I want to remind everyone that everything on the internet is not always what it seems. Could some of these passionate Obama and Clinton supporters be Republican in disguise with mischief in mind? To the people looking for a reason to vote Obama, he is the genuine article, an inciteful statesman the likes of which I haven't seen since Bobby Kennedy. If your problem with him is that he has no experience i would remind you that experience is no guarantee of success in the whitehouse. Some of our most experienced presidents were the worst at getting anything accomplished. Lincoln had remarkably about the same experience as Obama (and no I'm not trying to compare Obama to Lincoln). Experience is only relevant if you've learned from it. McCain obviously hasn't learned a thing from his. Obamas policies are also so close to Clinton's that if you were comfortable with one you would approve of the other.
Obama, Clinton and Anger to Burn
In politics, as in so many other aspects of life, anger is a combustible fuel. Affirmed and titrated, it helps us move forward. Suppressed or self-indulged, it's likely to blow up in our faces.
With the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination coming to a close, there's plenty of anger in the air. And the elements are distinctly flammable. As Bob Herbert just wrote in the New York Times, "the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion."
Herbert doesn't spread the blame evenly. And, as an elected Obama delegate to the national convention, I don't either. But at this stage in the nomination process, the returns of blame aren't merely diminishing -- they're about to go over a cliff.
The anger that's churning among many Hillary Clinton supporters is deserving of respect. For a long time, she's been hit by an inexhaustible arsenal of virulent sexism, whether from Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews.
If Barack Obama were facing defeat now, his supporters might be more inclined to dwell on the thinly veiled, and sometimes unveiled, racial bigotry that caused some Americans to tell reporters that they could never vote for a black man for president.
There's no lack of injustices, defamations and outright outrages to cite. They're important to remember, assess, denounce. And: Now what?
In times of emergency, people have been known to put aside differences, at least for a while. Sometimes, feuding neighbors unravel hoses and pass buckets so the entire block doesn't go up in flames. Or alienated relatives take care of a fading loved one. People who fear strangers learn to trust in a shared humanity.
The Bill of Rights is burning. Children are dying in Baghdad and Chicago and Los Angeles and countless other cities and towns because of Republican "leadership." Negative trends of governance are scorching a social contract that had been slowly weaving the threads of human decency.
This year offers an electoral opportunity to get out the fire hoses and douse the pyromaniacs of the GOP. But the long Obama-Clinton battle has depleted precious time with little good to show for it.
A lot of negativity has aired, and some of it has combusted. Despite the real progress of the past several decades, remaining prejudices and injustices of gender and race -- and, though less talked about in news media, of sexual orientation and economic class -- are still haunting us and shadowing the future.
Furious supporters of Hillary Clinton are now talking about Michigan and Florida. Understandably, they're apt to see recent developments in the context of despicable male chauvinism and unfair caricatures in the press.
There's more than enough anger to burn.
And John McCain is eager to benefit from every bit of such anger, the more displaced the better. Right-wing corporatists quietly cheer his calls to give them even more extreme tax cuts. Outright militarists are hoping for four more years, and the odds seem to be shifting in their favor. Men on the Supreme Court named Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are waiting to welcome kindred spirits in black robes.
Unfortunately, the angry often end up burning themselves.
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
I am particularly tired of people saying that Obama supporters this or that. It's an old Rovian trick to claim that the people you don't like are in favor of the person he wants to run down. It's stupid and antievolutionary. Worse, if we want the D's to prevail over the R's and have some hope of removing the stink which has become this country's government policy in the past 7 years or 30 years or 100 years, depending on your perspective, highlighting how "some people" aren't worthy is not going to get us there. We need a big tent approach. We need to focus on what we can do together and not on what makes us different from each other. If we don't the 30%ers will win again. Wake up, please.
Oh my gosh. Stop the hating!
I am a proud Obama supporter and I DO NOT like Hillary. That being said, there are many that are proud Hillary supporters and DO NOT like Obama. We all know this. I would have voted for Hillary had she won the nomination, no matter how much I personally don't like her as a person (or at least the public persona). A lot of the hate in this campaign has come from both sides on the comment boards. Depending on who you support, you're going to view this campaign differently and neither side will agree to the other. That being said, Obama has clinched the nomination and we NEED to keep John McCain out of the White House. Both sides NEED each other and we have to put our personal feelings aside and do what's best for the COUNTRY. It's the Supreme Court! If nothing else, think of your future or current daughters and granddaughters, and how their rights will be effected if McCain is in the big house.
