I'm still here (everyone who has sent either anxious or gloating emails can stop now) and I have a stack of things to write on over the next few days.
The big buzz of course is when will Hillary "quit" (How about never? Is never good for you?) and "accept" that she is done with and silently retire to live a life of penance and contemplation. Chuckle. Nice try, guys. She has the upper hand. She doesn't owe anyone in the DNC, the media, the blogosphere or the Obama campaign anything. Her supporters are totally behind her and furious at her treatment. There is nothing anyone can offer her that she wants more than what I quoted last night, and that includes the VP slot. Her good favor is required for Obama to win the general, but it is a time-limited deal. With every day that passes, every insult offered, a portion of her backers turn away from Obama and even this magnificent, compelling woman will not be able to woo us back. I'm gone but you might still be able to win over the spousal unit if you act quickly...
Does Hillary want the VP slot? I can think of reasons she would and reasons she wouldn't, but only she knows how the reasons balance out and that's half the fun. She wants the power and authority to make things happen on behalf of people: "You see, I have an old-fashioned notion, one that's been the basis of my candidacy and my life's work, that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their own dreams." So, I guess it comes down to what she sees as the best way to ensure she will be able continue her life's work.
But Obama, he's in a bind, and not one that most people have been talking about. Go around the blogs and you'll see all the different reasons he can't offer her anything. She's a monster. (A shockingly high number of his supporters would defect for this reason.) She'd be a drag on the ticket. (Yup, the terrible drag of the popular vote winner.) She'd represent the "old" politics. (You mean like the peace and prosperity of the 90s? Oh, the horror! The horror!) She'd overshadow him. (I think this is fairly significant.) She'd bring Bill back to the White House. (Oh, pleasepleasepleaseplease...) He's too arrogant to offer the job. (A good bet.) She would get locked away from power and not be able to do things. (This is a significant reason for HRC supporters.) She would be blamed for all his mistakes. (Ditto.) She would do the heavy lifting in the administration and not get credit. (Ditto.) She must not reward the bad behavior of the media and the DNC. (That's my stance.)
These reasons have been out there in the blogosphere in one variation or another for months. Here is another one.
Obama owes almost the entirety of his good press to the fact that the MSM hates the Clintons, Hillary even more than Bill, and he has deliberately and aggressively courted that same press with the story that he is the anti-Clinton candidate. Given that his public record is thin, he hasn't had a lot else to run on.
What happens to his media darling status if he allies himself with the object of their irrational fury?
It is a rock-meet-hard-place situation. To maintain the good regard of the media, he will have to persist in demonizing HRC because that is his role. He is the Clinton killer. He can't put her on the ticket beacuse he needs to run against her. This will result in maximum defections from her supporters (whether to abstain or to vote for McCain) and he will lose. If he does the politically intelligent thing and puts her on the ticket, then a significant portion of his supporters will bail and the media will turn on him for fraternizing with the enemy. The MSM will turn their fire upon him as well and his media darling days are over.
Caught in a trap of his own making.
Anglachel
41 comments:
She must not reward the bad behavior of the media and the DNC. (That's my stance.)
My stance exactly. I just cannot reward the media, the DNC, or Obama.
Perhaps my vote will not mean a thing, but it is all I got.
As my Mom always said, "you reap what you sow".
I would prefer she suspends her candidacy for the time being and take a little vacation. Grab a good book, take walks on the beach, sleep in, get rested and watch the implosion begin.
Because now the spotlight is wholly his. There is no more boogeyman out there standing in his way. He will have to suffer the spotlight. The media needs the good guy/bad guy narrative to maintain the story. How long can they hold out on criticism of Obama while the obviousness of his inexperience comes to light.
Since I have taken a sabbatical from the cable news and blogs that are pro Obama and reeking of hate for Hillary, it will be pleasant to be able to turn on the tv and watch the car wreck proceed on its own.
