Behind but not beyond

Michael Meyers, Obama blew it, really nails it, on what Obama has missed making happen, not only in his speech, but in his campaign message about race:

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

...I expected Obama, who up to now had been steering a perfect course away from the racial boxes of the past, to challenge racial labels and so-called black experiences. We're all mixed up, and if we haven't yet been by the process of miscegenation, trans-racial adoptions and interracial marriage, we sure ought to get used to how things will be in short order.

We can't get there soon enough.

The speech Obama recently gave on racial division has not quickly reversed the damage the Wright association has done. At best, it hardened the reaction, at worst it inflicted even more damage to Obama. According to a Insider Advantage (a shout-out for their Texas polling in the primary) poll, done March 19th.

First, IA says that 82% knew about Obama's speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That's remarkable, in this day and age of media fragmentation, and that sort of saturation means it's basically reached every voter in some form or another.

The coverage of this has been bubbling up in the rightwing blogosphere over the past year. But once the "God damn America" video clip hit the wire on ABCNews the morning of the 13th, all hell was unleashed through the rightwing blogosphere, the rightwing talk radio, Fox News and WSJ-- the modern day conservative propoganda machine in action. Obama, who has never personally experienced the onslaught of the rightwing smear, came out the next night with a response, to try and finish it off on a Friday night. No such luck. It raged on over the internet all weekend, and then re-emerged even stronger on Monday. The speech by Obama, hastily written for Tuesday night, did not change opinions.

Among those aware of the situation and the speech, 52 percent are less likely to vote for Obama, up slightly from 49 percent of among all voters. None of the polls demographics (pdf) jump on either side. Blacks, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Whites, are all less likely to support Obama now. Just 19 percent are more likely to support Obama (thats his floor), and 27 percent feel the same about Obama.

IA is right, saying: "The disturbing numbers for Obama are the independent voters. By 56% to 13%, they said they're less likely to vote for him because of the speech." He may have lost a big chunk of what got him this far. Clinton has been beating Obama among Democrats all along and only through having Independents supporting him in the primaries and caucuses, is Obama leading. It'll be a month before we see voting again, and any sort of confirmation of how this plays out in the long-term.

There are those who hold the mis-guided opinion that only paranoid holdouts believe that Clinton has a shot at getting the nomination. Maybe they will go into cahoots with Al Giordano's Plan B, a Abbie Hoffman wannabee that hopes to see the '08 Democratic convention turn out like '68, and plans on "sitting it out" if Clinton does win the nomination-- there's your nutty paranoid holdout. Calm, this has a long ways to go.

Neither candidate will win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination through that route. By the end of the primary calendar, its very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count, and the super-delegates will eventually decide their votes. I don't expect that the nomination will be concluded until August.



Display:


Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Well for sure, he shouldn't have come out and said"typical white person" because he just seperated blacks and whites with that one statement.  Words do matter!


by owllwoman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:47:59 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 3)

For all that you and Jerome and other Clinton partisans have railed against Obama for the emptiness of "just words"...you're suddenly very very concerned about exactly what words he chooses.

Sorry, guys.  You don't get it both ways.  Words either matter or they don't.  Pick one and try for consistency.

For me - I say words matter enormously when backed up with conviction.  Humans are social, and words are how we tie ourselves together.  Have an eloquent leader who can frame ideas convincingly is a good thing, IMHO.


by bwitte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

You really have to give Jerome credit for his sticktoitiveness on this issue.

He will leave no stone unturned, no op-ed un-read in pursuit of making Obama look stupid.

Be careful Jerome, or we will start thinking you are Taylor Marsh's much smarter brother.  (I id say much smarter. I hope that counts for something).


by swarty on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

I understand Jerome in that he believes Clinton would make a better nominee and a better President; I can even understand if he just thinks Obama is unqualified, I don't agree but I understand.

What I don't understand is the visceral hatred he seems to have for the man.


Thieves get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Back up a sec (none / 0)

"Just words" doesn't mean "words don't matter."  It means "words are not enough."

Of course words matter.  No one said otherwise.  You're bashing a strawman.


by Trickster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, real frikkin' easy for you to command us to be "calm." Each and every day this goes on is a day that our dollars are spent tearing our own party apart, while McCain utters stupid shit and gets a free pass on it.

You command calm because patience is the only way your preferred candidate can possibly win the nomination. You would like us to watch for six more months while you proclaim as loudly as you can that Obama cannot possibly win the general election. What a little dance you'll do when your prophesy fulfills itself.

Here is where you are most wrong: it is not "very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count." Clinton cannot possibly find an intellectually defensible claim to either of those. Impossible is the opposite of very likely.

The civil war in this party will not be at the convention. If it comes, it will be after the general election, when your faction will say "I told you so" while the rest of the party blames you for condemning us to four more years of Republican insanity.

What sweet irony it will be that you worked so hard to wrest the party away from Clinton's DLC only to help her destroy it anyway.


Congratulations to our battle-tested nominee, Barak Obama!
by alvernon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:55:05 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 4)

Oh, and in case I didn't make it clear:

Issuing the one word command "Calm" is the most prickish thing I've seen written at this site, and there have been quite a few contenders.

Calm, don't take down this post.


Congratulations to our battle-tested nominee, Barak Obama!
by alvernon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

More calmness and reason are exactly the things I was seeking when I started coming to this site, and it's the thing that is keeping me here.

