I’ll post more soon, but I thought I’d open up a thread about the (possible) end of this at long last (probably) ending race (please, please…).
——
Weeks ago, the discussion was about whether Hillary staying in despite the mathematical near-certainty of defeat was wise. Would it hurt the party? No, Clinton supporters said, of course not! Not a chance, Hillary Clinton said. How could it hurt the party? Vigorous debate nev-
Harriet Christian is not going to be voting for Obama this fall. If Hillary had dropped out a month ago, before the tortured math games and disingenuous “count the vote” campaign and the shady invocations of Florida 2000 and Zimbabwe and the civil rights movement… maybe Harriet Christian would be voting for a Democrat this fall. Now… not so much. In a campaign full of squalid turns (invoking Obama the neophyte unqualified terrorist-loving Muslim), these last two weeks have offered the coup de crap - with Clinton putting forth the message that she was being cheated, that the system was “rigged” (as Bill Clinton put it), and that in a fair fight she is the real winner. I have no doubt that both Hillary and Bill will come back and support Obama. but that’s not the point: Harriet Christian won’t be back.
So why should Harriet Christian matter? Isn’t she just one crazy old gal with some thinly-veiled grudges? Well, yes. But no. Go to any polling place and you’ll see that the electorate is full of Harriet Christians. Millions of people vote. Some voters are less bright than others, some are less stable than others, some are quicker to anger and slower to move on. And you need every last possible one of us flawed, boisterous, combative citizens in order to win a national election.
The Clintons know this. When they started to see that their last hope was suddenly and unexpectedly with the less-educated white voters, the Yale Law School-educated Hillary became a “g” droppin’ plain-spoken Jane Lunchpail talkin’ back to that silver-spoon elitist Obama. And if she had to drop a few caucuses and add an election she’d formally renounced to become the “popular vote winner,” well, as Barbie taught us years ago, “Math is hard.” And if a few more votes and volunteers could be produced by challenging the very rules of the game, by crying foul and claiming sexism and encouraging screaming, disruptive protests at party meetings… well… all’s fair in this kind of game…
Except it’s not. No matter how hard Hillary works to Bring Us Back Together, even if she’s the VP nominee, the Harriet Christians aren’t coming back. And they should be coming back. That’s why all isn’t fair in a primary battle, when your opponent believes much of the same things you do. That’s why you don’t cross certain lines, why you stay focused on what really matters and the fact that in the end, there is a reason to be in one party rather than the other. But that’s not what happened here. The Clintons pulled out every trick in the playbook as though there is absolutely no difference between a primary campaign and the general election. And there is. There has to be, unless the difference between the parties is no more pronounced than the difference between divisions in professional sports leagues. Hillary didn’t even obey the designated hitter rule, fer cryin’ out loud…
It’s okay. Obama can win without Harriet Christian. But he shouldn’t have to. And he should keep that in mind when choosing a running mate.
Fanny Roborat
57 comments
Y. Berra
June 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm
1Come on, Adam. It ain’t over til it’s over. Pay attention, pisan.
just plain Jack
June 3, 2008 at 5:43 pm
2Maybe Bill and Hillary shouldn’t have treated the press, for all these years, like something repugnant that they accidentally stepped into while crossing the yard. The race was hers to lose and she found a way to do just that and, in the bargain, left a patina of slime in her wake.
cooper
June 3, 2008 at 6:32 pm
3Australia has announced that it is removing their combat troops from Iraq. And where is Pete IVDL when you really feel like saying “Good on you, mate!”?
gillian
June 3, 2008 at 6:37 pm
4So sad, but so very true…
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/06/03/tomo/
piglet
June 3, 2008 at 6:47 pm
5Obama’s speech tonight. Hard to listen while remaining seated. But now that it’s over, all the fear of failure comes flooding back. How Democratic of me.
sharon
June 3, 2008 at 7:10 pm
6“The Australian Broadcast Corp. reported June 1 that a legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court alleging [John] Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq. A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organized by the ICC Action Group, based in Melbourne.
“An organizer, Glen Floyd, says Howard should be made accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.”
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/03/australias-john-howards-possi ble-war-crimes-submitted-to-the-international-criminal-court/
sharon
June 3, 2008 at 7:19 pm
7Growing up in Texas in the 60s, watching the angry reactions to the civil rights movement, the near-glee when MLK died, the death a few months later of RFK, I never in my wildest dreams thought this day…er, night…would ever come. I hate to borrow from Ronnie Reagan, but I can’t think of a better metaphor. (You English majors help me out here.) Maybe it really, finally, is Morning in America. Maybe the long nightmare that started with the 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, dragged on for 8 more years of Bush II, punctuated by the very briefest interlude of relative peace and prosperity for 8 Clinton years–maybe the nightmare is really over.
Aunt Sam
June 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm
8Gosh, Sharon, I hope you’re right. I’m using tomorrow to bask in the morning sun, before we’re subjected to 5 long months of general campaign garbage.
David
June 3, 2008 at 9:02 pm
9“…all the fear of failure comes flooding back. How Democratic of me. ”
Head up, piglet. Watch a McCain speech, any McCain speech, and then think about McCain and Obama going head-to-head in the general election. And for those of you old enough to remember, think back to John Kennedy’s speech at the University of Michigan in the 1960 race.
The only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.
Yay Obama
June 3, 2008 at 9:20 pm
10The AP reports:
At a recent appearance, Barack Obama made some rather cryptic remarks, which aides attributed to an overly tight necktie:
“As you may recall, in March, during the initial controversy over Rev. Wright, I told the nation, ‘I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother …’
“Then, in April, I disowned him.
