her as the little girl she presents herself to be in her thinking.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
You wrote:
"One can meet someone "without precondition" and as long as its in one's interest. "
That may be true in theory, put not in practice where Iran is concerned.
Fine. Obama has changed his position. Glad to hear it. But why?
As a more moderate to conservative voter, am skeptical of the moves he now seems to be making towards the center. Where does he truly reside on the political spectrum?
Hasselbeck is in a state of high anxiety. She was rather ungracious to Barack when he appeared on the show, and is no doubt having the vapours regarding Michelle's upcoming co-host. When Cindy McCain was on the show, Elisabeth spent the hour in nervous supplication. I expect from her at least one uncomfortable question for Michelle.
Elisabeth the Rebublican, thought commentary on the fist bump was a "distraction" from the issues.
Silly girl.
It strikes me that Elisabeth and other Republicans considers Barack and Michelle's velvet chocolaty-ness an asset. Indeed, Obama's "cool" factor paints a stark contrast to McCain's pallid geriatrics.
Fuck you, Elisabeth.
Wow, DJ. I give you a standing ovation for this one.
sorry I deleted and reposted the comment...
I'm sure Michelle will deal with her appropriately :)
The times I saw the show when Rosie was on, I was pleased with how Rosie shut down her nonsense. Whoopi is far too acquiescent.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Joe Lieberman – who has taken on increasingly high-profile campaign roles on behalf of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain – announced Thursday that was launching and heading a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain," with a direct appeal to Hillary Clinton’s disappointed supporters.
“The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times,” Lieberman wrote in a message sent to the Arizona senator’s supporters. “Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton.”
I truly think that Whoopi is just trying to keep from the slapping the s%&t; out of her.
I'll be registering others where I live.
Dems love to be be in love with their candidates, and this was a little something fun for them to enjoy.
But it is an aside.
And hardly worth a f*** you.
I agree about McCain. He should have consulted with his buddy illary about trying to steal Barack's themes.
McCain will be changing that soon.
I wonder what he's going to do about his Hispanic problem?
What about the future? I actually care about how the parties nominate candidate for 2012, 2016, and so on. How many more close primaries are we going to have? Who knows?
I just know that more Dems live in CA than WY, and they should all be equally represented at the convention. Should it be winner take all or proportional? Why are the parties different?
And even if you don't want to earn my vote this time, wouldn't you like to have it and for me to talk to my friends and family about how committed I am? Believe me, I want politicians to earn their jobs and for the best people to win.
Victories feel better when they are landslides and when we can all avoid mud-slinging and insulting people who are not on the ballot. I doubt that even moderate repubs felt good after Bush v. Gore, when for the first time in history the Supreme Ct decided an election. Or after the Swiftboating of 2004.
What I want here is a discussion. Reasonable people should always be able make a deal. Apparently you hate my candidate and I merely dislike yours. You ought to be trying, right?
Instead I read this blog every once in a while see pure vitriol and bitterness and sometimes hatred.
Jonzee-
I am honored to respectfully disagree about almost everything, as long as we are respectful to each other. I'll say up-front that I haven't read any of Obama's books. Maybe he's a really good community organizer, dunno.
About the debates, I noticed that Clinton was much more willing to hash out policy specifics than Obama (like a 90 day moratorium on forclosures). And when, I think it was Tim Russert, asked Obama point blank for something specific he would do about the economy, Obama spouted stories about some Mary Jane at the country store in Missouri and then something about hope and change.
And hey- if the Senators in question really are apples and apples then why won't Obama mention his record and performance in his public appearances and speeches?
Evita, you wrote- I'll speak for myself and not the other people on here: I will not be shut down again by white people asserting what the right standard is for this position. Your language is codified- even if you do not intend it. This is more than an election. It is an expression of history and the very fight that must happen, every day, until we all change.