Unfortunately, with each passing day, the hysteria and twisted logic spreads further, as evidenced by the first string of comments in this thread.


by joanneleon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Calm Down So The Media Can Trash Obama Like Gore (none / 0)

The echo chamber needs silence from the audience to work effectively.

They are "saving" us from Obama the same way they "saved" us from Gore.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On The Dole? (none / 0)

Has there been any discussion of whether or not Jerome is on the HRC payroll just like he was on the Dean payroll?


by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The dip? (2.00 / 6)

I stopped blogging while I worked for Dean (Markos did blog but had a disclaimer), and have repeatedly had to stoop down to the level of your likes to state again that I am not in any way working for the Clinton campaign.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The dip? (2.00 / 1)

Hate to say it but it really isn't apparent that you are not. Not only what you choose to post but the way that you frame every issue seems to come straight from the Clinton talking points. I take you at your word that you are receiving no compensation from them but I would like to know whether or not you coordinate message with them.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Typical obama supporter (none / 0)

Jerome,

I wouldn't even answer these charges.  Your track record on disclosure is above reproach.

This is simply a KOS operative trying to stir trouble.

Get back on message: Obama is destroying our party unity.

HILL AND BILL 2008


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The dip? (2.00 / 1)

"Stoop to the level of your likes..."

You mean your readers? Even if we disagree, most of us still respect you...

Well...

My big point here is this: You have railed against Obama using wide platitudes and meaningless broad terms to inspire...

In his speech on race he did not do that. He spoke in sincere specifics or real-world problems as if we were adults.

To merely talk about "getting beyond race" would truly be a fairy tale, if the 150 years since the Civil War have been any indication.

To critique Obama for doing just what every Hillary supporter has accused him of NOT doing -- that is, providing substance to his words (something I've personally thought he always did, even when I supported Hillary) is disturbing.

Not as disturbing as that "likes of you" comment, which, given your experience (and Kos') is, in fact, something you will have to answer for in some way or another for the rest of your media career -- just as Carville, Begala, Steph -- Snow, Rove, Kristol -- will have to do. If you've worked for a campaign in the same function you now work, people will want transparency. You shouldn't be offended, rather glad for the opportunity to make clear that your passions are your own...


Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The dip? (none / 0)

Anyone who has read my DD and Jerome over the years wouldn't even dream of insinuating what the poster you are defending did.
We know that agree or disagree with Jerome, he is not someone you would ever put in the same classification as Rove or Kristol. I'm more than a little tired of those dems who feel that they have the right to trash others who have been fighting the fight for years, just because they don't agree on a candidate. You don't have to like Hillary Clinton- that's fine. You don't have to agree with or even like Jerome-that's fine too. But you have absolutely no right to make false insinuations or to smear another dem with unfounded malice.
"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it" Bobby Kennedy
by Narrowback gal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The dip? (none / 0)

yea, i too would like to know what you mean by "stoop down to the level of your likes"... ? not everyone reads every single comment on every post here.  i had no idea if you were paid by a campaign or not, but i assumed you were NOT.  


by phemfrog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On The Dole? (none / 0)

You know what... I don't like Jerome's stances either. That doesn't give you, me, or any of us, the right to level such accusations at the man. He has consistently been a voice for progressivism and has consistently been above board in his support for candidates.

I don't know the man personally, and have found that I often vehemently disagree with his rhetoric and the specific positions he takes (particularly in regard to Obama,) but there has never been a reason to doubt his integrity in this regard and you saying there is cheapens this whole site.


Thieves get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dead, solid, perfect analysis, IMHO. (2.00 / 2)

Very impressive commentary here, Jerome. Nice to see one of the reasons why I'm glad I'm spending a lot of time here recently! Keep it goin'!


by bobswern on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:55:48 AM EST

Sitting It Out (2.00 / 2)

Unless Clinton somehow has more pledged delegates at the end of this process, if she gets the nomination  a lot of people ARE going to sit it out, and Clinton IS going to lose. That's just a fact.

Stay calm, Jerome at al.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:05:35 AM EST

And Splitting From The Democratic Party For Good (none / 0)

The Democrats are going to head off into various third parties.

And it's Hillary's attacks on the primary process, the DNC, and the 50 state strategy that has turned this into a full blown civil war.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Splitting From The Democratic Party For Go (none / 0)

I'm a Democrat, I believe in civil rights, I believe in counting every vote.

What do you believe in?


by souvarine on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Splitting From The Democratic Party For Go (none / 0)

I believe in growing the party, not becoming a permanent minority party with the Clintons as the straw bosses protecting the status quo while civilization circles the toilet bowl.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Splitting From The Democratic Party For Go (none / 0)

Growing the party is your fundamental principle? That is why you are a Democrat?

How is that different from winning at any cost?


by souvarine on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clintons Running A GOP Campaign (none / 0)

Which is not about growing the party, it's about suppressing the votes of the other guy.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Splitting From The Democratic Party For Go (none / 0)

Maybe if we were willing to take more of a "win at all costs" attitude we would, I don't know, win once in a while.