“On the last day of May, after being betrayed by my new pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, Otis Moss III, I disowned my church.
“Now, in June, I’ve realized that, why, yes, I can disown the black community. Sure, you were a big help when I was a small man, but now you’re more trouble than you’re worth.
“That’s it, I’m out of here. I’m not black anymore.
“To be fair, now that I’ve disowned Rev. Wright and the black race, I’m also disowning my white grandmother. I’ve always resented you, you tight-assed bitch. So, you’re gone too.”
“By the way, my black grandmother? I’m disowning her also. She’s not actually my grandmother. She was just one of my grandfather’s other polygamous wives. It’s complicated. And I don’t do complicated anymore. So, bye-bye, don’t let the doorknob hit you on the way out.”
“Oh, yeah, now that I’m disowning Trinity United Church of Christ, I’m disowning Christ too. I was just going through the motions for the votes. But now I’ve got the nomination wrapped up and the Republicans have no more chance of winning than the Prohibition Party. So, adios Jesus.
“You may be wondering what I do believe in.
“Fate. My fate.
“And what ethnicity am I now?
“Let’s just say: I used to be a Person of Color but now I’m a Man of Destiny.”
David
June 3, 2008 at 9:32 pm
11Oh, yeah, I also have to concede that Adam is correct, and those cardinal sins are what cost Hillary several superdelegates and the Democratic leadership. She made the hill steeper to climb for Obama, and while I argue she will do everything she can to help put the Democrat in the White House, it is going to take some very smart thinking and speaking on her part to reduce the impact of what she did.
But Obama laid out things in the most constructive, inspiring, appropriate way possible. The anger on the part of women who support Hillary goes all the way back to Obama putting a kink in their crusade to elect the first woman president. It predates that post-super Tuesday Rovian campaign by Hillary among the Hillary supporters I know who refuse to support Obama. One’s husband is an Obama supporter who is scratching his head. Her anger stems from the misogynistic treatment of Hillary by the media, something that somehow bleeds over into her animosity toward Obama. Luckily they live in Georgia, so it doesn’t matter. But she is otherwise politically quite astute. There is something visceral going on that Hillary must ameliorate, including for women candidates and the Democratic Party in general, and by extension the civil body politic. Hillary took the wrong tack in regard to a very real problem. One of the black women in congress said a while back that she had encountered more barriers because she was a woman than because she was black.
When I started teaching at L-SCC, one of the veteran instructors told me that when our chair, a woman, was brought on board, the president asked him if he would be comfortable with a woman as chair. We’ve come part of the way, but don’t anyone kid themselves that misogyny isn’t alive, well, and still a cause for anger for women for whom this represents an unsmashed glass ceiling. That’s why I would make Hillary secretary of defense, along with the fact that she would be quite competent and might well help change the culture at the Pentagon.
And having roots in Appalachia, I would like to (again?) suggest that among those Scots-Irish and English Americans, misogyny is quite low on the scale, but racism quite high. That explains their willingness to vote for Hillary over Obama. In fact, that is where you will find a strong contingent of angry Southern women, and Southern men who most certainly do not think the women they know are less capable in any way. The first woman to drive in NASCAR did so in the 50s. And my grandmother was a Hardshell Baptist preacher in Kentucky - with a congregation. The heirarchy, the suits of that day and time, did not accept her, but regular folk did. And this was Kentucky in the 20s and 30s. On the other hand, my mother was 8 when she saw her first black person, and she had no idea what to make of him.
SallyMutant
June 3, 2008 at 10:51 pm
12Sam Cooke’s voice has always been a most beautiful instrument. But, quick, listen to ‘A Change Is Gonna Come” now, and get chills, or get teary or both.
Dee
June 4, 2008 at 1:29 am
13What SallyMutant said, with a link:
http://www.last.fm/music/Sam+Cooke/_/A+Change+Is+Gonna+Come
And for piglet, what Sam said:
There’ve been times that I’ve thought I couldn’t last for long
But now I think I’m able to carry on
It’s been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come
Y. Berra
June 4, 2008 at 3:27 am
14OK. Now it’s over.
tim
June 4, 2008 at 6:41 am
15You heard Yogi. And we all know, there is no greater moral authority in the world today than Yogi Berra. Sad, but true.
This campaign is gonna get really interesting. Have you been following the puported existence of a tape where Michelle Obama says “whitey” while on a stage with Louis Farrakhan? Does the tape exist? Did she appear on a stage with Farrakhan? Did she say “whitey”? Who cares! Obama is clearly the pawn/lackey/Manchurian Candidate of the Nation of Islam. If Karl Rove tells some blogger to say it, it must be true.
Meanwhile, John McCain, the actual candidate and not his wife, once said “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live” to a group of reporters on the “Straight
TalkSlur Express”. But that’s OK, because he was a prisoner of war and Asians only make up about 5% of the electorate.Five months of enlightened political discourse awaits! I’m only too happy to contribute to it.
Steve
June 4, 2008 at 6:51 am
16Never underestimate the power of spite and, yes, bitterness upon the mind of the American voter.
The McCain Administration is going to be sheer hell.
dee
June 4, 2008 at 8:45 am
17Got an email from my nephew-in-law this morning, saying both the boys (10 and 7) were excited to watch Obama’s speech last night. Before that, they caught a little bit of McCain in New Orleans. the 7-year-old, on his own, said, “He doesn’t talk very well, and he laughs funny.”
I’m not worried about the Harriet Christians of the world. I know they are out there, but I also know their time has passed. Right now most of the people who supported Hillary are hurt, disappointed and probably feeling about Obama the way I felt about Kerry in 2004 — a big “meh.” And I know a lot of people are jumping all over Hillary for her speech last night, but it’s hard to stop a freight train on a dime. 18 million voters is nothing to sneeze at and I will not dismiss them as unnecessary to Obama’s election. I know they care about this country and the direction its taken as much as I do, and they volunteered and donated and voted because they care. I just hope that, in time, they will support Obama. I know it won’t be with the same passion they felt for Hillary, but sometimes we all have to suck it up and make the best of things.
I’m not an Obamamaniac, but I truly believe his experience OUTSIDE of politics made him the better candidate. I just think he gets it in a way someone who has spent a lot of time inside the beltway no longer does. And then there’s that being right about the war from the beginning thing, too…
JM
June 4, 2008 at 10:00 am
18Adam,
I can’t imagine anything less productive at this stage of the campaign than scapegoating Clinton for an unlikely Obama loss in November.
Here’s a thought, how about acknowledging the genuine disappointment of the Harriet Christians of the world while trying to show them that, ultimately, their interests are far more alligned with Obama than McCain. And, if you’re not too busy chastising Clinton for “crossing the line” in an effort to convince her supporters that her opponent is not as good of a candidate as she is (surely a first), why don’t you take a minute to thank Clinton for getting Democratic voters out in record numbers, in part, by staying in the race and campaigning hard to the end. No matter how you tally the votes in the end, she got far more votes in a Democratic primary than any candiate in history with the possible exception of Obama. You and I both know that when all the immediate emotions of the primary race are over, an overwhelmingly large percentage of those millions of voters will get out and vote Democratic again in November, in part because Clinton got them out and energized to vote in the primaries. That percentage will be far larger if the Obama camp doesn’t focus on trying to show Clinton supporters the error of their ways in ever having supported Clinton.
By the way, do you really believe for a second that Hillary Clinton created all uneasiness or animosity that may exist towards Obama? Did you ever consider that Obama is, in fact, multi-facted, and, yes, flawed, just like the rest of the human race and that those flaws may be significant for some people? Did you ever consider that having nothing to do with anything about Obama himself, his candidacy represented an emotionally-charged barrier to turning a historic page in this country’s sexist history in exactly the same way that Clinton’s candidacy represented an emotionally-charged barrier to turning a historic page in the country’s racist history? While you’re at it, did you ever consider that Clinton did a great service to Obama — even if inadvertently — by putting him through the ringer a bit nearly a year before the general election instead of a month before the general election? Don’t you think that she helped force Obama to put a little meat on the bones of some of his positions? And, hell, even as innane of an issue as Rev. Wright was, don’t you think there is a chance that had Obama skated his way through the primary, Rev. Wright might still be lingering out there as an innane time-bomb just waiting to go on his crazy-tour in October rather than being a complete old-news dead letter?
Yes, Obama can win without the Harriet Christians of the world, but he won’t win by alienating Clinton’s supporters and he wouldn’t be in as strong of a position to win without Clinton having been in the race and run the campaign she ran, all the way to the end.
Matt
June 4, 2008 at 10:13 am
19Dee:
“I’m not an Obamamaniac”
After all you’ve just said, what disqualifies you as an “Obamamaniac?”
You refuse to stalk him? Is stalking the qualifier? Drinking his bathwater? What haven’t you said or done that keeps you outside the gates of heaven?
Maybe because you’re white, you feel you can’t empathize with the inner turmoil the man developed via his tough upbringing in the ghetto’s of Hawaii?
Please tell me. I have to know.
Matt
June 4, 2008 at 10:26 am
20JM:
” why don’t you take a minute to thank Clinton for getting Democratic voters out in record numbers, in part, by staying in the race and campaigning hard to the end.”
I think the lady is being misrepresented. She looked to me like a passionate team player for the democratic party, who feels Obama is unelectable (I agree) and was expressing frustration at that moment with the people she considers, to be “Obamaaniacs,” rather than democrats, first and foremost, at a time when she feels a democratic win is critical to the well being of the country.
I think she is expressing her anger with at least 4 years of McCain thanks to (in her mind) politically irresponsible democrats more than with Obama specifically.
There is a racial undertow to the whole Obamamania partisanship that I find disturbing.
Maybe it’s me, but I’ve never liked a lot of confused white people getting together in passionate political groups. It never comes to any good.
T. Jefferson, A. Hamilton, G. Washington, J. Adams, et al.
June 4, 2008 at 10:39 am
21Damn straight.
Hillary C.
June 4, 2008 at 10:41 am
22Really? I can…
dee
June 4, 2008 at 11:26 am
23Well gee, Matt, I wasn’t aware these intertubes had a “I can read her mind” feature. Just where IS that button?
Look– I don’t swallow what any politician says hook, line and sinker. That includes Obama. I think he’s been a little too friendly with “clean coal” in the past, for example. After Dodd left the race I waivered for a long time, not really happy with any of the remaining choices. But I listened to all of them, and Obama came closest to matching my values. Silly me thinks that’s the way you’re supposed to choose a candidate to support.
Oh — and how do you know I’m white?
ceolaf
June 4, 2008 at 11:31 am
24It’s a tie, and the Obama campaign played the rules better. So, the Obama campaign win. I like Obama, so I have not trouble with that.