I would like to know how my language is codified. I don't support Clinton because she's white or female. I don't not support Obama because he is Black and male- I am smarter than that and I will not be reduced to that.
Remember I am not Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or anyone else who's sacrificed the rights of people of color for the rights of white women. I'm just a white woman (oh the horrors!) who was born in 1977, and I know my history.
I have an education and I won't let any politician take me for granted. Even a politician who happens to be Black can let people down with a stupid mistake once s/he let's their guard down after the election.
Hokay, bye again for now. Also- I'll be out of town starting tomorrow so if I am quiet in the next few days that's why.
-Ms. Irish
But not to throw water on the party....does ANYONE know whether there is ANY truth to the Michelle Obama "whitey" comments. I hope not...I lived in the Chi for five years before moving last year and never heard a whiff of this. MY GOD, I hope it is not true....
Did you care about how the party nominated before this election cycle?
You said:
"What I want here is a discussion. Reasonable people should always be able make a deal. Apparently you hate my candidate and I merely dislike yours. You ought to be trying, right?"
I'm open to a discussion on the issues regarding the general - the primaries are over and I'm moving forward with the nominee. There is no deal to be made regarding that.
Regarding your candidate and the way I feel about her - it's personal. There were far too many incidents of disrespect for me as an AA and the call to white voters to be angry about blacks supporting Obama. There were so many things illary did in the name of "politics" that were unforgiveable, policies aside. Her policies are very similar to Obama's so left to choose between the two personalities and given the leadership Obama has shown, I choose him.
I still ask what are you looking for here.
It seems you want me to assuage your anger over Hillary's loss, I can't do that.
I suggest you watch the DNC Rules committee meeting for a description of why the primaries were set up the way they were. I'm cool with the way they were arranged.
The one thing you continuously choose to ignore is that Hillary was the inevitable and surely should have been able to win this thing. It was her feelings of entitlement which led to her outbursts that cost her a large portion of her supporters.
The only thing to surface recently is a photo of Michelle Obama with Farakaan's wife at PUSH luncheon.
I don't think it is anything but a rumor.
Truthseeker, I seriously doubt if Elizabeth will say much when Michelle is there. I'm sure she will be afraid and none of them are going to back her up. She'll have a plastic smile on her face like View Barbie. Michelle already has the reputation as a person not to fuck with.
Ms. Irish said: "And hey- if the Senators in question really are apples and apples then why won't Obama mention his record and performance in his public appearances and speeches?"
Because he isn't the egomaniac that hillory is? That information is PUBLIC. You really need to look it up because Hillary lied about and exaggerated hers just like she lied about dodging bullets in Bosnia. I know it's hard for you to hear, but she counted on you all NOT verifying what she said.
Is anyone still counting delegates? I was happy to see Rangel & many other from NY endorse O today.
For the record, you will have nothing to do with my vote, don't even flatter yourself. My vote is not on the table, and it means a lot to me- I am calling you on your attitude and trying to understand by talking about issues.
-------------
Basically you want Barack and black people to kiss your ass and do back flips to get your vote, which you have already you're not giving to him in the first place! Remember? You came on here saying you don't like to lose and you think Obama is a loser and at least Republicans know how to win.
Then get the hell on! You want Obama and Obama supporters to kiss your ass to "earn" your vote or you'll vote for McCain. You aren't going to vote for Obama no matter what he does!
You claim, "I'm not voting for Obama unless he puts Clinton on the ticket and she gets the respect she deserves." Jigga whut? Obama has given her much more respect than she deserves. Come on now, cut the bullshit. The only reason you want Hillary on the ticket is so you can vote for HILLARY, not Obama. Again, you're STILL not voting for HIM.
Why you think Obama and Obama supporters should kiss your ass when you KNOW you ain't voting for Obama in November is beyond me!
But check it --- and this is rich --- you go to a pro-Obama site, make stupid demands that you know ain't gonna get met -- all so you can run back to Hillaryland and say "See, they were nasty to me. They don't want to "earn" my vote. So I'm not voting for him."