It is a long time between now and August. He and his supporters will have plenty of room to show their true colors. The supers have every right to change their minds when the polls start showing a steady slip and Hillary will be there.
Wishful thinking? Maybe so but don't plan on seeing much of the "unity" thing working out. Not many of us are going to roll over and play nice. Not this time.
Say no, Hillary.
NO NO NO NO NO.
She doesn't want it anyway.
If he even asks. Wesley Clark is my top choice.
I think it's best if she just goes back to being a Senator.
Chickens? Meet roost?
"She must not reward the bad behavior of the media and the DNC. "
Damn. Once again I have to consult the pages of my parenting books to deal with the adults in my life.
But so it goes. Logical consequences it is. Or next time the tantrum will be longer and harder.
I'm utterly opposed to Obama as POTUS. His record reeks of corruption, arrogance and sexism. The only reason his campaign was successful hinged on race. His. As you pointed out, along with others, he ran a Republican style voter-suppression style campaign that allowed him to pile up delegates in caucus states. His race provided the needed distraction and armor from criticism for this.
States he'll need a miracle to win in the Fall.
But It's not his 'success' which bothers me. It's the timing and funding of his campaign which I view with great suspicion.
I and my fellow blogmates and progressives always want to ask:
Cui Bono.
Who benefits.
What do we see when we look at the Dem Party.
A party divided. A party that will have to struggle to win in the Fall when with a good platform, entirely lacking at the moment, and a good candidate, just a good one, they should have had a shot at a 'wave' election.
Not now.
The addition of one element, a so called 'progressive' black candidate....check his Progressive Punch numbers...he's less progressive on his voting record than Diane Feinstein, has split the party. You have to admire the Republicans as they almost didn't have to do anything. Just point some money at him. Obama is perfect. A guy who had to run on smoke and mirrors as he has no record of achievement, that he can talk about anyway, and most importantly he's black which disguises what his politics really are.
Republican.
Like Colin Powell.
Like Condoleeza Rice.
Prior to his run many considered one of the greatest threats to the Republican Party and their backers to be the blogosphere.
No more.
By playing the race card to divide the online community and spending a lot of money Obama has destroyed at the minimum:
dKos
Talking Points Memo
OpenLeft
The Huffington Post
and they are trying to choke off FireDogLake and MyDD. Only Jerome and Jane's savvy is keeping those sites functional, open to all, under the unrelenting attacks of Obamacans with there sexist cant and total ignorance of democratic principles.
The fight for the heart of the Democratic Party is just beginning for now the nature of the evil which now slithers forth from the Trojan Horse Obama will become clear.
I do hope that Hillary does not release her delegates.
Until the the Convention votes out in the open for Obama he can still fail in his and his Republican backers scheme to steal one more election from us.
But no matter what this corrupt, lying shill for the' ReichWing does he and his 'conservative' backers will fail. Sites such as this and The Confluence are springing up and the most important voice has yet to be heard from.
The American citizenry.
And I do not believe that Obama can fool them. Especially when, as is inevitable, the corporatist press turns on him in favor of the now presumptive winner of the GE.
McSame.
Which is the point of Obama's candidacy whether he or his followers know it or not.
Glad to see this post (I'm becoming positively addicted to your blog...suffer withdrawal symptoms when it is too long between your posts). You are spot on: Obama's candidacy and his supporters' focus are one and the same: anti-Clinton. This dovetailed nicely with the media's hand-wringing over Clinton having a lock on the nomination before primaries even began...no story...no eyeballs...no money there...Damn! So, if he pivots to Clinton as VP, the media will suffer collective whiplash trying to talk themselves around Obama's change in strategy (in mere mortal candidates this used to be called "flip-flop" or, worse still, "pandering"). I wrote to her website last nite to 1)thank her 2)suspend her campaign not concede and 3)do not accept VP if offered.
As my daddy used to say, "when the chickens come home to roost, they bring their strange new friends from the city with 'em."