Thieves get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sitting It Out (none / 0)

i just had to jump in here and say something. just so you'll know, i joined this site only a few days ago. i had heard there was a fight going on between the folks here and the kos people. it's really true! you hate each other. i thought this kind of foaming-at-the-mouth emotion was reserved for the opposition, the republicans.

i don't give out advice much, but i will here. you damn well better figure out a way to find some middle ground, and find it soon, very soon, or our next president will be a senile, war loving, republican piece of trash. put that in your pipe and smoke it.


by hueydixiepearl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More wishful pro-Clinton thinking from Jerome (2.00 / 1)

<<By the end of the primary calendar, its very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count, and the super-delegates will eventually decide their votes. I don't expect that the nomination will be concluded until August.>>

Yeah, right.


by bigdcdem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:07:07 AM EST

Re: More wishful pro-Clinton thinking from Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Jim VandeHai made a rather salient point yesterday evening on the NewsHour in asking the rhetorical question (not verbatim), "Are the superdelegates really going to step in and take the nomination from the candidate with the most delegates who is an African-American?", his point being that he doesn't think the party would risk alienating 90% of that particular voting demographic in any case.

I agree. It would have a devastating effect on the party's relations with the AA community, now even moreso in the wake of Obama's speech.


by bookish on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More wishful pro-Clinton thinking from Jerome (none / 0)

It would have a devastatng effect with every candidate ahead in the delegate count.
If the SD's would be stupid enough to flush HRC down the toilet while ahead in PD's every Clinton supporter would be rightly outraged. The same goes for Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that BHO has a black father, just as it has nothing to do with the fact that he has a white mother.
by hebi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More wishful pro-Clinton thinking from Jerome (none / 0)

It might alienate the other candidates' supporters in the short term, but you can't honestly tell me you think that in Obama's case the AA community would come back in 2012 as if nothing happened. Let's be serious, k?


by bookish on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More wishful pro-Clinton thinking from Jerome (none / 0)

A sizable chunk of them will, but a significant part of them won't. And the same goes for all these young voters that are new to politics and enthusiastic about it, and even a sizeable percentage of the starry eyed, latte drinking, birkenstock wearing, rich liberals will be so disgusted, they will vote Nader for the rest of his life.
And I have no doubt that a fair amount of Latinos, blue collar workers, Asians, native Americans, middle aged women and grandfathers will be disgusted as well.
The only way to avoid this catastrophe is to compete honestly for the remaining PD's and at the end of the race do the math. If he's ahead by say the Florida margin, than BHO should be the nominee, if HRC is ahead in PD's than she should be the nominee, and if it's within the Florida margin it's up to the PD's to play the role they were introduced into the system for.
by hebi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 0)

You right about the next vote. I think if Hillary can run up the score in PA, it's really bad for Barack.

Anything 10 pts and under, and he's weathered the storm, and will probably get the nom.

15 pts, and he's in deep trouble. A brokered convention is very likely.

20+ and he may get pushed out.

I know. I know. The math is the math. It's over. Hillary and the deadenders arte flailing about.

But he has historical factors against him. A 20 pt loss means he has effectively lost white voters. It means a big loss in Indiana and NC coming up. It means certain doom in the GE. Remember, as the first "Viable" African-American candidate he has more than his own ambitions on the line.


by kevko24 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:08:28 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 1)

If Clinton losing 12 contests in a row didn't get her "pushed out" -- what makes you think a 20-pt loss in a state that he was behind 19 points in a week ago -- will do that.

Unlike past states, the Obama campaign is making sure the goal posts stay in the same place -- unlike in Ohio and Texas. No redefinitions. And not even close to "Certain doom."


Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

It's not the loss in Penn, or the embarassment of that sort of deficit, or the delegates Hillary will catch up. Or even the huge number of popular votes she gains.

If he loses by 20, then he will be getting in the neighborood of 25% of the white vote. That's Mississippi territory. If this occurs it means a sizable portion of the population is moving strongly away from him.

Then if he gets only 25% in Indy and NC, he'll probably lose. Back before VA was some concern because he was only drawing roughly 35% of white voters. But, in VA and those 12 in a row he came back up.

He's going to lose PA. The demographics aren't there for him. If he loses by 10, he's rebounded the Wright situation. By 15, he's stabilized and is not taking too bad a hit. 20+ is free fall territory.

Besides, he wasn't necessarily down 19 a week ago. A lot of the new polls this week show Hillary doubling her lead in the past 10 days. From 6 to 12, 8 to 16. He was making it competitive.

Hillary lost 12 in a row, but had a a glimmer of hope. Richardson and his 50 SD's were there to end it after a TX win by Barack regardless of Ohio. It's gotta suck to be a Super Delegate right now.


by kevko24 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:24:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

race exists (2.00 / 3)

I think it's wishful postmodernist thinking to pretend that there is no such thing as race. If anything that is a Republican argument used to desperately deny that the playing field remains non-level.

The truth is that race is a genuine concept and has always been in human history. Race is not "bad". Its just a source of variation within the human race, like height or musical ability or intelligence or strength. Its not purely genetic, either - race is also enmeshed at its boundaries with culture, and with language.

Before we can ever get to that state where race exists, but doesn't matter, we need to confront the fact that it exists. And be honest about what our attitudes are - and yes, all of us, white, black, asian, latino, etc DO have "typical" attitudes about everybody else. We need to confront them, be honest about them, and thus recognize them for the barriers they are rather than wish them away.

Obama does not, despite the stereotype, speak of or promise to transcend race. He promises to approach it realistically instead of in the pseudo cryptic way we all dance around in in politics. That is what made his speech on race so unique.

His goal was to explain his embrace of Wright, not repudiate it, because the latter would be buying into the cynical racial politics that have still not done a thing to heal us as a nation since the trauma of Jim Crow. If that means that everyone who is not ready to move forward with actual progress on race relations, instead preferring the cryptoracial dance that serves as status quo, becomes entrenched in opposition to Obama, then that is actually fine. And if Obama cant win without the support of the racial status quo, also fine. That means that we arent ready for change. But we will be.