UNITY 08.
Fact is that no one has a truthful good thing to say about Obama. His supporters are now and always have been anti-Clinton, not pro-Obama. They really don't know what he stands for, and quite honestly they don't care. They'll continue to run against Clinton all the way until November, when they'll realize that most Americans have already moved on to John McCain. John McCain is an American hero with a long history of service and bipartisanship. None of those things are true of Obama.
Two word rebuttal: Fresh meat.
It's not about the l o o o o o n g and pandering history of John McCain, it's about the NEED for fresh leadership and a total break from our criminal inspired national misdirection. Obama has the opportunity to give us that. McCain does not.
As a Hillary supporter, the thing I am most upset about isn't her losing the primary, it is the way she was treated by Obama supporters in the media and their claims that Bill Clinton's comments regarding Jesse Jackson were "racist". When he made those statements, a CONSCIOUS choice was made to call a former POTUS and a current Senator racists when their records clearly support that they aren't. Democrats calling fellow Democrats racist is just sickening. To make such outrageous claims such as "Hillary wants Obama to be assassinated" is just the lowest of the low. It's Limbaugh-esque, and I thought the Democrats were better than that. NO ONE can recover from being called a racist, and no one can defend themselves against such claims, yet the media and Obama's supporters made a concsious decision to make those claims anyway and did so only for the purpose of inflicting pain. More amazingly, those same Obama supporters STILL can't see what they did. They still want to blame Hillary for THEIR actions. They also think her decision to stay in the race is somehow worse than what they did (I think psychologists call it Fundamental Attribution Error or actor-observer bias). Sorry, Bill Clinton IS a former President who was elected twice. Hillary is a twice elected Senator. They deserve AT THE LEAST the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this topic.
This is a sword that cuts both ways. Don't forget all the people (including lots of HRC supporters) who threw charges of racism at Obama because of Reverend Wright. Like with Clinton, a lot of this was based on jumping to conclusions. Since Obama went to Wright's church, and since Wright espouses black liberation theology, and since one of the founders of black liberation theology said racist things, then it follows that Barack Obama is a racist.
By that standard, a methodist like Hillary Clinton is a racist as well. The methodist church was at least partly segregated until 1968.
I don't think either accusations of racism (Obama or B. Clinton) is valid, although I do think that Clinton's statements were insensitive and poorly thought out.
I found this passive-aggressive style so damaging to the Democratic party that I am still incredulous! For the Obama campaign to allow the race card to be played in such a manner at the Martin Luther King holiday was beyond the pale. Our uneducated youth have no historical understanding. But to these youths and other blind Obama supporters, the Clintons are indeed racists. The final straw for me was the distortion of the RFK statement to insinuate murderous intent on the part of Hillary Clinton. Yes, there is a lack of respect for her women supporters. Yes, there is a lack of regard for Hillary's experience and yes, there is a sad condition in the Democratic party which has poured scorn and disgust on two of its greatest leaders. I am seriously questioning my continuing identification with the party while knowing there is no other alternative.
Perhaps it's time the young women of today revisit feminism. Perhaps losing rights over their bodies will wake them up after a McCain victory. At this point, I feel no loyalty to a party which considers me irrelevant.
I did see Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina as racially insensitive. My personal feelings and those of other black people I spoke with were stunned. This was Bill Clinton? THE Bill Clinton! He has done so much work with the black community and should have known better than to say what he said. Also, just because someone says something racist doesn't make them racist. There are brilliant people who make stupid statements all the time. I was willing to think it was verbal diahareha until he made it worse.
And also, no one gets the benefit of the doubt when a pattern persists. Bill could have easily shut up about the thing, making it the non-issue you think it should be, but he didn't-he came out and continued to make it worse. He should have just said, "that's nonsense. my record speaks for itself." You don't light a match unless you want fire.
I don't think Bill or Hillary Clinton are the least bit racist. However, I don't think they are above using race-baiting. Why mention Jesse Jackson, who ran for president 20 years ago? John Edwards won South Carolina in 2004, but didn't get the nomination. Wouldn't that more recent event have been a much better example?