I'm starting to wonder if the objection many bloggers had to Democratic acquiesence is that we weren't the ones looting the public purse and controlling the discourse. I wonder how many bloggers were jealous of Republicans and not offended as they led us to believe?
It seems to me that the battle between Clinton and Obama comes down to the difference between people who are interested in serving the public good and people who are interested in access and celebrity. Clinton, with her history of public service starting with her internship, and her legal aid clinic on through her creation of medical clinics, and homeschooling programs, and all of that is clearly interested in the public good. obama has no such resume of action on behalf of others until his run for the US becomes an issue. He sponsors laws, apparently, to get himself elected.
We could do a reality show - American Loser.
A. Citizen,
Nah, no need to posit any kind of conspiracy or stealth candidacy.
The blogosphere was destroying itself before he arrived on the scene. Obama just made very good use of its rotting carcass. That's the subject of another post I have in the works.
I have looked at Obama and cannot find a single identifiable political principle, left or right. He mostly seems enamored of the cult of himself and he likes being the winner.
Conspiracies are difficult because the bigger they are, the harder they are to keep under wraps. The rightwing assault on the nation has not been secret - it just didn't get taken seriously until Reagan. I don't need to posit conspiracies when I see simple and direct motivations like money and political office.
We have Obama instead of Hillary because of the weak and go along to get along leadership of the party. That the Republicans are helping the Dems push forward yet another weak and ineffectual presidential candidate should be viewed for what it is - rational self-interest.
Anglachel
Comment at Tom Watson's.
Anothr asterisk will be the media bias. IMHO.
I think when the history is written, after the historians, the social scientists, the political scientists, the Jungians... (because there has been seriously archetypal vibes here. YIKES.) and all the other scholars who want to weigh in have their say I think there will be a real condemnation of the media. Maybe the "progressive blogger boyz club... if you know what I mean... will never admit it but it has been so stomach turning.
That isn't to say that the Clinton campaign didn't make mistakes. Who doesn't. But it is to say no matter what she or her campaign did was chewed up, masticated, spit out, taken back, swallowed, regurgitated and the process started over.
I've never seen anything like this.
Ever.
Just my opinion.
What we witnessed was utterly shocking. There will be theses written about misogyny and politics.
Media manipulation had EVERYTHING to do with why Obama is where he is.
I saw through him right away as a ringer for the GOP to divide the Democratic Party. The media have become nothing more than cheerleaders for the right wing in this country. Never, ever forget the media are not in the tank for Obama--they are in the tank for John McCain. McCain could not have been elected if Democrats fielded a good candidate.
This isn't conspiracy thinking; ANYBODY with a half a brain can see the manipulation, the propaganda going on.
Anglachelg-
I used to think I was smart (for decades I was under that illusion). Then I started reading your blog....
Anyway (wipes away tear), I posted at Correntewire this really fabulous phrase from standingup in the comments at Talkleft in regards to "what she should do":
“Clinton can do no right but must do right.”
Pierced with a diamond of clarity.
God bless Hillary and keep her safe till she gets her fair shake. No one can keep a good woman down for long.
Well, onto the election... I already voted in my head and it's not for Obama. My absentee ballot cannot arrive soon enough.
What this election really brought home to me is the extent to which misogyny is a guiding principle in this society and in our political culture.
I'm in a cynical mood (which is sort of my default). As I commented to a friend earlier, what's the point of giving into the Corporate State, co-opting yourself and your beliefs, if you can't even be an equal in corruption?
I have looked at Obama and cannot find a single identifiable political principle, left or right. He mostly seems enamored of the cult of himself and he likes being the winner.
I agree with your assessment of Obama. He appears to be mostly a political "lurker," hesitant to take a stand or fight for any important issue.