AGAIN, you ain't voting for Obama period! This is just a little bullshit game. Why is YOUR vote so special that Obama and his supporters need to bend over and kiss your ass to "earn" it?
Why is your vote so much more worthy of being earned than a white dude in Colorado?
And let's talk again about that funky fart in the room: You come on here talking about "Y'all don't wanna EARN my vote," let's talk about earning votes:
Why the hell didn't Hillary try to EARN the black vote?
If Hillary had put half the effort into "earning" the black vote as she did in tearing down Barack Obama, SHE'D BE THE MOFO DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE RIGHT NOW, NOT BARACK OBAMA!
Everyone wants to talk about how Obama has to "earn" the votes of white women and "hard working white Americans," but nobody wants to talk about how Hillary had the black vote in the palm of her hand but when she got that face cracked by the black dude she broke the dogfoghorn (forget the whistle) out and sounded the alarms.
How was Hillary going to win when she was
dogwhistling
racebaiting
spreading whispery rumors about Obama's Muslim ties and attire
calling white people to arms
casually dropping assassination as a reason to stay in the race
sending surrogates out to take racial potshots at Obama
How, exactly, was Hillary going to win the general election in November, without the black vote?
See nobody wants to talk about that funky fart, everyone wants to pretend they don't smell the funk in the room.
So yeah, I have an "attitude." I'm gonna have an "attitude" when somebody comes around, hurls insults and innuendo and then turns around and tells us we NEED to kiss her ass and lick the anus clean before she'll "think" about voting for Obama when you know, I know and this whole blog knows you ain't voting for Obama no matter how many asses are kissed.
---------------
Marius, if there is a tape, it's probably something very mild that has been overhyped.
Allegedly she was railing against "whitey" for leaving black folks stranded in Katrina. But she allegedly railed against "whitey" in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina didn't happen till 2005.
Allegedly she was standing at the podium with Louis Farrakhan, now they've dug up the pictures from that event and she was with Mrs. Farrakhan, not Louis Farrakhan.
Allegedly all this went down in 2004, which if this really did happen, should have made news back then since Obama was running for the Senate in 2004.
If there "is" an incident, the Obama campaign needs to come out with it now. But, I don't think she went off on "whitey" and "black power" while Barack was running for US Senate. The Republicans were desperate to stop him they imported Alan Keyes to try to stop him.
You might be Black outside of the USA, but come on, Brother, what Black person do you know, of the Obama's Generation, calls White folks ' Whitey'.
WHITEY?
COme on.
" Da Man" - yes.
MAYBE
" Cracker."
But, WHITEY? This isn't a Sanford and Son rerun.
I think from one strong ' broad' to another, Joy is gonna love having Michelle there.
As for Elisabeth, Michelle will swat her away the same way she shut down Meredith Viera in that interview.
And me? I'm going to enjoy every single minute of it.
I do not believe a bachelor could ever win a Presidential Election.
I mean a never married man.
A divorced man with children - I dunno. I believe we want our Presidents to be married.
He wasn't forced out of the race for it. Those were his words. Now Republicans are praying that a candidate's spouse said "whitey," so they can smear the candidate, Obama, for something he didn't say.
I doubt that such a tape exists. We live in a YouTube era and this rumor has been cirulating for about a month. You can't keep that under wraps in this age . . .someone would have leaked it already.
But, if it does, it won't be enough to sink his campaign. On the list of scandals (e.g., dead girl/live boy, affairs, criminal activity) "whitey" ranks pretty low.
And again, I can't believe the Obamas would be that dumb. And if they were, I can't believe they'd let the rumor fester without making every effort to get ahead of the story.
Be gone, poof! No need to lurk either.
@Town,
And the church said "Amen". I agree with everyword.
