Regardless of the reasons, it is known factually and statistically that Prop 8 passed due to the black votes. I have to say that my view on the black community is at all time low, perhaps it will take years before i view them as intelligent beings again. People who vote against their interest .... i call them stupid voters.... and that's my perception of black people now. Though one might argue it's not all black people, but well look at the numbers. If it's most then that sums it all. There is nothing No to Prop 8 campaign could have done to sway their votes. You can blame their bad campaigning skills but we always do that to a losing campaign when we jolly well know all campaigns need improvement and the losing one will be well scrutinized on hypotheticals.
Regardless, the first step to heal is for the black leaders especially those with political authority to come together and apologized and to put this issue their main priority in the coming years. Else, it will just be excuses and nothing more.
For those of you who do not understand why the AA community is taking so much hit, if AA voters voted around 50% no rather than 70% yes and Prop 8 passed, there will be very minimal hit on them unlike now. The thing is that we expect of all people black people to understand discrimination. They might argue that it's not their fault as they are born black. Well, we say it's their choice who they want to date, where they want to take the bus, which drinking fountain to take etc. So it's all excuses and many of us who sympathizes with the black community have lost that benefit of a doubt for them. Till they admit their error and apologize, the healing process will take a very very long time. And as for Prop 8 passing, i don't foresee the Supreme Court taking the case as the justices will be up for reelection and for many other reasons. And to reverse that decision i believe we need 2 ballot initiatives rather than one so it might take a generation before we can have that battle again. I hope many here see what consequences this passage has caused. Or unless Obama himself personally allow gays to marry federally, there is no hope at all for at least one generation to come. President Lyndon Johnson took the hit when he allowed civil rights for the AA community knowingly that the democrats will lose the south. I hope Obama will be willing to make the right decision regardless of political consequences.
As much as i do not want to pursue this matter, no one can deny that it was the black voters who passed Prop 8. If they had not turnout in extra numbers because we would win Cali anyhow, or have the commonsense to understand discrimination, Prop 8 would have failed. Don't put the blame on others for the failure. Time to grow up. Time to stop blaming others or making excuses for problems. We cannot solve problems till mistakes are admitted. It's time to grow up. Sorry but i was trying to express my opinion without sounding racist as with Prop 8, it will take at least another 8 years before we might score another chance.
When Hillary lost Iowa, Mark Penn had recommend this strategy already. But it was Hillary who refused to go along. For those of you who think Hillary is the devil, i hope you see the light now.
Mark Penn deserves more credit as he is famous for 2 things - statistics and negative campaigning. Hillary refused to go with the latter so we can count that out. As for the statistics part, well you can't poll caucus accurately for many reasons especially when you base are the ones who can hardly caucus. And the software used is not up to times yet. Check out an article about polling in wired magazine if you want to know more about polling. In about 4-8 more years, and we would have the necessary software to get statistics down to each home. Then you would appreciate what Mark Penn has contributed to this political arena.
However i do blame Mark Penn for Hillary's loss as he's the campaign manager and he mismanaged many things, the 2 major flaws were not focusing on bring out caucus voters, and thinking that California is winner takes all @@WTF!!. So for those major errors, he should be held responsible.
Credit should be given where it is due and it is due to Mark Penn's negative campaigning that won Hillary's senate seat in NY in 2000. And it is due to his ignorance to the nomination system which caused Hillary to lose in 2008. Maybe if Harold Ickes were to be the campaign manager at the start things would have been really different.
If healthcare is really the top concern for majority of the voters, Hillary would have won. And with the current deficit in this nation, it is obvious that there will be no money to revamp our healthcare system for the next 4 years. Krugman had already stated that Obama's budget has no money for healthcare at all.
If anyone do truly care for healthcare, i suggest contributing and helping to elect progressive state and local candidates. Be it your city council, board of supervisor, state congressional members, state senators and governors. People must truly care about healthcare first before any major legislative can happen. But as of now, only those who are affected are worried, those who are not do not care enough.
There are too many important things in the budget, and when you decide to give one more, many others will receive less fundings. I hope that the public can understand this fact.
Obama's campaign did play the race card to undermine Bill Clinton. That should not be surprising as Obama was running against the 90s. The 4 page memo that Bill obtained was the proof and since that Bill has not forgiven Obama. Negative campaigning is part of politics but as Democrats, we have a line not to cross especially against the only other President we have who is on our side in 40 years. Obama made the choice to cross that line and for that reason itself i could not forgive Obama.