But I thought A. Citizen made a good point about the media. It will be interesting to see if the MSM will gradually turn on him, if Hillary is no longer around to bash. I've always felt that corporate America and the MSM have feared a Hillary Clinton presidency more than anything, and that their true love is the "maverick" war hero, John McCain.
Anglachel, you are damned smart and spot on.
Let us not lose all hope. Sometimes there is a strange perfectness to things. What seems bad turns to greater good. The moment in which the hero(ine) seems finished, s(he) finds greater power.
So I am amazed at those in the press and on the blogs who seem so certain about the unalterable finality of the events of the last few days. Such brazenly dull understanding of the interchange between time, events, and the unfolding of human drama. Take heart that the unanticipated happens every day and that unexpected consequences can unfold from a thousand unconnected pre-cursors. Stay awake. Watch it happen.
Hillary is not finished because WE are not finished. Hillary remains strong and WE remain strong. We are hers and she is ours. Like Hillary, we now owe nothing to the Democratic Party, the liberal blogs, the press, or the presumptive nominee. We are free, at last.
It isn't just the media that hates HRC, it has been plain for a while that Nancy Pelosi does likewise. CDS is a significant factor within the Democratic party, it isn't just a media/blogosphere phenomenon.
Bill Clinton did what he had to do to deal with a Republican Congress. It's called "politics," that is how stuff works.
Congress went Republican as the consequence of trends put in place by legislation signed by LBJ. Nothing BC did was a significant factor.
As for AUMF, that has already been talked to death here, nothing to waste more time on. Iraq is GWB's adventure.
Dave,
You are right that we will not engage you point by point. The candidate that you chose comes nowhere near meeting the litmus tests that you champion in your post. Moreover, he is less likely to win in the wall, which betrays your argument that beating McCain is the most important thing.
Hillary was the true progressive based both on her policies and record. Most importantly, like her husband, she built a coalition that could realistically deliver those progressive policies to the working classes that came to adore her.
That's why she never could be president this year. She challenged the entrenched power brokers of a corrupt and dying party.
The coming loss in November - foreshadowed by the string of losses starting with McGovern - rests squarely on the faux progressive wing of the democratic party. Those whose commitment to the working classes runs as deep as the dyes on their sloganeering t-shirts.
[Though I should not engage further . . . I can't resist. Denying that your candidate engaged in either sexist or racist tactic defies reality. Unlike you I will not infantalize him by ignoring his need to take responsibility for his own comments and campaign's actions.)
As for McCain, he genuinely would like Clinton Democrats to vote for him, and will at least act as though he respects them.
Flattery is nice, at least compared to the open contempt Obama and his Kewl Kidz show for us "low-information" people. (e.g, Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, Donna Brazile etc.)
I'm pretty sure misogyny and 15-year-old anti-Clinton smears won't work too well against John McCain.
A lot of us are gone, some have been gone months ago; no Obama for us.
There is no doubt that the NSM and the Boyz were an important providers of Obama support. The Blogosphere is not a perfect reflection of society. Untold numbers of middle class individuals get all their perspectives and bits of information from the MSM. For them, Obama is great and Hillary is a monster. The belief that Hillary is a monster is genuine on the part of these people. After all, Chris and Keith say so.
The MSM may also be the fatal blow to Obama's November chances. By making Hillary supporters turn into anything but Obama and the blue collar workers not even relating to the MSM, Obama may be toast.
I believ that misogyny is a wrong description of the treatment of Hillary; I prefer to use the term racism. Mainly, because both Blacks and Jews in Europe were described as monsters, using dirty tricks, blamed with various blood libles, etc.
Racism does heal; you have to wait for the generation to die. It's an old biblical paradigm: waiting for the death of the desert generation. Obama and his goons will continue to hate Hillary racially. We shouldn't hate Obama, just be appalled by him.
And finally, something the post didn't mention. I have the strong impression that the Obama campaign is in denial; they don't think they need Hillary's support (just the appearance of it). They believe they have the vote without ours. Fine with me.