As for the assassination comment, I don't think she wanted Obama assassinated. But she inadvertently offended a lot of people with that comment. Why not apologize for a poor choice of words? I don't see why it's a big deal for her to apologize.
Right, apparently reading the article doesn't mean you comprehend it.
Those racist comments your belittle? Just as incindiary and real to us. Hillary, along with her Bosnian rifle, get absolutely no benefit of any doubt from me (plenty of disdain though).
Apparently reading my response doesn't mean you comprehend it.
I in no way would EVER belittle racist remarks, nor do I belittle sexist remarks. I find them both equally appalling. My point was, Bill never MADE racist remarks. He made a statement that people put a racist meaning to, despite the fact that everyone KNOWS Bill Clinton is not a racist, and everyone KNOWS Hillary is not a racist...their records prove it...yet people decided to call them that word despite knowing the truth. THAT is what is wrong with what happened. It goes the same way for Geraldine Ferraro's statement that Obama is "terribly sexist." She KNOWS he isn't sexist. He may have said something out of character that could be misinterpreted to be a sexist comment, but his record shows that he is NOT a sexist. It wasn't right for her to say that about him. THAT is my point.
If healing is to begin, you have to admit that injury was inflicted on BOTH sides.
But what's going to happen, Norman, if your guy does get into the White House? I think you only need look at Axelrod's other creation, Deval Patrick. Obama is not progressive enough for me to think it's worth the risk to support him. He's weak, and he doesn't know as much as Hillary. She's the one to pull our economy out of the ditch.
I saw the Obama people parading around my state convention last weekend chanting their slogan. He won the caucuses with these people but most Americans aren't interested in the koolaid. This is what makes me depressed about this whole primary season. And I'm surprised you're on board, surprised at the way some progressives are buying his bunk.
What's going to happen is a continuation of the McBush coup if Obama does not win. Please fight for it.
Sorry you are so bitter Miss Penny.
I live in Massachusetts and did not vote for Deval Patrick. He didn't have any specific plans (still doesn't) and had no experience in elected office.
But Obama is not Patrick. He has 11 years experience in elected office (4 more than Hillary does), and does have specific ideas and proposals (which can be found on his Web site). America is going in the wrong direction, and I think we need a fresh approach to get it back on track.
Nice opinion. You're entitled to it.
When you've got some facts and issue to argue - great - Hillary hasn't bothered in months. From my podium, you and your misfits are drinking Hillary cyanide, and have absolutely no morals or sense.
Hey, just my opinion.
The issue isn't whether the sexism Hillary perceived was all there (not even close) or whether it was worse than the racism thrown against Obama (whereas reality, studies, and minorities everywhere reveal racism to be much worse, much more prevalent, and much less acknowledged; sexism seems to give Clinton a boost because people go easy on her).
The issue is that Hillary has used sexism as a shield, attempting to block legitimate accusations and drive her followers into a shared-victimhood fight to the death and cut off your nose to spite your face situation. Anger with good reason is one thing, but attacking Obama just because your first female candidate vicarious dream fulfiller loses is petty and furthers sexist perceptions.
Hillary Clinton stands head and shoulders above every other woman in American Political history.Leaves all the other First Ladies in the dust!You know there were some pretty remarkable gals in that group.Hats off to her.Shes gonna get statues built of her.Schools will be named for her.All of it well and truly deserved.There is no question that the junior senator from New York can do immense good for the coming Obama administration and the people of the United States from the floor of the senate and on the stump in the coming months.
Please?
Can we get on with it?Somethings burning.
A duet by Bill and Hillary on June 3, 20008
(Their bad taste , not mine)
"Let's Call the Whole Thing Off "
You say dumb mate, oh. Can you say D'Amato?
You say mull hate, oh. Can't I say mulatto?
Dumb mate, oh, D'Amato. Mull hate, oh, mulatto.
Let's call the whole thing off.
It's much too much to bear, oh. It's too much to borrow.
We came up for air, oh. You came up with Ferraro?
For their "O"' 's too far, oh, to narrow tomorrow
Let's call the whole thing off.
In this contest, tossed aroun', the thing they want to test her on
Her neo-con testosterone. Yes, just enough to test Tehran.
A race, I ran. Erase Iran. Oh, bitter-gate. Obliterate.