NB
by azizhp on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:10:57 AM EST

Re: race exists (2.00 / 1)

I suppose I should cross post the above at Nation-Building.


NB
by azizhp on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (2.00 / 1)

I don't think its really much of a "transcendence" issue at all, its rather the acknowledgment that we are becoming a people whereby such identity claims carry more baggage than reality. Obama's take, rather than the way forward, seems to be a good summation of all the division that's come before. Maybe that sort of thing needs to happen first, but he's not yet leading the way forward.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:33:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (2.00 / 1)

J, I will admit I am biased. But I genuinely think that we cant move forward through a closed door. Obama has opened that door. Now do we go forward or not?


NB
by azizhp on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (none / 0)

" Obama has opened that door."

That door has not been closed, and people of good will of every color and political persuasion have been keeping it open for many years now. Only young people who did not live through the civil rights movement believe there is anything "new" about Obama's talking about race.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

a civil discussion (none / 0)

is one in which you stick to arguments about the issue. Not snipe at others for their secret motivations.


NB
by azizhp on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (1.00 / 1)

This newaccount guy is a KOS troll.  Ignore him, or rather troll rate him.

He's one of the same crew on KOS who pushed out Clinton supporters.  He doesn't deserve the indulgences of real democrats, i.e.  MYDD democrats.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (none / 0)

Are "real Democrats" only Clinton supporters? That effectively eliminates half the party. Very democratic.


by thinman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (none / 0)

One bone I have to pick with any discussion of race in America is how it immediately becomes exclusively a White/Black discussion.

Granted, black people are the only ethnic group not to enter the country en masse as immigrants. And of course AA endured slavery and jim crow and still face racism today (Heck, I can get in Hermes and Oprah can't, and I don't have her bucks).

But to exclude the Latino and Asian experience from the discussion is a recipe for failure. It isn't Obama's fault that these discussions are very narrow, but to transcend anything ... shouldn't you be better than the norm?


by kevko24 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: race exists (none / 0)

Addendum - Larison observes,

That elite conservatives could turn on Obama with guns blazing in their phony p.c.-driven rage was the perfect arrangement for them: they could express disapproval of the media darling because he had made a very un-p.c. blunder, making it possible for them to pose as the champions of the kind of "liberal intolerance" they might have decried a decade or two earlier.

Meanwhile, middle- and working-class white (and probably other) audiences heard this, remembered the anti-racist catechisms they had been taught for as long as they could remember and understood that the proper, approved reaction was to shake their heads and boo.  McWhorter makes a similar observation.  Now that anti-racism has captured the minds of so many of these people, now that the conditioning has had its intended effect, observers sympathetic to Obama are dismayed that Obama's nuanced effort to explain (or, as the critics have it, explain away) racially-charged and potentially racialist rhetoric fell on deaf ears.  Yet this shouldn't surprise anyone-if the speech fell on deaf ears, it was the elites who deafened them years before with a single, simple imperative: "Don't pay attention to race, except when we tell you to!"


NB
by azizhp on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Michael Meyers really "nails it"?? (2.00 / 4)

That article made me laugh out loud when I read it. Yes, what better way to confront of the continuing racism of our society but to pretend it doesn't exist? "We're all humans!" What a bold cry for reason.

It's sanitized Nicktoons logic that is easy to swallow because it's all wrapped in a sweet pill of bullshit.

Obama totally blew it by confronting the issue of racism, from all sides, head on. He should have blandly coasted by on a meaningless platitude sure to offend no one. God forbid a politician dare to eloquent challange us to think!


by Zorro the Greek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:06 AM EST

Jerome (1.00 / 1)

Jerome advocates pre-emptive surrender to racists. Some fighter he is.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

"rome advocates pre-emptive surrender to racists. Some fighter he is."

This comment makes no sense to me whatsoever. How in the world did you get to that out of what Jerome said?


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michael Meyers really "nails it"?? (2.00 / 3)

We've been doing that for decades now, and it's worked great!  Why does that rabble-rouser Obama have to come and shake things up?  If we just ignored a little harder we'd all be post-racial!


by bwitte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michael Meyers really "nails it"?? (2.00 / 1)

Egg-f**king-zactly.


by Zorro the Greek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

About Race (2.00 / 3)

I think Michael Meyers blew it, actually, because he wasn't listening to Obama carefully enough. The sad fact is we Americans do have misguided perceptions of race, and that's exactly what Obama was talking about. Those perceptions contribute to certain realities. Like segregated, rotting schools. (What neighborhood do you live in, Jerome? :-))

Obama is not George W. Bush, and indeed he is an unconventional politician. As we've learned from George W. Bush, it's a fundamental truth that you cannot hope to fix a problem, especially a big one, unless you first admit its existence and define it. We haven't had a politician do that when it comes to racism in... well, forever maybe. Obama took a bold step here.

As you hint Jerome, I think it's way too soon to judge how Americans react. It's March, not November, as Mike Huckabee (!) pointed out. We'll see how mature most Americans are. Are they interested in listening to a candidate who challenges their preconceptions? Who occasionally makes them think? We'll see.

Obama is still in a dominating position for winning the nomination. (See: Bill Richardson's endorsement today as yet one more data point.) The fundamentals of this race haven't changed since at least Super Tuesday. I had no doubt the right-wing noise machine would attempt a "Southern strategy" this cycle. It's good news for Obama that it's March during a 6-week lull in the primary calendar, especially prior to a state he was never expected to win.