Obama has no campaign strategy. He only had a primary strategy--be the anti-Clinton choice. Unfortunately for him and his D.C. backers (Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy), they didn't realize that the hatred for Hillary in Washington is not shared by the rest of the country (outside of the Obama blogs). When voters said they wanted change, they meant change from George Bush, not change from traditional Democratic values.
Anglachel, I don't like to admit it to myself, but I fear you may be correct. Obama has foolishly self-destructed by neutralizing, in his short-sighted tunnel vision, what should have been his most powerful weapon in the GE: Hillary as running mate.
He indeed created this trap for himself. But why do you think it's too late to extricate himself?
We must acknowledge he has extraordinary power now over the pundits and media. It's excessive, undemocratic power, but power nonetheless that could now be exploited to our advantage. Power that he could in fact wield to lead the media and pundits back to Hillary and undo the harm he has done her and this country.
I absolutely understand the thinking of many that dropping out for now and possibly allowing a McCain victory and the damage this will certainly bring us, will be less destructive for America in the long run than allowing Obama to permanently reshape the Democratic Party.
But I see Hillary as VP not as rewarding bad behavior, but correcting bad behavior. Don't you think she has enough influence that as VP she could minimize Obama's reshaping of the party?
Obama can still, and should, do everything in his power to re-arm and reload the most powerful weapon against John McCain known to exist on the planet: Hillary Rodham Clinton. I believe it is his moral and patriotic duty.
Anglachel: I know you've written a lot about the political dislike for the Clintons...but there is a part of that dislike that I simply don't understand...it comes from (seemingly) younger voters and it is downright hate-filled.
I mean, where in the world did the word "monster" come from (I know who said it...I'm talking about believing it)? I hear the hate and I look at HRC and feel that I am seeing someone these people could not ever be talking about. How could my ears, eyes, heart be so different from them? What am I missing?
I don't hate Obama (although I will never vote fore him) - I am simply angry that at this time in our history, when we really need someone overly well-qualified, this empty suit let his ego take over.
But hate? No. Where does this dripping, horrible, nasty hate come from? It's actually frightening.
donnadarko: I agree that Wes Clark would make a great VP BUT I am praying that he turns this turkey down if asked.
I'd love to see some of HRC's "big time" supporters actually keep supporting her...like so many of us will.
I feel the same as Shainzona. It's not the policy consequences of the election of either Obama or McCain that frighten me so much. We've lived through some pretty bad stuff already. It's the consequences for the social fabric that flow from the "opinion leaders" mobbing a fellow human being and whipping up gleeful unreasoning hatred and selling that as both entertainment and some kind of moral high ground.
I have a creeping sense of evil.
I, for one, am ashamed of some of the language I have been amused at when it was turned against my political opponents on the right. That change in myself is the only good I can see right now coming out of this campaign.
Shainzona: fwiw, I think it's a mix of different hatreds... a hate cocktail. The foundation of that cocktail is misogyny -- and that's on the rise now. But it's been turned into a super-potent brew by a strain in the evolution of the Democratic Party over the past few decades. I've written about this at greater length on my own blog (http://falstaff-falstaff.blogspot.com/2008/05/monster-mash.html). Here's an excerpt:
The Democratic Party is not yet fit to govern, because it doesn’t yet want to govern. It used to. Under FDR and Truman, it wanted to, a lot. It still wanted to under Kennedy and Johnson. But since Vietnam – and perhaps Vietnam was only the pretext – the Dems have self-defined as people who think power is ipso facto wrong. They are, by and large, at least skeptical of -- and usually actively opposed to -- anybody who wields it. They self-experience as those who critique, who analyze, who speak up against. They can be Congresspeople and Senators – because there’s no real accountability there. But they can’t be Presidents, because Presidents have to act, and live with the consequences.