However, I think that the most honest accounting of the vote has Hillary with a tiny lead.
First, count all the recorded votes for Hillary and Obama. That part is easy.
Second, extrapolate the popular vote from the 4 caucus states (IA, NV, ME, WA) that don’t record individual vote totals.
That leave the MI votes for “undeclared.” Edwards was still in the race, and not on the ballot. There were some other candidates still in the race and not on the ballot, too. But Obama was clearly the major candidate not on the ballot, so give him…75% Sure. 75%.
That gives Clinton a 15,000 vote lead. Less than .05% of 36,000,000 votes, in a system not designed for anything so close.
(If you give Obama 80% of the MI votes for undeclared, she is still up 3,000.)
That’s not fancy accounting or anything.
Adam Felber
June 4, 2008 at 11:54 am
25<i>I can’t imagine anything less productive at this stage of the campaign than scapegoating Clinton for an unlikely Obama loss in November.</i>
I don’t think that’s what I was doing, J.M. Nor do I think Obama is flawless. Not in the least.
I’ve said it time and again - my quarrel is with the campaign that Clinton ran. A campaign that I previously supported, and still admired even after I decided I was supporting Obama.
And then, in my view, it turned into something ugly, deceitful, and dirty. Like Gary Hart said , I think that Clinton crossed the line again and again.
I know Clinton supporters on this site hate to hear that, and time and again they throw up strawmen like the idea that I don’t see Obama’s flaws or I don’t respect Hillary’s supporters. In a word: Bullshit. [If I accomplish one thing here, I’d like to make Hillary’s dumb, misguided supporters understand how deeply I respect them! [I kid! I kid!]]
Look - if you glance back at these past weeks since North Carolina and Indiana, it has been the story of Hillary galvanizing her followers into the position she’s in today. The polarization looks intentional to me: it looked intentional a couple of weeks ago, and I said so. And it has had the desired (in my view) effect:
If Hillary doesn’t get what she wants, she can effectively withhold a lot of her supporters from Obama.
That’s pretty fucked up, in my view. And weirdly unmotivated, as there are almost NO significant policy differences between the candidates.
So no, I don’t think Clinton “did Obama a service” this spring. Even if I did, my new feelings towards Hillary Clinton would be the same: Even if catching a terrible stomach virus immunizes you against getting one in the future, that doesn’t make you respect the virus or feel grateful to have had it. And if the best you can say about Hillary is that she served the same purpose as a virulent intestinal bug, well, then you’ve said it all.
Is it “unproductive” for me to speak my mind about this? Mayhap. I certainly hear a lot of Clinton supporters saying that these days, somehow simultaneously arguing that Clinton throwing the kitchen sink at Obama was Helpful but that Obama ought to mind his P’s and Q’s.
And forgive me, JM, but it seems to me that’s exactly what you’re saying above. You tell me that “at this stage of the campaign” criticizing the still-not-conceding Hillary is “unproductive.” And then you go on to point out how very productive it is for Hillary to have put Obama “through the ringer.”
And most importantly, you and I would not be having this rather sharply-worded disagreement right now if on the day of Hillary’s rational elimination (May 6) she had conceded and wholeheartedly thrown her support to the winner. That’s the point I was trying to make, and I reserve the right to make it on my site.
David
June 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm
26I don’t know where my comment went, but I have to agree that Hillary chose to polarize, a la Karl Rove, when that was the last thing in the world the Democratic Party or the nation needed. She has two terrible transgressions to try to atone for, but she has put herself in a position where this will be exceedingly difficult to do. This is when we find out who the real contemporary Hillary is. Complicating this issue are the very real issues of press misogyny and the ongoing residual misogyny pretty much across the board in our society.
There are two thoughtful essays over on today’s Huffington Post, one by Hilary Rosen and the other by Erica Jong. Erica’s essay captures a frustration driving some of the women I know. But as Hilary Rosen pointed out in a previous commentary, Hillary lost this primary not because she is a woman but because her campaign got outsmarted by Obama’s campaign. And Obama will not get run over by the McCain campaign, Rovian though it will be (McCain can protest all he wants to the contrary, but Karl Rove is one of his chief campaign strategist, moreso I suspect than even Charles Black). Obama has a better, more extensive national campaign organization than McCain and more money, mostly small donor money. And there is simply no comparison between the two as public speakers.
People know McCain, and he is not winning. Everytime Obama has an opportunity to speak or meet with groups, he picks up support. In a word, voters this time around will get to know Obama on Obama’s terms, not McCain’s. Those of you despairing that Obama cannot win are stuck in the past. This page is going to turn.
And Adam, regarding your choice of a viral infection producing immunity - yes. Hated the sickness, love the fact that next time I will have resistance. I’m thinking here of that myriad of childhood diseases. The other side of the coin, of course, is hepatitis. I had the not-as-bad kind (got it by feeding some of my food to my young niece when she had undiagnosed hepatitis, probably from eating something off the floor in a laundromat). But I was told, Don’t get it again. Next time it will be worse, because now you are more vulnerable - and you can no longer donate blood. Which kind of viral infection did you have in mind?
David
June 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
27Yay Obama,
What the fuck are you blathering on about? Nice try to define Obama disingenuously. Unless you actually believe you have correctly characterized Obama. On the other hand, it is possible I am responding to a bit of tongue-in-cheek satire actually aimed at the reactionary keyboard warriors, in which case Well said, Stephen Colbert.