Recall that Bill Clinton faced a political catastrophe ten times worse than Obama faced, the accusation and his (grudging, between-the-lines) admission that he committed adultery. He got the wind knocked out of him, but obviously he survived, won the nomination, and won the presidency. No analogies are perfect, but I think this one is closer to the mark than most.


by BBCWatcher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:14:43 AM EST

Behind Meyers' Columns (2.00 / 6)

I think that before we simply accept the word of a black "expert" on race relation was look at some of his recent positions on various issues.  He seems to get a lot of ink and air time based on his contrarian views. 

For example see the Washington Post column Let the Idiocy Be Heard where he defends Don Imus and other racist shock jocks.

And see this discussion of his views on how recent rash of nooses is "no big deal" and could just be practical jokes since "We don't know why people are doing this"

And take a look at this commentary from Media Maters Michael Meyers denied that Clinton appointed minorities to "real jobs" about an appearance by Meyers on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes where he


suggested that former President Bill Clinton failed to appoint African-Americans to "real jobs" in his administration, asserting that Clinton's appointments of minorities were merely "window dressing" compared with the prominent minority appointments by President Bush.


I think we need take Meyers' views on this a grain of salt given his propensity to present contrarian views on things.


by Fred in Vermont on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:14:58 AM EST

Re: Behind Meyers' Columns (2.00 / 4)

Traingulation with Republican punditry, columnists, and even the GOP is the backbone of the vocal Clinton supporters right now. You see Newsmax cited on myDD, you see Taylor Marsh posting videos dumped on Youtube by former GOP campaign staff, and you've got Jerome here hiding behind Fox News shill Meyers to advocate cowardice in the face of racism. Why? Because it Goes Against Obama(TM).


by Zorro the Greek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Race is a social construct (2.00 / 5)

I'm a biochemist - I know exactly how false racial distinctions are from a biological perspective.  Race, though, is mostly a social construct.  And as such it can't simply be wished into history as Jerome seems to want.

Ideas don't simply disappear in the face of scientific evidence.  You need to engage those ideas directly.  

Obama's speech was a courageous and eloquent engagement of those ideas.  As much as HRC's partisans rail against the emptiness of words - words are all we have to tie us together as humans.  


by bwitte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:15:44 AM EST

Re: Race is a social construct (none / 0)

No one is wishing it away. It's going away. It will be gone one day. That's the future. How long?  Probably not for maybe the end of this century, but that's the future.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"It's going away" (none / 0)

Riiiight. Katrina sure as hell proved that wishful thinking to be spot on the money.

What universe are you living in?

What sort of myopic insanity gives you the idea that  race and racism is somehow magically disappearing? Just like sexism, racism is here for a LONG time, unless and until brave, dedicated, honest politicians and normal average everyday citizens take the time, muster the courage, and use their energy to actively confront, deal with, and fight racism/sexism.

Wishing it away is a BAD idea.


by RedDan on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (none / 0)

It sounds dangerously like you're implying we can just 'breed away' our racial problems...

That has all the deep thought of Evan Rachel Wood in the movie 'Thirteen', who surmised, stoned to the beejesus and just experiencing her first lay -- that  sex is the answer to race relations.

You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of both you and a fictional character from a movie.


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (2.00 / 1)

Eh, no...

Sorry to respond on someone else's behalf. But... the point is that society is tending to become less and less racist. We can all get along and more and more so we actually do. Over time we eventually will. That has been the trend and I think that it is likely to continue that way.


by carrieboberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (none / 0)

So it's "the ignore it and just wait for it to go away" theory?

Need I point out that "turning away" from it has led to the most tragic consequences of our recent history?  I mean - I'd PREFER the breeding theory... at least that has some degree of human interaction and love to it... at least it's a proactive response.

As Obama said in his speech, it's not that progress hasn't been made, it's that there is still MUCH progress to be made... not just here - but around the world.


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (2.00 / 1)

No one is saying to ignore it when it happens. I just got done calling out that fella named Wright, so did Obama. We must do that to change society.

But to ignore that things have gotten much better, very quickly, is to ignore progress and where its heading.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (2.00 / 1)

Who's ignoring that things have gotten better?  Didn't Obama specifically cite progress in his speech?

My whole bone of contention here is that it's dangerously close to the "theory of everything" when it comes to GOP framing.

I think Atrios nailed it better than anyone:


For various reasons I've been rather uninterested in getting into the weeds of the Wright issue, though obviously it's the case that we've had decades of prominent and popular white conservative preachers blasting the evils of America and no one has much cared.

Aside from disparate treatment of left and right and black and white in our mainstream discourse, there's also a difference in the basic narrative provided. The narrative from the Right - and its representatives in the conservative religious community - is of an America which was once the garden of Eden, until its tragic fall at the hands of (feminists, liberals, civil rights movement, whatever), and they wish to bring the country back to its former state. Thus they can hate the America that is while dreaming of the perfect America that was. Thus there's no conflict between their unquestioned patriotism and their hatred of the country, as their patriotism is for the True America that was, not its current corrupted incarnation

While the mirror image rhetoric from the Left is about a country which was flawed, often tragically so, but which has the capacity for improvement. Be disgusted with the country as it was and is, while hoping for an evolution to a better country

Now.  Obviously, I'm NOT saying that you've joined the right in wishing to some return to the 50s -- but you certainly seem to have turned your back on the fundamental Progressive concept of "progress"... not "progress" that just happens through the natural course of history, but progress that comes from the sober realization of what is yet to be done, the courage to say it still needs to be done, and the hard work to lean into the job.