Thing is, Bill and Hillary do act. They do want power. They are imperfect – but their sins are generally sins of commission rather than omission. And they are anomalies in the modern Democratic Party for precisely this reason -- and the Party knows it. Half the Party is in awe of that… can’t exactly imagine how they pull it off, but love that they do so. And the other half of the Party is appalled… can’t figure out why these freaks call themselves Democrats, and feel personally sullied by the association.
Wow...I am lost this morning! I have gone to all of the sites I have gravitated to these past 7 months and learning that I probably won't be going/wlcome back. TalkLeft says we're welcome as long as we don't beat up on the "Dem. Nominee" (I think BTD believes that we'll all eventualy come to the light.) Taylor Marsh is (I think) angling for a more mainstream audience so she's moving to all-BO-all-the-time.
This is my only refuge! And I know this site is for reading and thinking, not for ranting.
Lots of change (no pun intended!) in my life. Except, of course, my determination never to vote for Obama!
Sigh.
You can always go to The Confluence.
Anglachel,
Your blog truly is a refuge of peace and sanity. Your long posts are for thinking over and taking in. They don't incite argument, but thoughtful analysis. you must be some sort of professor or something.
Thank you.
What great reading! Superb! I just want to add an additional ingredient to the stew. Obama has campaigned as if the general election is in the bag. That he can do or say anything and there are no consequences. That the Hillary supporters don't matter or aren't needed. I saw this same phenomenom with Bush before the 2004 election. I always said back then that the fix was in because he governed in ways that were inexplicable. He paid no mind to the usual rules of politics. He ignored the third rail, Social Security and others. As it turned out, I think the election was fixed, in Ohio and other places. Obama campaigns as if the fix is in too. I still think Obama is the "chosen one" by the powers that be. He is bought and sold to whomever it is that does that. Wall Street? etc. I am not so sure he will lose in the general election. That scares me the most.
Alice, he will lose. Remember Kerry couldnt win and he was enormously popular with democrats. Obama's negatives keep going up.
A commenter at the confluence is calling this the Summer of Revelations for Obama. Let's wait and see what the polls say next week, when the full media and RNC assualt is on BO and his shady connections. Hillary is making a strategic move here, I'm sure of it.
Like-minded readers who are feeling like Shainzona and hemmed in to a place where they can't even turn on the tv or look at a newspaper anymore, you might want to join the Pumas at our new blog and PAC: http://blog.pumapac.org
We are organizing to make our disgust with and rejection of the DNC and their "Chosen One" clear.
Chris Floyd has a brilliant article this morning that cuts through all the cable news "historic moment" hype to point out that NOTHING will change with Obama:
Read the article here
(It seems Floyd's website is temporarily down, but it's a must-read when available.) Chris Floyd smartly points out that when Colin Powell and Condi Rice were appointed to their lofty positions (the highest diplomatic positions in which they acted as THE face of the United States, no less), their race didn't matter a whit--they still carried out the horrific policies of the Bush Administration without batting an eye. And when you take a hard look at Obama's thin and wholly mediocre legislative record, which reveals his complete disinclination to challenge The Powers That Be, Floyd asserts that Obama's presidency will be anything but transformative.
I have no confidence that Obama's presidency will be anywhere near as effective (good or bad) in promoting progressive policies as the Bush administration was in pushing their ideological agenda--in fact, given Obama's tendency to veer right, we'll be lucky if the progressive movement is still treading water by the end. And that's the last thing we need.
Zee Troops, they are getting nervous, no?
hee-hee.
I agree with Murphy. I think Clinton is making a strategic move here. Putting her campaign in cold storage (by not releasing her delegates, hopefully), she is taking herself out of the picture for now so the much avoided vetting of Obama can begin. Let us see where it will take us. But come August, if we see that he is in worse shape than now, we the 18 million should raise our collective voice one more time to put the stronger candidate on the November ballot. I am willing to bet, a lot more millions will join us in that effort then.
“Clinton can do no right but must do right.