Just Jay
June 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm
28Two thoughts. First Hillary seemed to be campaigning as though she thought that the nomination was hers for the asking,. Even though this election year represented the best opportunity for a Democratic candidate in a long time, once she announced everyone else should have politely withdrawn. Second, watching her campaign’s descent into the hell it became, I realized that she would do anything to win (remaining on the ballot in Michigan, reversing her position on the Florida sanctions). Which lead me to believe that once elected she would do anything to get re-elected. Which lead me to believe that any position she took or promise made during the campaign would be abandoned immediately and without qualm if it endangered her career (denying any ambition to run for president during her Senate re-election campaign then announcing her candidacy shortly after winning). Neither of these qualities make her suitable for the office.
Cheers,
Jay
Dale
June 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm
29Dee said: “Oh — and how do you know I’m white?”
Well, let´s just say that for a sistah, you have an unprecedented knowledge of Polish baked goods.
Jake
June 4, 2008 at 5:14 pm
30Here’s how we, as progressive Americans, might consider using the next week - Obama supporters, take a break. You’ve earned it. Clinton supporters should feel free to bitch and moan, vent their spleens, pull their hair, gnash their teeth, and kvetch to their heart’s content over how Hillary was robbed. Then, at the end of this time, have a “Get over it and Get on with it Rally”. Obama wasn’t my number one choice either, but he’s now the nominee running against the dark side and I will support him.
Sneaky-shits like Karl Rove are still out there. Just because the Republicans have chosen a cantankerous, garrulous, out of touch, old coot, doesn’t mean we can let down our guard for a moment. After all, they did manage to get an inbred, substance abusing moron two terms in the White House. These creeps haven’t been imprisoned (yet) and still threaten our fragile democracy. There’s much work to be done.
Dee, I got the impression that you were a Puerto Rican of Polish/Latvian ancestry, with a touch of Celtic, Jewish, and Liechtensteiner cussedness. And somehow you wound up with red hair. It’s just a feeling I had; I could be wrong.
Furious with Hillary
June 4, 2008 at 5:47 pm
31Clinton, or her “surrogates,” have stooped to a new low. The righteous indignation over the popular vote and the delegates in Florida and Michigan is staggeringly transparent in its self-serving motivation. Let’s assume for a moment that she did actually win the popular vote. Would Clinton expect Obama to concede nomination because she won the popular vote? If Obama had won the popular vote but not the delegate count, would the people who are up in arms now be saying that Obama should get the nomination instead of Clinton? If Clinton felt the popular vote should be the deciding factor, why didn’t she say so back in 2006 when she entered the race? She doesn’t give a shit about the popular vote, unless it can be used as an argument in her favor. The indignation about Florida and Michigan is equally transparent. Where was Clinton when FL and MI were deciding to push up their primaries? Did she go to those state parties and say “don’t do it, everyone’s vote has to count?” I have never heard these opinions voiced by anyone who is not a Clinton supporter. I thought Clinton had no moral code when she voted in favor of a unilateral pre-emptive war. Now I know it for sure.
sharon
June 4, 2008 at 6:06 pm
32This is a quote from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles,” said Rice, the first female black secretary of state in history, serving in a Republican administration.
“And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that ‘We the people’ is beginning to mean to all of us.”
Do I detect a note of maybe, possibly, the next defection from the Bush regime?
SeattleDan
June 4, 2008 at 6:39 pm
33All that said about Sen. Clinton, that she ran a desperate campaign at the end, I think we do have to acknowledge that she has a large base in the Party, and bridges need to be mended, and her supporters embraced by the Sen. Obama’s next campaign. I personally think the GOP will stoop to everything come the fall. And we will need everyone to pitch in. McCain is truly a continuation of every horrible policy and decision made the past 8 years, no matter how much he tries to distance himself from the current occupant.
Pope Benny 16
June 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm
34I certainly will be glad when I get out of this cell. Franco told me yesterday that the calvary has arrived (whatever that means) and gave me a big wink. He says two nights from now, I should sleep under my mattress, away from the outside wall, and be ready to move quickly when the explosions begin. Franco has had a dangerous look in his eye lately. Maybe I’ll ask the guards to keep him away for a week or two.
With all this time to kill, I’ve able to read each day’s Catholic News Service stories. It seems that Pepperdine University’s law professor, Douglas Kmiec, America’s answer to a right wing Rottweiler, was refused communion by a priest because Prof. Kmiec endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President.
Of course, the fake pope has no idea how to deal with this sort of stupidity, so maybe I’ll be called upon to once again save his bacon. That would be a more dignified and satisfying way to leave this cell once and for all, as opposed to a hole in the wall from a RPG and a geriatric shuffle to freedom.
Matt
June 5, 2008 at 8:50 am
35Dee:
“Look– I don’t swallow what any politician says hook, line and sinker. That includes Obama. I think he’s been a little too friendly with “clean coal” in the past, for example. After Dodd left the race I waivered for a long time, not really happy with any of the remaining choices. But I listened to all of them, and Obama came closest to matching my values. Silly me thinks that’s the way you’re supposed to choose a candidate to support.
Oh — and how do you know I’m white??”
“a little too friendly with clean clean coal”…. please don’t say that, dee. I don’t want the responsibility of your choke collar to activate in a white glow of pain and lack of oxygen.
Since I don’t have a collar yet, I might have brought up the tossing of his longtime spiritual advisor to the wolves for political expediency, or his racial confusion manifesting itself in one of the most powerful positions in the world.
