by Bud White
Recent polls show that approximately 30% of Hillary voters could defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee. That such a large swath of Democratic voters might defect should be disconcerting to superdelegates, to say the least. I've been reflecting for several weeks on my own unease with Obama, a man who was once my second choice for president.

Last month I attended a Passover dinner and the conversation predictably turned to politics. (For those who don't know, a Passover Seder is perhaps the first liberation theology ceremony, celebrating the Jewish people's Exodus from slavery in Egypt).

One of my dinner companions was a computer salesman from New Jersey and an avid Obama supporter. I told him that Obama's (largely) successful effort to paint the Clintons as racists had me doubting if I could vote for him if he were the nominee. He responded by saying that it was good politics and showed that Obama was willing to do whatever it took to win.

His acknowledging that Obama has been playing racial politics has me rethinking the idea of a racial dog-whistle, the notion that only African Americans, for example, understand that when Obama says "hoodwink, okie-doke, bamboozled," he means that the Clintons are treating them like fools, attempting to undermine the Clintons' hard-earned reputations as advocates for all Americans.

Most Americans who are paying attention, I suggest, understand Obama's use of race. Obama's problems with Bitter-gate and Rev. Wright underscore that Obama is not the uniter he claims to be, but rather a shrewd practitioner of identity politics.

I think most Americans are more culturally literate and less racist than the neo-liberals think (and perhaps as some neo-liberals are), regardless of their income bracket. Hillary voters understand that Obama, in cahoots with the Obamablogs and much of the media, has been willing to do whatever it takes to derail Hillary, and this includes smearing the Clintons as racists.

Click here to read the rest

by Bud White

The Democratic Party consists of two warring factions, and the precarious coalition that forms the Party is on the verge of splitting apart. Working class whites are not naive to Obama's shenanigans. They've watched as the Obama team has smeared perhaps the most racially progressive president in our history as a racist, and they've seen Obama ridicule their concerns, faith, and culture.

The Obama campaign would like the superdelegates to believe that African Americans will revolt if Obama is not given the nomination. The more likely outcome-and this has actually been quantified, is that working-class whites will go with McCain if Hillary is not the nominee.

This is not because working class whites are racist but because Obama represents a wing of the party which encourages the trashing of poor white people, lacks an economic focus for their needs, and excuses the racist and America-hating rants of Reverend Wright.

Obama's cold-hearted tacticians aren't using these tactics because they are concerned about the plight of African Americans. They are trying to scare superdelegates about racial issues and smear the Clintons.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

Last week, the Scotsman published an article claiming that Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were planning a joint endorsement of Barack Obama to bring about an early end to the primaries:

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.
Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

I just can't help myself from spreading the word about this masterful article I just read.  If any of you have ever scratched your head wondering who the heck Taylor Marsh is and why she is given a mouthpiece, read on.

First of all, the article discusses Taylor Marsh's claim that she is an author. As it turns out:

My Year in Smut is THE Taylor Marsh book. I don't mean it's the best. I mean it's the only one. I mention that because she likes to occasionally mention her status as an author. Her background as an author and her "research" for the book create a kind of implied credibility. They probably shouldn't.

When your research is actually your job working for a porn site that's an issue. When you're book is printed by AuthorHouse, that's another issue.

AuthorHouse, previously known as 1st Books, served as publisher for My Year in Smut. Do you know what it takes to get AuthorHouse to print your book? Do you need a good literary agent who can sell them on your manuscript? Do you need a track record as an author? Do you need a knockout manuscript they just can't resist? No. No, you don't. You need a check. Or a major credit card.

AuthorHouse is a self-publishing vanity press. You pay them, they print your book. That's about it. I could take my four-year-old's assorted scribblings and Crayola pieces and transform them into a coffee table book, complete with glowing reviews of each drawing written in the tone of a serious art critic. I could do that for around $500. Would that make John Brown's daugher a serious artist? Not really, huh?

 

Next, to Taylor Marsh's claim that she is a "radio host":

Taylor Marsh is a radio host. She says so. Everyone says so. It's all over the fucking place. However, you probably haven't heard her in your car on the radio while commuting to work or going to the store. You see, Taylor Marsh isn't on the radio. No one has actually paid her for being on the radio at any time, based on what I can find.

Taylor Marsh has a website that looks like it belongs to a radio show host. It's illusion. She's a podcaster. She records a show like the ones they actually broadcast on the radio and makes it available for download.

There is something inherently silly about calling yourself a radio host and garnering credibility as a media figure from it when all you're really doing is taking a few calls from ass-kissing blog readers and converting results into MP3 format. That isn't a radio show.

Radio shows are broadcast. Radio shows, in most cases, have advertisers. Babbling into a $15 Radio Shack microphone in your basement and uploading the results to your website isn't running a radio show. Sorry, it just isn't. You are not a radio host if you do that. You're a podcaster.

