It's funny how people have to attack Obama via guilt by association; they can't find any dirt on him directly. Yet, these same people who bring up his middle name say nothing about the pedophiles in the Catholic Church or McCain's association with lunatic right wing preachers who spout hate much worse than Wright did.
it just goes to show the depth of the hypocrisy that pervades both parties, including the news media. Imagine the reaction if it was Obama who made the lie about Bosnia. He'd be finished.
To all the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Ann Coulters, and Michelle Malkins of the world, I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying your bitter squawking and flopping around like fish out of water, frozen in your apoplectic seizures. There is justice in this world after all.
It has been amazing and breathtaking to see the speed of the world as it passes the Clintons and those right wing Neanderthals by.
Clinton: Not Exactly The Great White Hope
Were Hillary Clinton the great rural white savior that her campaign is depicting, she would have had this thing wrapped up in, say, Iowa, or a couple of weeks after that. Her inability to dispatch a presidential neophyte such as Barack Obama in a Democratic primary is precisely because, after alienating African-American voters beyond her comprehension, she wasn't able to convince white voters in places from Virginia to Idaho that she could be trusted to lead the country.
How did Obama, who easily won Minnesota, North Dakota and Nebraska, among many predominantly white states, suddenly become the black candidate who can't win white votes except for those of effete urbanites? Another successful Clinton spin tour-de-force, enabled by mainstream media's inability to conduct the most basic analysis, and its enjoyment at being bullied by the Clinton campaign into reporting the opposite of anything that is logical or true.
Ohio and Pennsylvania did not demonstrate her strength among white voters in general, but it did show that both states are rich in the demographics that make up Clinton's shrinking base. She found a way to exploit the anxieties of older white people in places that have been economically depressed and deeply segregated for decades. Every white person not voting for Obama isn't racist, but in Pennsylvania, for instance, at least three-quarters of Clinton's overall margin was provided by white voters who said that the candidates' race was important to them. Clinton found a chillingly receptive audience for her message of fear of Muslims, Japan (you know a candidate isn't targeting 30 year-olds when Pearl Harbor is central to their advertising), China, San Francisco, and black preachers, but ultimately it has proven a limited market, which should provide some comfort for Obama going into the fall.
Both Ohio and Pennsylvania still count in a general election, although they will matter less in 2012 after the next census once again depletes their electoral votes. However, to base an entire general election strategy on winning these states, as Clinton is obliged to imply, is complete folly, especially if it means discarding the opportunity for success in entire regions, including the West and the South. Clinton would do marginally better in November than Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to recent polling (he is in a tie with John McCain; she wins by a small margin). However, she would be completely overwhelmed in a whole series of states growing in importance and which Obama would at the very least make competitive. In Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Alaska, Indiana and Nevada, for instance, he either beats McCain or is in a statistical tie.
Clinton has long been perceived as unelectable because half the voting population would not cast a ballot for her under any circumstance. This used to be an unfair assessment, as her husband demonstrated by winning with 43% of the vote in 1992, and George W. Bush did with 48% in 2000. In recent months, however, this presumed inelectability has come to pass, as attitudes towards Clinton have hardened and deteriorated to the point that 60% of Americans find her dishonest and untrustworthy. This number should matter to superdelegates at least as much as pledged delegate counts: you cannot under any circumstance win the presidency when 60% of voters don't trust you. In fact, as Clinton is demonstrating, you cannot win the Democratic primary when 4 in 10 Democrats don't trust you. And, as a Democrat, you cannot win either contest when the Democratic party's most important core constituency, African-Americans, feels under assault by your campaign.
The new consensus is that an artificially prolonged campaign is good for the Democratic party and good for Obama (in that order). This is absurd, as, week by week, supporters of Clinton become less likely to vote for Obama in the general election, riled up by her campaign's storm of destructive marketing. That the Republican party would resort to the same tactics in the general election is a given, but that would have been more likely to unite core Democrats against John McCain than to turn them against one another. This will be Obama's challenge, one that he is remarkably well-equipped to meet, but one that is growing steeper daily, mostly because of Clinton's scorched-earth strategy.