Complacency and satisfaction, I always thought, were an anethma to everything I thought those of us on the left stood for.


by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (2.00 / 2)

But to ignore that things have gotten much better, very quickly, is to ignore progress and where its heading.

Who is ignoring that?  That was a major point of Obama's speech after all, that things are getting better.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Where's the disagreement?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:01:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Race is a social construct (none / 0)

Jerome, you do not have a solid grasp of race relations.

There is simple progress. We are not exactly moving forward. It moves in lurches and stagnations, some aspects failing and some improving.

Each racial system is built from the ashes of its predecessor. Jim Crow grew out of slavery.

The current system of the interlocked prison-ghetto-welfare that formed when Jim Crow could no longer be sustained is no improvement. It is just as violent and brutal, just as marginalizing, just as segregated and just as racist as the earlier forms of racial control.

But it is invisible, because its ideology is inscribed outside the bounds of race, while its effects largely are.

As a result, we have not had an honest discussion about race since 1968, when at least there was a name for it in our national consciousness, Jim Crow. Today, like in Orwell's newspeak, we have no words to describe our oppression. It cannot be defined or communicated as a concrete whole. Thus it cannot be fought.

So Jerome, if you think race relations have magically improved, let me assure you that the lived experiences of African-Americans have not caught up with that ideal.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:08:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just Words? (none / 0)

Obama may win the primary - but he would have no chance in the GE. Picture this on the tubes 24/7..... A split screen with Wright on one side and Obama on the other. Wright says G-d America, and Obama says "Just words?" And Wright says ".... the chickens have come home to roost." and Obama says "Just words?" and on and on.


by georgiast on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Words? (none / 0)

Yes, something like that will be made and it will be slightly damaging.

And then the Democratic backed 527 puts together a link of McCain getting angry, making mistakes, and having to be corrected by Lieberman as a backing for a whisper campaign that McCain is starting to lose it.

Lots of things can happen and there will be news cycles.  If Bush can win an election after lying to get us into a pointless war, this scandal is not automatically fatal either.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Courageous? (none / 0)

Had the speech been delivered several months ago, unbidden, then it would have been one of the great moments of the modern era, printed in American history texts for generations to come.  Here's the thing - he gave the speech to denounce (sort of) a supporter that is wildly out of control.  The issue is that he cannot reasonably explain away a twenty-plus year relationship with an unrepentant racist with this sort of lofty eloquence.  He is simply not believable in light of his enduring relationship with Wright.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 3)

you're really, really reaching.

The polls you point to are contradicted by other polls that say the exact opposite.

Your pronouncements are entirely colored by your agenda, as are the pronouncements of your polar opposites.

The thing that really blows me away is that the vitriol and slime spewing across my screen is written by the same person who wrote about the "consultocracy" in a book called "Crashing the Gates" - a paean to the power of the Netroots and the grassroots and a slam against the entrenched grasp of the corporate power brokers...

What do Penn and Wolfson and Davis and McCaulliffe look like from the other side of the mirror?


by RedDan on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:18:21 AM EST

Crashing the Gate? (2.00 / 2)

RedDan, you bring up an excellent point. I am completely lost as to how Jerome makes the arguments he does after co-writing Crashing the Gate. I just cannot find any consistency between Jerome's current thinking and the central thesis in that book. Markos (Jerome's co-author) has arrived at a completely opposite read on the current Democratic nomination contest, so it's all the more puzzling.

What's changed?


by BBCWatcher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (2.00 / 1)

All of us have been making this point repeatedly with no response from Jerome.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (none / 0)

Yea, I might need to make this a frontpage response at some point, given the attacks that he's spurred on.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (none / 0)

Markos has made a bunch of lame arguments as to the content of CTG, and his rationale for backing Obama.

In short, I've thought about it being a post, but I really think the whole argument that either of these candidates is all great, and the other all bad, is silly, when looked at through the eys of policy. To believe that Obama represents the ideals of CTG is really not the truth. Does he do some well? Of course. But the black and white description of the contest leaves out a lot of gray, the description of the contest as a civil war is a hyperbolic rant, and making claims of splitting the party apart are useless.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (none / 0)

Thanks Jerome. I genuinely appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. I do think it is post worthy because so many of us are interested in having a context in which to put your Clinton advocacy. And yes, obviously I agree that neither candidate can claim purity on whether or not they represent the ideals spelled out in CTG. I do think that Obama better represents the spirit of that construct but I agree that there are problematic aspects to each. I think that as a blogger, Bowers has achieved a better balance than either you or Markos vis a vis the difficult choice we have to make as a party. He has managed to make posts and analyses that skewer and/or defend each candidate and that is what I hope to see more of from you.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:39:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (none / 0)

I don't care what Markos said, and I certainly am no ardent follower of Saint Obama, nor acolyte of Almighty Swami Kos.

I am just saying that I find it hard to stomach the degree of apparent, and blatant hypocrisy inherent in the fact that someone who spent so much time and energy preaching about "crashing the gates" and opposing the moribund and incompetent power brokers in the DLC and the corporate consultant class...is now toeing their line, and appears to be selling their same snake oil lock stock and barrel.

I have defended you, Jerome, vigorously when people were attacking you for "being on the take" (Dean, Warner, and etc), and when people were attacking you for your supposed stock touting, and when people were attacking your belief in astrology and use of astrology in stocks and in politics.