Lol play games? Perhaps you need to get your facts right regarding how the dates were switched earlier for both Michigan and Florida. Both their circumstances are different. Rather than bringing up old bad blood, the entire nomination process need to be revamped with caucusing being the first to get phase out. If small states wants to go first, fine, but the conduct of the nomination process have to be fair and democratic. Caucusing is not. And we have to let every small states have their share of going first, not reserving those spots for Iowa and NH.
But all these will not happen as the party heads themselves would want the status quo to remain so they could remain omnipotent with their influence. This goes the same to the activists who worked hard so they could also have those influences.
Why this is a bad move is because there are still so many people who are very emotionally attached to Hillary and if you want to remind them every month about what Hillary did right but still lost for various reasons, you will never get those votes. In fact, people listen to what they want to hear. This goes the same with polling. There are so many lifelong democrats whom i know that have not forgiven the DNC for 'awarding' the nomination to Obama. Keep on reminding them that fact will only irritate those voters. And more importantly this deep sense of attachment is there because so many have invested in both Clinton and Obama as both of their candidacy are historic. It's like gambling soccer, if you don't put money in, whoever wins or loses does not matter, but once you give even the slightest amount in, you are investing your heart and soul in that race.
P.S. For those of you who wants to argue or qq over DNC giving the nomination to Obama, just remember this, superdelegates gave Obama enough numbers to secure the nomination, but that cannot be done for Clinton because it would be stealing the nomination from Obama. This narrative I hope will enlighten many of you to why many of us are not in the donkeywagon yet.
There is a difference between negative campaigning and smearing. Hillary was within boundaries, Obama wasn't. Hillary did not try to paint Obama as evil. Obama did. The moment Obama's team decided to paint the Clintons as racist, that was the moment i have decided that Obama will never have my support till Obama apologized to the Clintons when it matters.
Presidential election is not about the party but the candidate. As you can see, there are indeed many dissatisfied Hillary voters around and thus the same tool that empowers Obama is now being used by PUMA to empower themselves.
I'm glad that many here has decided to thrown their support for Obama. But this does not mean that the right wing attacks of the 90s were being thrown at Hillary by the Obama wing is all forgotten. Even till now, the attacks on the Clintons haven't really stop. Like in Meet the Press and stuff, you see Obama surrogates saying things like the booming times, pre-Bush etc. It is as though Bill Clinton is nonexistence. And to deepen the wound, Obama's fundraisers only raised like a bare 100 k for Hillary's debt. And worst, the only ones acknowledging the Clintons are republican surrogates.
So it's obvious that the Republicans will fund PUMA. The new surge of young voters is giving the democrats a unique advantage this election. So the only way the ring wing stand a chance is to deepen the divide and chip away the baby boomers from the democratic party. And i say it's working. I've said before and will repeat again, Obama decided blatantly to smear the Clintons with ring wing attacks and he is now living with the consequences. Just as Hillary had decided not to use Mark Penn's strategies to smear Obama because she thinks it will hurt the party, her and more importantly jeopardize the GE. And indeed she had played her role honorably during the primaries while Obama is to win at all cost. He is living the consequences now. Obama needs Hillary's fundraising machine to win, and they are not all on board. How would you expect them to be on board if Obama is not even trying? Indeed many of Obama's core people are anti-Clintons to begin with. If Obama cannot even get his own people to make peace with the Clintons, don't expect those from our side to 'do the right thing', 'get over it' or whatever that means.
Since you are gay, may i ask for whom did you vote for? And if for Obama why? Hillary did a lot for our community despite taking hits from the right while Obama cater to us when convenient and is not with us when it does not suit him. So my question is why did you pick Obama over Hillary? I hope you now understand why many are not for Obama.
As for donating to Obama, i rather spent the money helping Hillary clear her debt and donate to local campaigns. And i did as i already max my donation for Hillary.
I'm in my 20s and i'm an optimist. I have lots of hope and i believe that we will be able to get a progressive on the ballot. Barack Obama has shown that he is not a progressive while our 'progressive' reputation has been attached to him. The irony of that. Politics is not a game. it affects the lives of millions. With 2 wars, 9 trillion in debt, healthcare, environment, and many many more problems that Bush had caused, the next President not really have to ensure things don't get any worse, but solve those problems as well. If Obama failed to do so, then the progressive era which took place starting in 2006 will fail alongside with Obama.