In the meanwhile, the unbearable weakness of uncommitted Democratic superdelegates, who have the ability to end this unnecessary bloodbath, will come back to haunt them and they will pay the price for divisions that will not disappear in a matter of months, no matter what the party's scared but still condescending leaders say. It has never bothered them previously to end a primary contest before "every voter has had their say;" in fact most of them do their very best to avoid any kind of primary uncertainty, usually in the name of party unity and to avoid depleting funds. Nor did Hillary or Bill Clinton find it necessary to face primary candidates in his 1996 reelection campaign and in both her Senate runs. So why start now? Probably for the same reason that the popular vote mattered last year, then didn't matter, then perhaps matters again; that delegate counts mattered in January but not in April; that caucuses mattered in August but not in January; that black voters mattered until they didn't; that young people never mattered; that most states in the Midwest don't matter, except for Ohio; and that, most recently, MoveOn doesn't matter (actually MoveOn is the enemy). Because the Clintons say so.
Of course, ultimately, what matters to the Clintons is the Clintons. This is not unnatural, but it is also the reason why they have become so intensely out of touch. Of course, amassing a $100 million fortune while ostensibly in public service is not the best way to keep your pulse on everyday people's problems, but even by the standards of a wealthy, insulated political class, the Clintons are having a terrible time getting it right. She can throw back a shot of Crown Royal, he can talk about what a "hoot" Obama is, but over the past three or four months they have shown how out of touch they are with the mood of much of the country. In the process they, especially Bill, have succeeded in throwing away a shockingly large amount of goodwill in a shockingly short period of time, leaving them with a smaller and smaller group of followers, to whom they try to appeal with increasingly strident, dissonant, coded messages of exclusion, fear and hatred. This, ultimately, simply accelerates the process of disaffection and means that we will be spared a Clinton dynasty. Hopefully, it won't mean we will be denied a Democratic presidency.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Not for anything but -- Bill Clinton didn't call Obama a "hoot". He called an Obama campaign ad a "hoot", according to your own source. Two very different things.
Thanks for this thoughtful essay. It amazes me how full of hate Hillary supporters are for Obama when we're from the same party for god sakes. I see it as a reflection on Clinton and the tone she's chosen to set.
I am reminded of something about pots and kettles.
Yeah... I don't see Obama's people leaving because of the tone of his campaign. I see people leaving Clintons left and right. Including her #1 fund raiser. Plus the withdrawal of her NYT endorsement after Penn.
Negativity came from Clinton. I don't see the same thing happening to Obama's people.
Great reply. (I'm reminded of when I didn't know how to read so I just made up stuff to match the story in my head.)
Check the ABC News story on Congressional Pork: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=4572406&page=2
"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., received 53 earmarks for his state, worth $97.4 million... Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has never asked for an earmark.""
Obama asked for a earmark for his wife's employer, and her salary more than doubled.
Let's all chant together "Yes we can, yes we can. WE WANT MORE EARMARKS, MORE PORK, MORE CORRUPTION"
And then chant "Change we can believe in. WE WANT MORE PORK, MORE IGNORANCE, MORE CORRUPTION".
Um... jaynevada, as this is about the 6th time you've posted this link in exactly the same wording, I believe you might be in violation of the HP "thread spamming" policy.
Just to make sure, I've flagged it as abusive and encourage others to look at your profile to see if they agree.
53 submissions for funding for federal money for projects in his home state, including a request for a million dollars for a hospital where his wife had worked. Despicable isn't it?
Certainly St McCain hasn't committed a single sin since his Keating Five days, or has he? How come no one has ever interviewed Vicky Iseman?
How much is this phony war costing us? Where is the oversight?
Does HRC engage in porking?.....
Not with Bill, she doesn't.
Hillary Clinton--rather the Clintons--have betrayed the Democratic Party in order to pursue their narcissistic ambitions. The Clintons care only about maintaining political power. Political power seems to be the tie that holds their marriage together, like a family business. Obama would make a wonderful president, perfect for the 21st century; he looks toward the future while the Clintons hold onto the past. Yes, the Republicans will attack him when he is the nominee--that is expected. But for a Democrat to play dirty politics against a fellow Democrat as Hillary and Bill Clinton have done is really a betrayal of the Democratic Party, to divide Democrats as Hillary and Bill have done is a betrayal. They clearly want to destroy Obama whether or not he is the nominee--in order to hold on to power. Sadly, the Clintons prey on the fears and prejudices of older voters and on the aspirations of women voters--in order to achieve their goal. I don't know why the Democratic Party--and the media--don't stand up to the Clintons--Hillary is nothing more than a 60 year old woman from Park Ridge, she isn't God. Why have the media caved in to the Clintons? What's happening to our democracy? The Clintons had their tenure. We have term limits in order to limit power and its corrosive effects. The Clintons are not invincible--they are just an American 21st century version of the MacBeths.