Man, doesn't that just say it all!
I have little to add here other than to say this post was (as usual) spot on. After saturday what will the Blogger boyz have left to vent their spleen about? McCain? Hardly. I believe that all the wind in Team Obama's sails is about to expire. Without Hillary to hate on, they simply have no energy to focus their attacks on.
I say again, McCain? Do you honestly think they'll be able to whip themselves into spittle-flecked righteous indignation over him? No. Instead they'll spread their noxious bile upon DEMOCRATS that refuse to get with the program.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
I must respectfully disagree, johnnybuck, since both Clinton and Obama have done a very good job of focusing on McCain over the last few weeks. I don't deny that "Hillary Hate" (particularly misogyny against her) has played a large role in the campaign, but I don't think most of this has been coming from the top of the Obama campaign, and I don't think it's all Obama has going. I have read the arguments that he is a weak candidate, and I agree with some of them, but I also think too many of you are ignoring his real strengths because you dislike him so much.
@greenconsciousness,
I tend to agree with this blog that Obama has been a media darling in most quarters and it's insulated him from having some of his negatives aired. This won't last. But I strongly doubt that Major Garrett, former Washington Times editor and long-time FNC correspondent, is an Obama shill, and I'm confused about how this report helped Obama.
It sounds as if he was just reporting on some of the shabby treatment Clinton has received from party leaders and her own advisors. My cynical side says that Fox is reporting this to further divide the Democratic party, but don't you actually want news organizations to report about what you perceive as injustice? I don't get it.
You vote for him - I think he is the anti christ at worst and a fascist thug like his Muslim friends at best.
It horrifies me that people who claim to be sensitive about the power of language would casually throw around stuff like this. I don't know what "talked like a rapist" means, but I think I know what "talked like a racist" means now.
FWIW, I agree with some of what Dave said. (I missed his first post, so I am backing only the second.) I disagree that the things I read here and on other Clinton blogs are on par with the worst things I read on Obama blogs, but I do think it's reasonable to ask questions about the extent to which Obama can reasonably be held accountable, and I think the analogy with Clinton and some of the offensive things her supporters have said is perfectly apt. (I am not calling Clinton a racist, and I don't think Dave is either. The idea is that since you don't think Clinton is responsible for the offensive ideas some of her supporters hold, even though she has probably benefitted from them, what makes Obama's situation different? There are some good answers to this question, I'm sure, but it's worth thinking about.) (Personally, I don't trust Obama, but I don't think he is a misogynist and I don't think he hates working-class people.)
Missplsd-
I don't hate Obama, perhaps my clumsy sentence structure is to blame here as I meant that many of his supporters in the Blogosphere will now turn their attention to demonizing fellow Democrats who fail to get in line.
Hope that clears it up for you
Johnnybuck, I think we're talking past each other. I was referring to your statement beginning "Without Hillary to hate on . . ." I may have misunderstood you.
Why is it wrong to be a critic of power? Someone up there implied that it was.
I don't think that's the division at all. I'm skeptical of Obama because I see someone who capitulates easily to power, and his supporters as magical thinkers who believe that power is like ponies and you can wish for it and then get it.
BTW I'm a Muslim and if there's one good thing about an Obama presidency it's him getting inaugurated as "Barack Hussein Obama", thank you very much.
Mainstream Media's tingling for Obama is of greater intensity than their hatred of the Clintons. If Obama picks HRC, Mainstream Media will go along and portray it as a sign of his strength that he was willing to put a strong person with an independent power base on the ticket. Plus, by picking HRC, Obama very possibly could lock up Pennsylvania amd Ohio, and even put Florida back in play. To me, it's a no-brainer for Obama to wait a little until the sniping between the two camps subsides, and then to pick HRC.
HRC is playing it smart to be toning down the strong-arm tactics to get her onto the ticket. She should wait and say nice things about Obama, and she will get the VP nod.
Post a Comment