@Smoothie, you tried very hard and you should be commended. But, her slant was not was one of a truly tortured voter looking to be swayed. Nor was it one with the pretense of honest dialogue. That goes for anonymous, S, commi, etc.
Yes, this is political blog with a Black perspective in which most contributors support Obama. However, we are not above debate on actual ISSUES. You can not come here with that BS.
honey01
Let us know when you are back and we can continue to discuss notions of codified language. I encourage you however to take a look at the Clinton Wiki on race...
It seems we are never going to respectfully disagree, that you are always going to insult me for coming to this blog and many other things, and you know nothing about me. You also don't try, and that is a shame for all of us.
You probably think I am a terrible, bitter white person who hates blacks. Maybe you think I am a woman who hates men. Apparently I can't say anything to change your mind so screw it.
I am just sorry you can't get a glimpse of my experience, which I am sure is different from yours, but it still matters. When it comes down to it, you know nothing about me.
There is no Hillaryland that I visit- even on the internet. I don't want you, and all Obama supporters, or all black Obama supporters to kiss my ass. I want y'all to not gratuitously denigrate my preferred candidate.
I want to feel good about whoever I choose to vote for in November. The primary is over and Clinton lost- go ahead and rain on my parade and try to get my vote later when everyone cools their temper (maybe).
My vote should mean no more or less than any 'white dude in Colorado'.
I want to be able to have a civil dialogue with people who are involved in politics. I respect you, and I think I have shown that.
Just respect me in turn.
Bests,
Ms. Irish
ps- Evita, sorry but I don't think I will be back. I don't like the feel here, it's too angry and anti-Clinton and anti-white.
I've been attacked too many times to feel the Obama love just yet, but I am exactly the kind of voter who should flip. Most people here are too angry to even talk to me rationally.
You can't convince me I'm a racist, and apparently you can't believe I just wanted to talk. Imust be a spy, right?
I'll think about it, but I doubt it. In the meantime, try to cool things down now that you've won a battle, and try not to lose the war.
A POX on the warmongers!
You want to keep the war going so you won't feel like you "lost" but you don't want your taxes raised to pay for the war you want? The cost of the illegal, unethical war is bankrupting our country! We are borrowing from China and one day we will have to repay. This is stupid.
Please- nothing you said has anything to do with what I wrote.
You've decided to oppose anything I write because I don't back Obama, but it's not like I'm pro-war.
Y'all exhaust me with the anti-logic. I honestly just keep checking back to see if anyone's being rational yet. Looks like it will take a few days.
-Ms. Irish
I don't know about that. I have had some pretty good discussions here,
but have also had to endure some pretty rough comments. So be it.
I realize how very different our perspectives and personal political philosophies are.
I came to this blog believing Obama was a moderate. Hoping his supporters were moderate too.
He is not. Most here are not.
I realize that Obama's idea of change, is nothing more than a whole scale attempt to dupe well-meaning and reasonable individuals to buy into a 'progressive' agenda by claiming to want to seek common ground and unite the country.
Only progressives who support Obama unequivocally are welcomed here.
But I keep coming back because I think that moderates and independents will swing this election, and I want to express my viewpoint. Many progressives think that if they just keep registering more new voters that they can overwhelm the electorate and silence dissent. Many here don't try to persuade, they mostly try to intimidate, shout down, engage in 'gotcha' politics and personal attacks. As Jack most recently admitted, many here practice in the very politics Obama says he wants to move this country away from.
It is a real disconnect and it has been very illuminating.
Your tone sounds a lot different than what I read in your first post. I read it while I was at work and was thinking...wow! She's angry. I think if you had treated the JJP family with the respect you are asking for, you would have received a better reception. The people here are open to having a conversation with Hillary's supporters, but damn...you came here with fighting words. The healing really needs to begin soon.
I wish you well.
I'm not "insulting" you "just for coming on this blog", I'm calling you out on your condescending attitude. Your mere presence is not important enough to "insult."