But she DID have a radio show at one time, right? Well, sort of. I can understand the confusion. Occasionally she mentions wanting to find a "new home" for her radio show and she discusses her status as a screwed-over radio host when she makes crazily shallow comments about the Fairness Doctrine. Clearly, she had a radio show. Right?

Here's the deal. In 2002, Taylor Marsh went to Las Vegas and became a radio host... Sort of. Judy Proffer (Magpye Media) and Marsh came up with the cash to buy time on KLAV, a Las Vegas AM radio station. That's right. They bought time.

KLVA is to radio what Author House is to publishing. If you can't really get a job on a real radio station, you can go to KLVA and buy blocks of time. They give you the studio, provide production assistance, and you're on the air! Instant radio host status. If you'd like to become a talk radio host tomorrow, call your local AM vanity station and offer them some cash. That's all it takes. You can stutter. You can whine. You can say outrageously stupid things. You can be boring. It's on your dime. I could put my four-year-old in front of a mic and have her sing variations on "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" for two hours a day and, voila!, she'd have a claim equivalent to Taylor's as a "radio host".

 

So, what do you think? Are her claims to being an "author" and "radio host" misleading?

You'll find this interesting.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/hot_topics.ph p#1515

It is a video set to music showing Obama's lack of originality in his speeches. It is actually pretty funny.

Update [2008-2-20 19:21:37 by susanhu]:

“The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.” Der Spiegel has it exactly right.

Update [2008-2-20 14:37:51 by susanhu]: Ignore the silly press reports about the Machinist Union president's speech. More here. WATCH THIS VIDEO. Hear about the promises that Obama made to desperate Maytag workers, and how he then took piles of money from the Crown family of Chicago, that owned Maytag -- and the patriarch of that family says that Obama never talked to him about saving the Maytag workers' jobs:

Update [2008-2-20 15:30:41 by susanhu]: I found a Feb. 2 article from McClatchy/Chicago Tribune to which Buffenbarger refers, "Obama's fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs."

But the union that represented most of those Galesburg workers isn't impressed with Obama's advocacy and has endorsed his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Its leaders say they wish he had done more about their members' plight.

What rankles some is what Obama did not do even as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a desperate fight to save their jobs.

Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company's directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile. [BUT OBAMA COULD HAVE TRIED, DAMMIT]

The article also says that Axelrod had no clue that Crown sat on the board of Maytag. Guess they know now.

ORIGINAL: I already showed you a video of a panel of Obama supporters who were unable -- a single one of them -- to name any of Obama's legislative or other accomplishments. But even his elected supporters -- members of Congress and governors (!) -- cannot come up with anything.  (Uh, you'd think that Obama's campaign would send them some talking points? If they can come up with a few?)  (h/t Taylor Marsh and MyDD's "Breaking Blue")

Then there are Congressman Bobby Scott (D-Va) and Governor James Doyle, Jr. (D-Wisc), who can't think of a thing to say about their candidate's qualifications -- along with the concerns of Der Spiegel ("Change You Can't Believe In") and The Economist ("But could he deliver?"):  

Well, well, well, whaddya know? Looks like Obama's man David Axelrod is rethinking his team's stance on Superdelegates. Why am I not surprised?

The details can be found on Taylor Marsh's site, but it boils down to the following:

Concerned that Hillary was going to wrest the nomination from him via the Superdelegates, Obama voiced the position that the voters should dictate how the Superdelegates cast their votes for the Dem nomination.

As a result, such diverse figures within the Democratic Party such as Chris Bowers and Donna Brazille literally threw temper tantrums in public forums in support of this position as being reflective  of "the will of the people", pointing to Barbara Boxer's example prior to Super Tuesday as she stated she would support whoever the voters of her state supported the most.

But now, when confronted with the reality that Obama supporters such as Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick would now have to switch their votes to reflect the will of the people, Obama's people are now saying "Waitaminute. Not so fast there."

From my perspective, all's fair in love and war, especially politics. If Hillary's team kneecaps Obama one way or another, I have no problem with it. I want her to win, not handicap her campaign playing by some bullshit rules where the goalposts are being moved by her opponent to suit his campaign.

On the other hand, this is where Obama has boxed both himself and his supporters into a corner they can't get out of. Either he's leading a new non-partisan style of politics and thus sticks to his supposed principles, even if it costs him, or he shows his true colors and plays the game like any other politician, thus forcing his supporters to either justify the hypocrisy or throwing him overboard as a result of their disillusionment with both him and the process.

Now excuse me while I grab the popcorn to watch the fun.

Taylor Marsh spoke with a culinary union member this evening. Apparently, this union member was allegedly told to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

Taylor attaches an audio of the conversation and it is very riveting. Scary stuff!

Please read Taylor's post here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=26839

Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC

Food for thought from Taylor Marsh:

After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It's during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion.