Are you channeling Rush Limbaugh? Are you trying to drive blacks from the Democratic party? We want your votes, but we can't afford to put any of you on a national ticket? So Obama's appeal has nothing to do with the vision of change that he is offering to the people? He's just where he is because he's black, and not because he is an incredibly intelligent, talented and accomplished person? People of all races and backgrounds come to his rallies just because he's black? Is there a line of reasoning more insulting than to say that he has only gotten anywhere because he's black and not because of any talents or positive qualities that he might have? What happened to judging by the content of one's character and not the color of their skin? This is not the 1960s after all. More AAs than ever are being elected to statewide office, and if you haven't heard we've had two black secretaries of state. Obama did very well in very white, very conservative southern Illinois. Harold Ford only lost the senate race in Tennesee by a tiny margin and he had lots of baggage because of his family. Massachusetts has a black governor, and that state's racial history is not all peaches and cream. Virgina elected a black governer some 20 years ago. It seems that Obama has more faith in the American people than a lot of so-called progessives. Is it any wonder that so many younger AAs are registering as independents and not Democrats? If you have objections to Obama based on policy, ideology or something substantial that is one thing, but to say that he shouldn't even be in his this thing because he's black is just racist. If he goes down because he did not run the best campaign or appeal to the most people on the basis of his platform, so be it. If, on the other hand, you say that he shouldn't even be in the running becuase he's black, please explain how that is not racist.
It's funny because when Republicans talk about running Colin Powell of Condaleeza Rice they don't seem to have the same fears. It will be ironic if the GOP runs the first black candidate instead of the Dems.
My support of Obama is not based upon his race, and he is not making the case that one should vote for him because of the color of his skin. It seems to me, however, that when someone argues that he shouldn't be considered because of his race, the motivations behind such a premise are fair game for questioning. I'm not saying that he be given special consideration because of his race, but only that he not be excluded because of it.
Threatening to leave? Whining? You people need to get a grip. I don't lose any sleep over the things that I read on this site, so please don't flatter yourself. If I can maintain my subscription to TNR in spite of the presence of Crazy Uncle Marty, I can deal with a bunch second rate wannabes who do nothign but post poll diaries. Besides, I have actual things to do in actual Democratic politics and I am well aware that this is not the real world.
What are you talking about? I've seem far more Hillary bashing on Daily Kos than here, and I don't ever remember there being a shortage of Hillary supporters on this site making the case for her (well, not so much making a case for her, but constantly pointing out that she was ahead in the polls), just as the Edwards people were constantly supporting their candidate. There has always been more Obama bashing here than anything, at least in the six months in which I've been coming around. If anything has changed, it seems that the Edwards element is less in evidence and the site is starting to look more like hillaryis44. In any case, you're one to talk about groupthink.
I'm starting to come to the same conclusion myself. I used to like to come to this site because there was real debate about substansive issues. Now it's nothing but poll diaries and hit pieces on Obama. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that I had come to hillaryis44 instead of My DD.
I've been a Democrat all of my life, and though I knew that we had some nuts on our side, I never would have imagined that ours could be just as obnoxious as those on the right until this site started to look like a left wing version of LGF.
In any case, my friends and I are too busy busting our asses trying to help Obama and grow our local grass roots movement to spend every waking moment trying to tear down Hillary Clinton every day.
The system has broken down. This is anarchy. States shouldn't be able to keep moving the goal posts within the same election cycle. Something drastic needs to be done, and if that means denying IA and NH their delegates, so be it. Howard Dean needs to grow a pair, because this is getting way out of hand. Enough is enough.
I'll be perfectly frank and say that I do have a big problem with the way that HRC conducted herself as first lady and the dangerous precedent she set. I don't deny that it may have become a politicized role over the years, but that doesn't mean that it is a good thing. Furthermore, the way that Clinton conducted herself was light years from what Eleanor Roosevelt was doing. Did Eleanor Roosevelt threaten to "demonize" other Democratic senators if they didn't get on board with her agenda? These various manifestations of the co-presidency, whether it is Dick Cheney playing that role or the Clinton's "two for the price of one" are dangerous on a constitutional level. At least the vice-presidency is an elected constitutional office. That of the first lady is not, and she should not be involved in crafting policy on the level that HRC did. The first lady is not elected and that is not her role. Regardless, if she is going to count her years as first lady as relevant experience, then I think that we should know something about that record. Locking up her papers seems to be counterproductive the argument that she is trying to make.
If that is indeed the case, then maybe the Republicans can run Laura Bush and not agonize over having to choose between the flip-flopping Mormon, the pro-choice crossdresser or the heretic McCain. Be that as it may, the first lady is not a constitutional office and if has become policitized to the point that it can be regarded a springboard to the presidency, then that is a dangerous thing.
All state legislatures are not created equal. The Illinois legislature is a full time legislature. Illinois is not like Texas, where they meet for a couple of months every two years. In any case, none of the top three candidates on the D side have the level of experience in elected office as Dodd, Biden or Richardson, and in terms of years in elected office Obama has more experience than Clinton. She only has a handful of years in the Senate on him, and her years as first lady are not that relevant in my view, as that is not a political office. Besides, it looks like we are not going to learn much about her years as first lady with her papers being locked up and there isn't really much to tell about her tenure in the Senate besides her voting to authorize the Iraq war, trying to amend the constitution to ban flag burning and censoring video games.