I asked myself the same question: what power did the Clintons have over the party and the media that they are blatantly lie through their teeth, spin the number to benefit them and the media just repeat it without checking at all. Suddently they are "revived" but they are still losing and it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to win a third term so why superdelegates are still not coming out to endorsed Obama, the winner, to speed up the counts? Everyone should see very clearly that the Clintons will cling to this race to destroy Obama to run again in 2012 but by doing so they not only destroy the party, they destroy their chance too. They are so delusional not to see it because they are now just like the attack dog that can't release the cocain bag but where are all the superdelegates?
Great post. Hillary Clinton started out the campaign season with a a 47% unfavorable rating (and that was despite overwhelming approval among African Americans). Instead of running the kind of campaign that would improve those numbers, she has sunk even further. To consider this woman electable is laughable. Haven't we had enough of wishful thinking and denial of reality over the past 8 years (for example, there are still some in the Bush administration who haven't given up the ghost on finding WMD in Iraq). If the Democrats want to win in November, they would be best served by coalescing around the candidate who still has a chance to bring home a victory and that is Barack Obama.
Please stop trashing our next presidential nominee. As folks have stated here when supporting Obama, "You are writing the GOP's commercials for them." It's time to unite, not broaden the gulf.
IMHO, Obama won early on as there was not much known about him. Stuff is coming out now, and middle America doesn't like what it's hearing. He is being vetted right before our eyes, and that is a painful thing to watch. He can always run again in 2016, when his current troubles will be long gone, and the nation will give him a shot at the thrown.
We don't have a thrown in this country,and we don't have a throne, either. So I don't know what you're talking about. This is a free country and we can say what we want.
What have we learned of Barack Obama? That he has a fiery passionate minister who provokes his congregation to question the conventions? How many people do you know who you agree with completely on everything?
Frankly if I had a minister like Wright I might find church worth going to even if I disagreed with him on everything. At least I wouldn't fall asleep.
Obama isn't being vetted, he's being smeared. Flag pins? Oh come on.
If you follow this logic, then you believe that america is sooo racist, that they'll elect McCain who'll make things even worst than they are just because they don't like Obama's former pastor? Because he does'nt wear a flag pin? (which if you look at flag etiquette, he's actually correct not to do so) Or because he was on a fun rasing comitee with someone who was a radical when he was 7yrs old? The people that ARE THAT STUPID as to vote on those issues deserve to have a country and gov't in shambles.
Not all of America is racist, but the Reagan Democrats can easily be swayed by McCain. These are the folks that voted Bush into office in 2004. And if you call them racist or bitter, it will backfire on our party. We did learn something from the 2004 debacle, didn't we?
Actually, the voted for Bush in 2000 also. It can be argued that Gore and Kerry won both elections without them. After 2 elections of voting republicans, I wouldn't count on them regardless. We should just call them what they are...Dixiecrats. (we all know what they represent) Democrats have to learn to win without them regardless. Obama will bring in a new set of young democrats. Plus, he'll increase the # of African American Voters. (I've heard stories of gang-bangers voting in primaries!!!!) the new voters will replace the aging Dixiecrats.
"Current Troubles"? Come on, most of these are media hyped nonsense. Hillary is the one with troubles, Bill has lost the African American vote for her and without that she will never win the general. Also, the majority of voters know that the Clintons have their own definition of truth and we are tired of it. She has so many negatives I can't even count them, such as; she wants to bomb Iran or anyone else she doesn't like, she voted for the Iraq War, she can't admit a mistake,. etc, etc. The nomination was never OWED to her as she has implied and there is no reason for Obama to "wait" his turn.
With what you write, it appears you do not have the Democratic party in mind. You just want to see your guy win.
Stop insulting the next Democratic nominee and writing the ads for the GOP.