I might have even balked when he advertised his own grandmother as a racist. Maybe even his lack of political experience.
But again, I wear not the Collar of Ubamacy.
btw, if you could find the passage in my last message in which I state that I know your white, I’d appreciate it. I thought I hadn’t, but since you go on as if I had, I’m confused.
PS Thanks to all those old white intellectuals backing me up. You know from unpleasant experience why we are a republic, rather than a democracy.
dee
June 5, 2008 at 10:01 am
36Yowsa, Matt — talk about drinking the bathwater!
Vinnie
June 5, 2008 at 11:03 am
37Drinkin’ da bat’water is right, dee - f’om da bat’tub where Matt makes his gin. (Matt, ya know ya can buy that shit dese days, ya don’t hafta be making it at home no more.)
So, where is all da De-troit RedWings trash talk, huh? Come on girl, ya not forgettin’ your roots, are ya? Guido tol’ me a good one da udder day - he says he went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out!!!!! Oh, ya heard dat one already…
Matt
June 5, 2008 at 11:03 am
38Dee:
“Yowsa, Matt — talk about drinking the bathwater!”
Thanks for the timely and well considered response, Dee.
It was very convincing.
Now we enter into a funhouse of confused political discourse, chock full of racially charged pandering and manipulation on both sides the likes we haven’t seen since Rosa Parks agreed to get on a bus and challenge the police.
Just what we need right now. I so look forward to it.
First on the agenda, is Obama white? Is he black? What is he? Does HE know? Can a privileged mulatto understand what being “black” is? Is it his responsibility? Is he clear on this? As clear as he was when he chose and supported his spiritual advisor for twenty years? The one who never said anything disparaging about whites until Obama decided to run for president?
Is Obama being honest? Does it matter? Was he just lying for the good of the country? A country that needs a “black” president now, more than ever?
So many questions…
Adam Felber
June 5, 2008 at 1:10 pm
39Matt -
Not quite sure what you’re trying to do here, but I know the sticky patina of obvious and belligerent sarcasm isn’t necessarily enhancing your point. When it’s not attached to anything anyone said to you but rather a general resentment, it just comes across as snotty.
So I’m not sure you’re interested in a measured response, but hell - I’ve got ten minutes.
Are there a lot of overly devoted and fanatical Obama supporters, to whom he can do no wrong? Sure. Are they <em>here</em>, the people you’re (presumably) writing to? Probably not so much.
So you start with the weird straw man that Obama supporters MUST be fanatical and unquestioning (and “wear the collar”), and then make snarky comments about the clear evidence that people here <em>aren’t</em>.
Anyway, I don’t know about Obama’s “racial confusion,” but you sure seem to. Is it MORE of an issue for Obama than it would be for any other black man? I seriously doubt it, so to me you seem to be saying that this is the wrong year for a black man to run. Right? He should wait for a less important election?
The whole black/white thing has clearly gotten under your collar - you both keep bringing it up and clearly resent that others might.
Me, I don’t think race is going to be as huge in this campaign as you do. And I don’t think Obama’s unelectable. If anything, I think Hillary might have been - something the Obama camp didn’t bring up a lot, so it wasn’t part of our “national conversation.” This is sort of what I was saying above - Hillary’s people made SURE that the “unelectable” thing became an “issue” for Obama, and the media - and <em>you</em> - played right along. [By the way, I have little doubt about the timeline here - as a guy who read pretty much everything out of Hillary’s camp, I know that her people started floating the “unelectable” meme before it became something “we” were all talking about.]
But in the land of reality, there is way more empirical evidence from polls that Hillary might have been the less “electable” one. She has some of the highest negatives in recent political history, which could (and probably would) have translated into increased Republican turnout. Most polls had her starting with killer strong negatives from as much as 49% of the voting public. Even her own people acknowledged that she was going to have to piece a victory together as she fought for that sliver of 1-2% that might be persuaded to vote for her (as opposed to the 5-10% “undecided” chunk that generic Republicans and Democrats customarily battle over). No other Democrat ever faced such a challenge going into the general election.
That’s just my opinion, but it was one of my two major concerns about Hillary even back when I supported her. The other, of course, was her weak-minded and accommodating Iraq war vote.
But Obama’s campaign, so un-negative when compared to Hillary’s, never made her negatives a central issue. [McCain would have.] So I suppose her most ardent supporters now have the luxury of pretending that the general election would’ve been cakewalk for her. It would not have been. Despite the spoon-fed mantras from the attack-bots, the Democrats have in fact fielded the more electable candidate. Now we just have to get him elected.
[Also, you might want to take a trip to the residential neighborhoods of Hawaii, but that’s another story…]
Dee
June 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm
40Well, Vinnie, I just didn’t want to gloat too much. But I’m just glad game 6 ended during regulation because after Monday night/Tuesday morning I was draggin’. But it was a great game. You know I love my Wings but Fleury — what a performance in the net that night!