I will STILL defend you against those charges.

But I think you need to take a moment, re-read what you wrote back then, and what you said, in some cases about the very same damned people you now support with full throated, often venomous rhetoric.

People like Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, and etc.

It's not pretty, Jerome, and it's not only me, or "obamabots" or "kos kids" saying so.


by RedDan on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crashing the Gate? (none / 0)

Would you actually go and read what is written about the DLC in the book?  And if you searched over what I've blogged, you'd find I actually don't give a shit about performing trinagulation with them by writing screeds about how evil they are. I really don't get the whole nonsense that Markos blogs about over the DLC, and have told him that many times. Who really cares about that relic from last decades of an organization?  He's done them way more good than harm, by becoming a leftist pivot for them to triangulate off.

As for the consultant class, have you looked at Obama's set up?  He's got his CM and CS getting a commission off the ads, and has spent more on polls than any other campaign in history.

People like, gmafb, there are people like that on both sides, that's such a childish name-calling game.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Sorry I didn't read CTG, nor do I plan to.

But isn't it more about strategy than policy? Isn't it called the "50-state STRATEGY"? Maybe you're different from me, but I picked my preferred candidate by looking at policy positions and voting records. By that I determined that Clinton was the more progressive.

As far as strategy goes, I cringe when my candidate makes a strategic mistake, and we all know that HRC has made her fair share of those. And I cheer when she makes a good move. And because I do actually like Obama, and I want Democratic candidates to do well I cringe when he makes a mistake too.  


by carrieboberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Go check it out, you'll probably like it. It does advocate for a populist policy position.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

How did I know you would say that? :)

Sorry, but the constant fanfare and pimping on dailykos when it first came out kind of turned me off. Seemed a little fan-boy-ish on the part of the Markos acolytes buying it up.

I'm sure that it's very good though... And I'll give it additional consideration and if I see it in a bookstore, I may pick it up.


by carrieboberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Nah, I was saying go the the library and get it for free.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

This is a very well thought out post. If more people held these kinds of views rather than blind hatred for the other candidate we would have a much better chance of achieving our goals in November, which involve uniting behind our candidate and beating John McCain. Thanks Carrie!


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 3)

Jerome, I understand your passion for Hillary and I've never doubted it was sincere, but I've never understood the anger that is constantly flowing from your posts.  Every diary you post seems to be another anti-Obama diatribe and it always seems to take the most slanted view of the subject to try and attack him.

Where does this anger come from?  Are you upset b/c a person you view as unqualified is beating someone you view as qualified?  Or is something else?

I've been upset w/ Hillary during this campaign, but I respect her.  I get the feeling you don't respect Obama and his legitimacy in challenging Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

Perhaps, I'm foolish in challenging you (a person who has established a successful blog and represented progressive politics at the Take Back America Conference).  It may be dumb for me (a person with a UID from 2007 or perhaps a little earlier) to question you.  But this isn't the MYDD that I remember when I first joined.  MYDD was a great complement to DailyKos, b/c where I thought Kos was more cultural and movement-oriented, MYDD was always a place for politics.  MYDD was my source for progressive political news.  Now, I only see from you invective (whereas I still enjoy Todd Beeton's and others on this blog).

Please do not misinterpret this as chiding you, but more as an effort to enlighten you as to this one blogger's opinion.  An opinion in which I do not think I am alone.


Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
by nklein on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:21:47 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Before replying, I reread Jerome's post squinting my eyes to read between the lines and tried to figure out where the anger was.

I'm a Clinton supporter as well, so I imagined Obama's name replaced by hers and even then I couldn't find any anger.

I think Jerome's point is that Rev. Wright's sermons have hurt Obama and that his speech didn't do enough to control the damage.

Stating that, doesn't make someone anti-Obama, nor does it mean that the person is angry.


by carrieboberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

This diary is the latest of (what?) five posts all trying to portray Obama as an unelectable figure.  But more than that Jerome has tried to make the Wright controversy and Obama's speech (which has nearly universally been praised) as a sign of a great flaw in Obama.  Every single diary has found a source (this one had Michael Meyers) that is right-leaning, if not a complete wingnut.

In this diary, aside from using Michael Meyers, Jerome finds the one poll that states that the Wright controversy is possibly fatal.  Every other poll (and there have been four others that I have seen; CNN and CBS/NYT among them) has demonstrated that Obama's speech has had a decidedly positive impact. Moreover, these polls have showed that the Wright controversy is not nearly fatal.

The vast majority of Jerome's posts in the recent past have been anti-Obama and not pro-Clinton.  Moreover, because of the facts that I mentioned above, they seem to be infused with an anger that I don't understand.

I hope this clarifies by earlier comment.


Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
by nklein on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Sorry you can only see things through the eyes of being a diehard supporter of Obama. I'm just happy with calling it as I see it.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 2)

I don't believe that you could honestly state that there is not a snarky, angry tone to your posts about Obama. I read this blog very frequently and Jonathan and Todd's posts do not contain the kind of vitriol and bitchy asides that yours do. Its plain as day. If that is calling it as you see it, then you only see it in one direction.


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 1)

I always get a chuckle when Obama supporters, after I point out one or another weakness in him, resort to seeing something like "passion for Hillary".

Really?  I think I've said she's at least got a path to winning the GE, that she was way down on the list of favorites, but ahead of Obama.