P.S. i know many who have been voting for democrats all their life but is not on board yet. PUMA had stated that they had raised 6.5 mil for Clinton. If this is true, then Obama has a much bigger problem uniting the democrats than he thought.
Ummm.. if you would like to categorize it as she is supporting McCain's gas tax insanity and you have to understand that Bush and Obama were in the same side on the gas issue as well.
If you actually take the time to read the column written by Paul Krugman, Hillary's removal of gas tax is different than McCain as Hillary's plan is paid for by enforcing the collection of taxes not paid to the government from the oil companies. Bush disagreed with this. What about you?
That's basically what you just said. Well then looks like i can save myself a few hundred bucks a month and not donate to our Congresional candidates. Perhaps i should just exchange them to euros and i might actually profit in 4 more years.
Seriusly, we should hold Obama accountable to ensure that he is the Progressive candidate and run on the Progressive banner. Even Hillary Clinton had to guts to acknowledge that when faced with the Republican machine and Obama no? Read your own post rather than call us trolls and such. Your desire for Obama to win has cloud whatever judgment left of you. I want a progressive to win. I do not want a conservative to win. Seriusly, if we remove the 'D' from Obama, right now i will not able to differentiate him and the 2000 Bush. Since they are practically running on the same platform.
Many chose to kick Hillary out and Obama is now running even to the right of her platform? I hope you understand why many of us here are pissed. If you look at the recent survey done, Obama is losing more of Clinton's supporters in contrast to a month ago. And to win them means giving Clinton the proper respect. By that means Obama got to run on his own platform and not of Clinton's. Else it would just be kicking out an experience woman for a new man. Till you and all other posters realize that this is the problem and not 'us' being happy over Obama taking over Hillary's position. In fact, Obama is being right of Clinton as of right now.
It's sad to see that the only way to justify your support for Obama is neither on positions nor on policies but back to plain old rhetoric. I know you said that you wanted to write sometime positive for Obama, but can't you think of something more concrete?
My question is simple, if Obama chooses to embrace conservative values in this progressive age, what guarantee do we have that he will come back to us when he wins? Would we be sacrificing our future in politics if Obama gets elected with a conservative mandate? What precedence would that set for our party? We have sacrifice universal healthcare, death penalty, gun control, separation of church and state, 4th ammendment, and late term abortion so that we could get Obama elected? Is this worth it? Is this the candidate that we want to win? Is this the change that we are trying to archive and can we look into the eyes of the next generation of voters and tell them that we are trading 20 years of no female presidential candidate, so that we could elect a progressive nominee with conservative values? Where is the line that we are willing to draw to distinguished a democrat from a republican?
It all boils down to this, It's only the start of July and Obama has already reversed half of what he promised to change. If Obama indeed choose to run on a conservative mandate, should we support him just so because he is the democratic nominee? Or should we actually attempt to use our netroots and pressure Obama to run on a progressive platform and sell progressive values to America. Obama is drifting away from the people's platform and shouldn't we try to exact our importance? Obama is trading change and hope for conservative values. I do not respect a candidate which does that. His positions are even more to the right that what Hillary would have done.
Personally i want a progressive candidate to win. Centrism was the progressivism of the 90s. Now we need the progress needed for the 21st century. And for this reason i value Hillary Clinton as her mandate was a progressive one if any of you actually read her plans and positions. Bill Clinton brought a lot of progress in the 90s despite having to face the Republicans who had the public's will and the democrats whom could not let go of their corrupt ways as they had been in power for too long. Obama is not swinging to the center but instead to the right and i'm not comfortable with our candidate doing that. Even Kerry has the guts not to stray that far. I just hope that we would once again unite and tell Obama, run on a progressive mandate or we'll withold our fundings and such. If we do not set our priorities right, we would just be another Hollywood entity. We will just become a blank check for Obama.
P.S. We cannot just trust Obama. There is no such thing as trust in politics especially for politicians with ambitions.
And i have one last question, through it's a little racially sensitive. What does progressive means to you? I know many who thinks the by putting a black person in higher power, that is very progressive. If you don't think that is true, youtube Kerry's reasoning of supporting Obama. And just for the record, i'm a minority as well.