And Matt, compared to my first reaction, that was “timely(sic) and well considered.”
gillian
June 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm
41My younger sister Molly is coming to visit in 3 weeks. I won’t say Jimmie is nervous and excited to meet her, but in the last few days he’s backed his ratty old pickup into his even rattier old pickup that died in his side yard 3 years ago. He also ran over a 15″ Hickory stump with his bush hog and sheared three keys and a universal joint. He had to order the replacement parts from some company in Valdosta, Georgia and knowing at what speed your common everyday rural Georgian moves, he’ll be lucky to get his parts before Molly arrives and he still has the back yard (3-1/4 acres) to make presentable. I told him we have a reel type push mower he was welcome to use - I was just funning with him, but he came over almost immediately and borrowed it. I may have oversold Molly a mite. Jimmy sure is acting weird. I may go over and visit him on Sunday afternoon - after he’s had a chance to finish that yard of his that’s currently knee deep in goldenrod and Joe Pye weed. Ain’t love grand? (Speaking of which, Adam, you still haven’t given me that hottie’s phone number. OK, if you don’t have her phone number, then her email address or retinal scan. Come on Bubbie, I’m counting on you here.)
gillian
June 6, 2008 at 3:38 am
42These decisions can be so hard to make sometimes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=06052008&type=c
tim
June 6, 2008 at 8:55 am
43Adam, I concur about the Hawaiian residential neighborhoods. I’ve been to Oahu 13 times in the past two years for work (yeah, I know, poor me), and unless you are a person of some major means, the housing choices are not pleasant. That said, Obama went to Punahou, which is a tony private school in a nice neighborhood (Michelle Wie also attended), so he probably wasn’t too bad off.
Even worse than Honolulu or some of the suburbs are the homeless enclaves that stretch for miles on Waianae beach. That’s a real shame.
Matt
June 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm
44Adam,
All I was doing here was pointing out what seemed obvious to me regarding Dee’s apparent devotion to Obama. Dee didn’t agree, posts were exchanged, “Vinnie” attempted to lampoon me by typing in “blackface,” I would assume, and… that’s about it. I have no grand design.
I agree with your views regarding Hillary.
Regarding his racial confusion, I don’t agree that the race issue would be essentially the same for any other black man.
For example, Colin Powell hasn’t written a best selling biography documenting his racial fact finding trek, his disappointment that his sibling didn’t share his interest in his race quest, his sadness regarding his racist grandmother who had the audacity to be concerned for her safety at a lonely bus stop, and so on.
Colin Powell strikes me as someone who happens to be black. Obama is someone who aspires to be black.
I think that’s a big distinction, if true, and something worth considering.
Have you read his biography? If not, you should. He’s a very good writer/storyteller.
I think anytime is a good time for any qualified candidate, that’s why I think it’s not a good time for Obama. I see a good actor, a very good writer, but his track record in congress isn’t distinctive, much less definitive. Of course, it’s just my opinion.
I’m afraid your assertion about the black neighborhoods of Hawaii isn’t germane to the conversation, since Obama had a privileged upbringing, and had little to do with black neighborhoods in Hawaii.
I believe what drives the narrative of his book, is his quest for “blackness.”
I consider it to be a fool’s errand, because he’s chasing an abstraction, not something absolute, or linear. It’s a dynamic, like “being happy.”
You can’t chase it down. It comes from living.
Travelling to Kenya, or embracing Rev. Wright would be instrumental in his ability to foster more abstract distinctions, but won’t make one more or less authentically “black.”
Perhaps he’s finished with his “quest,” but I don’t know, and I believe he’s still confused about it, and so it would be bound to leak into his policy decisions, and I don’t know if that’s good, or not. I suspect not.
I feel he’s confused, and that confuses me.
Finally, I’m not too impressed with his kicking of Rev. Wright to the curb for political expediency. Rev Wright wasn’t his bowling buddy. He was Obama’s spiritual mentor of 20 years. I don’t believe that Rev Wright only decided to spew his racial views only after Obama decided to run for President.
I believe that those who do believe Obama’s claims, are Obamamaniacs, which would put me at odds with your assertion that most people who post here aren’t O.M.’s I know it’s a drag that Obama could be lying, but I think it should be addressed as it adds to what the man is about.
So, adding it all up, I don’t feel tearful when he makes a passionate speech, nor am I thrilled when he shares his daily schedule related to his second term in the White House.
In any case, thanks for your well considered response. I appreciate it.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
June 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm
45Performing blackface with a heavy Brooklyn/Sicilian accent. That’s either tres gauche or a fabulous example of performance art.
I’d like to see more from Vinnie and Guido please.
Matt
June 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm
46Oh, that makes more sense. I did think it was pretty bold to go into a bo jangles routine, considering the subject matter, and though I’m familiar with brooklyn accents, I’m not so with Sicilian accents. Certainly not a mix of the two. But thanks, Jim. I learned a lot about the correct usage of negative Italian stereotypes and their hilarious attempts at english from you today.
SallyMutant
June 6, 2008 at 10:14 pm
47Obama was not my first choice (nor was Clinton). I would have preferred someone with more experience than Obama.
That said, lack of exprerience did not, unfortunately, hinder Bush’s success with voters. The Governer of Texas is a less powerful position than Lieutenant Governer and Attorney General. Bush was basically a silly, stupid little rich man candidate with very little governing experience.
Obama’s an eloquent, cool-headed candidate with some senatorial experience. I can get behind that pretty big time.
Hey, I had a racist grandmother. What white southerners didn’t? Is one supposed to not call a racist a racist out of family loyalty?
Chris Harlan
June 7, 2008 at 8:52 am
48Oh my, I’ve missed so much. Adam, do you believe for a second that Harriet Christian would not vote for BHO because of the campaign? I couldn’t listen to the whole rant because it was painful, but it was also painfully clear after twelve and a half seconds that she will never vote for BHO over anyone. She will/would choose a potato over HBO, and that would have been four years ago, and will be four years from now. HRC didn’t make Harriet who she is anymore than HRC made George Wallace who he was.