You got a low bar for passion.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 1)

MAn its great to see you out here mixing it up with us commoners J. Much better than the S&S strategy you have been employing of late (Snipe and Stonewall). I would say that if neither of them was your first choice and Hillary is just a little better than Obama for you then maybe it could be possible to post something other than negative info on him. Or maybe I should ask what is the main thing that makes him so undesirable to you?


by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

First, thank you for responding to my comment with not one, but two comments.  There's no snark in the above, but a true appreciation for what Kos, Atrios, you and others have done to make it possible for my opinions to reach the ears of the influential and the policy-makers.

But you've got to be kidding me if you think that you haven't taken an anti-Obama stance.  Look to whom you're linking.  Michael Meyers?  I don't need to record, b/c it was done above the ridiculous b.s. that this man has spread.  You have to search for that b.s., b/c in the course of progressive blogging these wingnuts do not come up, but as a source of derision.  Thus if you've linked to him (and others), you must have searched for him.  And you searched for him, you must have done so in an effort to put forth an anti-Obama meme.  It's not rocket science here.


Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
by nklein on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

sorry Jerome, but i tend to agree.  i read both you and kos for complementary progressive blogging, but i do see a lot of anger in your posts regarding Obama.  I will say it again to make sure you know, i didnt vote for Obama, nor have i given him a dime.  

my main point is that i feel that the sentiment here on MyDD has changed since i first started reading.

I just want to see party unity.


by phemfrog on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 3)

This is the polling stat that floors me:


On Thursday, Barack Obama's favorable ratings are unchanged for the third straight day--48% favorable, 49% unfavorable. McCain is viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

Maybe Rasmussen is some sort of outlier, but how could Clinton have 6 points worst in the unfavorable opinion when its Obama in the midst of a scandal.  That's the whole problem with the vetted argument.  At Obama's worst, he still seems to be viewed more favorably than Clinton.  


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:22:09 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

"but how could Clinton have 6 points worst in the unfavorable opinion when its Obama in the midst of a scandal.  That's the whole problem with the vetted argument.  At Obama's worst, he still seems to be viewed more favorably than Clinton."

Clinton has already lived through 20 years of being vilified and demonized by the right wing slime machine. Obama is only in his first year of it, and really only experienced it full blast for under a week. Think what his disapproval ratings will be like once they continue the "full blast" over the next years. Good luck with talking about "post partisan" and "reaching out to the other side" after that.

Then when the next Democratic candidate comes around to run against Obama, saying his negatives are too high to win an election, because of what the right wing has done to him, you can scream about how unfair it all is.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 2)

So as I understand the argument, the right wing smear machine is an unstoppable force and the more time they spend on a candidate, the more damage they do.  If that's the case - and I don't think it is - isn't the ideal situation to be nominating someone new since even by November, he'll have hardly any time to have been smeared?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

"but how could Clinton have 6 points worst in the unfavorable opinion when its Obama in the midst of a scandal.  That's the whole problem with the vetted argument.  At Obama's worst, he still seems to be viewed more favorably than Clinton."

Clinton has already lived through 20 years of being vilified and demonized by the right wing slime machine. Obama is only in his first year of it, and really only experienced it full blast for under a week. Think what his disapproval ratings will be like once they continue the "full blast" over the next years. Good luck with talking about "post partisan" and "reaching out to the other side" after that.

Then when the next Democratic candidate comes around to run against Obama, saying his negatives are too high to win an election, because of what the right wing has done to him, you can scream about how unfair it all is.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

I knew the speech wouldn't work before he gave it. I knew it wouldn't work whatever its content may be. Broadly speaking, people didn't listen to it, I didn't listen to if, does that shock you?

And why should I listen to a speech, speeches are ALLWAY good, ALLWAYs, they are put together by teams of writer, focus groups and pollster to produce the desired effect on the electorate. Obama speech, from what I heard contained all the ingredients to be the least objectionable to the widest public possible.

In short, speech are like TV ads, only they last much longer, so you won't reach a larger public with it, and frankly nor should you.

Now, if he had given a 30 min unscripted one -on-one interview, then that would have been different. I would have LOVED to get his natural response on some pertinent questions:
When did you hear about the "America got what it desearved on 911" comment?
What drove you to him?
Why did you stay, was it out of loyalty?
Etc...

The pundits acclaimed many speeches of president Bush, they thought that Mitt Romney's speech was the greatest, I rest my case


by TaiChiMaster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

1. Funny HaHa, I laugh. There is no good context for that kind of speech, don't you know anything about american politics? He was citing somebody else? that's a new one, I'm sure it will work... NOT

2. 2'500'000? Yes, that many clicked on the link, did they spend 30 min listening to it though? 2'500'000 (nationally) is not that many people and not the people that he needed to reach for his purpose

3. Mostly, what a lawyery think to say, kind of remind me of the "I don't recall" drom Alberto Gonzales


by TaiChiMaster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:08:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 1)

If you're not going to make even an attempt to listen to the speech, then why are you pretending to engage in an honest debate?


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (none / 0)

Now that's where you misunderstand me, I am not debating about anything, and I am definitely not debating about race.

I am just stating why I am ignoring political speeches, that's all.

Don't you worry, I don't listen the HRC's speeches either.

(Oh and by the way, I don't think there will be any debate on race, people are just no inclined to go into that kind of minefield... willingly)


by TaiChiMaster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Behind but not beyond (2.00 / 1)

2,500,000 is in fact the number of people that watched it from start to finish -- that's the number that Youtube records.

That's simply astounding.

I saw some jour