I think Hillary Clinton's coalition of white working class and Latino voters represents a better path for the Democratic party's future than Barack Obama's coalition of social liberals and black voters, which resembles nothing more than George McGovern's failed coalition of 1972. Yes, there are far more college-educated liberals now than there were a generation ago. But the McGovern coalition included ALL minorities, as though minority status were defining and rigid. To the extent Latino voters can be pried loose from neo-McGovernism, the whole enterprise collapses.
But can McCain pry Latino voters loose, particularly in light of the tarnished state of the Republican brand? McCain's balanced and measured plan to tackle the mortgage crisis, his call for doubling the tax exemption for dependents, and his proposal for delivering more affordable health care all represent a promising start.
It seems a tall order, but if McCain is elected, Republicans will owe a debt to the path blazed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in Pennsylvania. What a gal!
Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com
If Hillary Clinton were to be the Democratic nominee, John McCain will win in November. Women who are 51 percent of the electorate including Republican women--and they loathe Hillary. How can she defeat McCain when--in spite of her name recognition, in spite of being the "inevitable" nominee entering the primaries, in spite of having $150 million at the beginning of January (and being out of money by Super Tuesday), in spite of having a popular ex-President husband (whose approval rating is now -3), in spite of having politicians with politicals machines behind them in Deomcratic "big states" like Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania--in spite of all these advantages in her favor, she has not been able to win in her own Party and still has less pledged delegates (delegates voted on by the people). Hillary cannot win even among Democrats. Her negatives have been consistently high. The majority of Americans of both parties to do trust her. It is pathetic that her best strategy is to try to drag Obama down to her level. I thought he won the Pennsylvania debate because he did not succumb to going for the bait, as she did. Rather, he maintained his dignity and acted like a statesman. Obama does indeed have class--thank heaven!
Boy, I'm really thrilled that the less education you have the more you support Hillary, those are the people I want making all the decisions. NOT
"I think Hillary Clinton's coalition of white working class and Latino voters represents a better path for the Democratic party's future than Barack Obama's coalition of social liberals and black voters..."
If her coalition of those two groups were working, she'd be winning. She isn't, therefore they aren't. Period. The rest is window dressing on a cracked window.
Hillary Clinton played to Latino prejudices towards Blacks. She has no coalition. She has no coat tails. She represents the uber wealthy who funded her and insist she stay in the race even if all she does is destroy Obama's chances of winning.
Does anyone think Haim Saban reflects the interests of average Americans? Look at who's funding Hillary's campaign. They'd rather have McCain than someone who might actually represent working Americans. Hillary can't quit she's been bought her and she'll do their bidding. She's on a kamakazi mission to take Obama out.
stop, you're thinking too much before you analyze the situation, that's how you're ending up in this crazy place called reality. haven't you been paying attention, all the smart people on the tv have told us that thinking and analysis don't go together.
Despite all the pundits asking the question: "Why can't Obama close the deal" they sould be asking why can't the original frontrunner with all the name recognition imaginable close the deal!
Seriously no one thought that Hillary would be losing at this point. But by some miracle or curses she is losing to a guy the many people didn't even know existed before the primary season began.
Hillary Clinton is the Great White "Nope!"
Wow, I read with my own eyes a poster saying that because she watched Ms. Huffington on tv, she will vote for Hillary. See, THIS kind of thinking is why the American public keeps getting total corruption out of their government. If people put as much time into researching candidates and finding out as much as they can, maybe we wouldn't be in such a state, now! Let me ask you, the poster who said that, what takes up most of your time? I work full time, raise 2 kids that are heavily involved in activities, have a husband that is gone most of the time so I do it alone, have a house and 3 large dogs to look after, yet...I research and gather all the information I can since it's MY life, yours and the lives of my children and future generations at stake here. Please, Please, Please...do NOT be so blase about who you will choose to run our country!
Let me say, if you choose Hillary, that's fine but don't choose ANY candidate because of that. Please read up on them, check out all the websites you can and THINK, friend!
Obama for Pres.
Well spoken.
It's time to start listing all the uncommitted superdelegates. A daily running tally.
I find Maureen Dowd to be both smarmy and pugnacious at once. She is her own best enemy as she denounces hypocrisy in a most hypocritical fashion. So, she is not so much humorous as she is pitifully laughable.
Posted April 26, 2008 | 06:51 PM (EST)