You want Obama and his supporters to stop denigrating Hillary, I
would have loved it if Hillary and Hillary supporters stopped denigrating Obama and Obama supporters. Stop acting like Hillary and her stans are completely blameless victims of the Obama Boogeymen because you're not.
You come on here acting like your vote is worth a barrel of oil and Obama and his supporters need to kiss your ass to get the oil when you know all along you're giving it to John McCain.
And you never did answer MY question, which is "Why didn't Hillary Clinton feel the need to EARN the BLACK vote?" If she had worked to earn the black vote, she'd be pimp walking down the halls of the Senate as the presumptive nominee, not Obama.
Really. How exactly was Hillary going to win the general election without a sizable chunk of the black vote? Or are black votes not worthy of being earned?
Well, Hillary found out the hard way what the worth of the black vote really was.
Then you cry that you won't be back because it's too "anti white" around here. Nobody's "anti-white" on here. I am personally anti-BULLSHIT, which I detect dripping off of you like sweat dripping a road crew worker laying down asphalt on a 101 degree day.
Again you come on here defending yourself against accusations that were never made (you being a racist and hating men) and you claim you just "wanna talk." No you don't. You want to talk AT us and you want to use US as an excuse not to vote for Barack Obama.
You really don't need to explain what's up because it's crystal clear to everyone in this comments box.
New Democratic voters will replace Democratic voters who insist their voting for McCain instead of Obama because illary didn't win.
There's no desire to silence your dissent, just your policies.
Dissent all you wish, just don't attempt to shove it down my throat.
s you've been here forever constantly telling us what you don't like about Obama and not once have you advocated for McCain or his issues. That's not dissenting for you have offered nothing in opposition except for articles regarding Obama that you've cut and pasted from articles. If you must dissent, please do it with your thoughts.
Ms. Irish
I ask again what do you want here? To debate about illary is foolish - she's out. If you wish to wallow in that loss then I suggest you find some fellow Hillary supporters and work it out with them.
Nobody hear called you racist. You don't have to support Obama, but you don't get to beat us up for supporting him.
I suggest you get some counseling about your inability to deal with your feelings about illary's loss.
He had a live-in effeminate male friend for 15 years. That male friend, William Rufus King, became Franklin Pierce's VP.
Buchanan's first lady was his adopted daughter (an orphaned niece).
He never married.
Nothing like that could happen now, I don't suppose, but it's in our nation's history.
I have advocated for the surge, keeping taxes low, energy independence and school choice.
Just today we debated the post about McCain and Katrina. I tried to round out what I saw to be a limited account of McCain's record.
I cite other articles to reinforce my viewpoint and cut and paste because I doubt my links will be followed. I want opposing viewpoints to this blog to be up for discussion and rebuttal.
Like I said, independent swing voters are a key to winning in November and I my interest in Obama was peaked by his supposed appeal to moderates.
My position has actually hardened against Obama since I started coming here. It is due mostly to the posts, comments and responses I have received here.
So I guess you will have to register one more voter to offset me because you seem uninterested in persuading me.
That won't be a problem at all.
Again, another who wasn't going to vote for Obama using their vote as a tool. If I recall all of your arguments, points of view were against Obama and his policies. All of your attempts were to convince us that he was wrong.
Either you support Obama's policies or McCain's regardless of how either's other supporters think or feel.
I know I'm voting my interests and neither you nor anybody else could change that.
If you are so offended by the posts and comments then be gone.
I remember now, you came on board around Pennsylvania and you were trying to convince us that the hard-working Americans, white Americans were necessary for Obama for Obama to win the nomination. I remember you talking about your brothers and men who wouldn't dare vote for Obama.
Every since then, all you've done is pick and pick about every media generated issue against Obama.
You've been here for one reason - to agitate.
Who cares what you want for this blog, you're not the owner; however, you cannot create your own blog for free and direct that conversation!