Let's call the whole thing off.
I say hate monger and you say hate mongress.
Come, see, I conquer. You're stuck in Congress.
Congenital in Senate 'll triangulate. Try strangulate.
Let's call the whole thing off.
Rev. Wright is wingin' it. Right wing is revvin'.
Rupert is bringin' it. Do right thing, it's heaven.
C'mon, a kill. Who win's key. Come Monica Lewinsky.
Another odd homonym attack. Let's take the "off" thing back
If double talk "is is" innate, why can't I say "ass ass" in hate?
And is high office his in '8? Can't I, like him,, fas-as-cinate?
When you do duplicity, you're due you-tube-tublicity
Let's call the "offing off" off
Let's call the whole thing offed.
Yup...McCain's pandering speech this evening trying to win over Clinton's "angry" supporters was pathetic. Hopefully they'll realize that a vote for McCain is a vote against women, a vote against America, and a slap in Hillary's face and to everything she's been fighting for.
XME, what Hillary has been fighting for is POWER. She doesn't mind if McCain wins the GE because that would give her an opening to say "I told you so". What's feeding her selfish craze is 'If she can't be the nominee then Obama should not win'. She will continue to feed the divisiveness she has initiated with her supporters.
Yikes!! A post meant to bring awareness to people about the destructive power of anger and infighting has instead been responded to by several angry comments and blaming. I agree with Mr. Solomon, and I do hope that people are courageous enough to rise above anger (which is not courageous at all) and work together to put the fire out that is not just consuming the whole block, but arguably the whole country and beyond!
Far as I know, the choice for each candidate is theirs as to what type of campaign they run.
Racism is defined as "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". It is also common to say that those in power, set the rules and make the definitions. In a post-mortem world, I find it fascinating that no one is really looking into the racism that has occured through this entire nomination process. 1. it is okay for women to vote Hillary because she is a woman, but it is racist to vote Barack because he is black. 2. It shows strength when Hillary refers to the struggle of women as a crutch, but if Barack mentions it, he is playing the "race card". 3. Conservative pastors practically lead that wing of the Republican party on issues like abortion and sex education, but if a democratic pastor discusses the injustices against blacks, he is racist.
It is obvious that there are different sets of rules, and apparently that is okay. That in itself is racist.
Because anytime we mention our condition, our history or existence They call it reverse racism-Nasir Jones
The thing that really struck me the last 6 months is that people don't really understand the ridiculousness of the "misogynistic" argument that Clinton supporters have been throwing around. I will concede that maybe some people didn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman if you will concede that some people didn't vote for Obama because he is a black man. It goes both ways, it's not a one way street.
Also after the Wright controversy I've come to fully comprehend that white America doesn't like to see an angry black man/ Complaining about your cultures place in society and the struggles of your race is ok as long as it is not recorded. If you're going to act "uppity" don't do it in front of the camera and don't repeat what a white man said on Fox because, even though you served your country, your going to be labeled as an America hater. Don't repeat conspiracy theories that are well known in the neighborhood because thats anti government talk and if you're anti government you're anti america. The ridiculousness of the whole situation embarrasses me as an American.
If women who are angry about missing out on a woman President decide to vote for McCain or not vote at all, then they will and should be blamed for making this country and even bigger mess than it already is.
Well, if the comments are any indicator, it looks like everybody is willing to move ond and unite to beat McCain in the Fall as soon as the Clinton supporters apologize for fucking everything up so far.
Very poor post for party unity. Everyone doesn't think like you.
I'll never apologize for my vote (it's called conviction: some people have it, some skip controversial Senate votes about the Iranian Guard and then announce how they "would have" voted) for Hillary Clinton, I'll never apologize for supporting her, and I'll never back down from these positions. I can accept reality, however, and Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, but that doesn't mean I "owe" him a vote in November.
That being said, I continue to extend the opportunity for Obama followers to begin expanding on the benefits of their candidate instead of obsessing over the faults of his opponent. Too many people who claim to be "for" Obama really only come across as "against" Clinton. It's not appealing, it's not decent (especially since Obama seems the kind of candidate who would condemn that kind of behavior if he knew it were going on), and it doesn't serve to convince me why Barack Obama deserves my vote.
Posted June 3, 2008 | 01:28 PM (EST)