David
June 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm
49Adam got one thing right, and it has always been true. Obama is more electable because of Hillary’s high negatives. And I do not care what they say or don’t say, the Republicans wanted to run against Hillary, not Obama. Today’s speech was delivered by the Hillary I admired and supported pre-authorization for Bush to choose to invade Iraq. Now, if she really can help put a Democrat in the White House, this time around meaning Barack Hussein Obama, she will have undone some of the damage.
Problem is some damage takes much longer to repair, as was the case with the social damage done by the Republicans’ Willie Horton ad, the idea for which sadly appears to have originated in the Democratic primary.
But we’re in a war for the future of this country, and we need Hillary to do as much good as she can as part of this war effort.
Matt
June 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm
50David, I think the republicans considered it a toss-up. Hillary would have had a more conventional, predictable campaign, which is more desirable, but on the other hand, Obama has a lot of “loose variables” in his campaign that can end up significantly working in McCain’s favor.
Those being his past, and his wife (loose cannon).
We also don’t know what republican’s have prepared for Obama relating to his past, if he won the nominations, and I’d be quite surprised if they hadn’t “baked a cake” for the occasion.
Obama renouncing his own church of 20 years, and it’s pastors seemed like a bold move by someone who might be paranoid about something else coming up, wanting to “clear the table” quickly, eliminating the “problem” with one quick lie (”my goodness! I’ve never heard such things from the church elders!”), soon to be forgotten, instead of letting things pile up.
David
June 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm
51I think the republicans probably have more to attack Obama with, but I also think they have the problem that it won’t work this time around. Those tactics failed miserably in the special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana, and I don’t think they have an alternate strategy worked out. And McCain looks better beside Hillary than he does beside Obama. I suspect they were planning to fight the last war in the general election, just as they tried to in those special elections, but as Newt the Grinch said, that won’t work. And I just don’t see them being able to shift their strategy as dramatically as they need to, nor do I think they can do anything about McCain’s weaknesses as a campaigner. At one time I would have consdered Obama the easier candidate for the republicans to defeat, but recent events, and the Obama I’ve seen in his speeches, are what caused me to agree with Adam.
Down this way, we got some of that “The republicans are salivating at the idea of running against Obama,” which I think at that time was true. And I even think Hillary believed Obama was more vulnerable, based on some of the polls and the fact that the republicans had nothing new to attack her with. She was ignoring how high her own negatives were, however.
Most encouraging are two current poll numbers: Obama and McCain are in a statistical dead heat, according to Rasmussen, using multi-day polling, but in each case Obama comes out ahead, like by 46-45, 47-44, those kinds of numbers, and if McCain isn’t ahead now, the general election campaign isn’t likely to put him there. The other is that Obama has a commanding lead over McCain among Hispanics nationwide, and because it is likely a sense that McCain betrayed them, it won’t go away. That makes Florida and North Carolina more winnable, and hurts McCain in the Cactus Corner as well. And McCain is not all that popular even in Arizona.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and for me personally whether or not I know what the hell I’m talking about. For America, of course, the results will go way beyond being merely interesting.
Chris Harlan
June 8, 2008 at 7:26 pm
52There are probably more than a few GOP strategists who are resigned to–and are perhaps hopeful that they will–loose the general election. Things are so screwed up nationally that they would probably like to sit the next four years on the sidelines and try to convince one and all that the muck we are trudging through is not Bush’s brew.
Another note: Vincent Bugliosi’s The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is a very interesting read/listen, though I have to put it down occasionally because it makes me mutter angrily at the gym.
David
June 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm
53I hear you on Bugliosi, Chris. I get Robert Wexler’s newsletter. Today’s says Scott McClellan has agreed to testify under oath before the house judiciary committee. This has legs.
sharon
June 10, 2008 at 5:23 am
54Sing, Scotty, sing!!
Matt the Contrarian
June 10, 2008 at 6:50 am
55Just remember, Obamians, the same inherent quality of perception that tells you there’s a possibility the President of the United States will be tried for mass murder, is the same quality of perception that informs you that Obama should/will be the next President of the United States.
By the way, I think in the current fiscal atmosphere, McCain would be well advised to remind us of the Carter adminstration, and how Obama aligns with Carter’s political experience in general, and world view in particular.
Carter was a great guy, charismatic, had probably the highest IQ of any president in history, and just about buried us,
Anybody remember 20% interest rates?
Good times.
Chris Harlan
June 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm
56Hey, contrary Matt, I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. A. I’m not an Obamanian, though I will certainly vote for him. B. I don’t believe that Bush will be tried for murder, though I suspect it would be charming if he was. C. I would place those 70’s economics woes more at the feet of OPEC than I would Jimmy C. I would encourage the people who will be busy countering your people to tell folks that Carter inherited recession and inflation from the previous administration, who did nothing more to deal with it than hand out WIN Buttons (Whip Inflation Now–it was funny then, it is funny still.)
Matt the Contrarian
June 11, 2008 at 9:26 am
57Well, if you must pull out the “Carter was hamstrung by Ford’s being hamstrung by OPEC” argument, I’m afraid I might feel tempted to bring in the 500 pound gorilla sporting the “America Hearts Israel’ t-shirt, and there’s no telling what will happen next.
I hesitate, because as you know, whenever the American/Israeli question is brought out with any earnestness, comedic commentary halts, and people start blowing up.
Certainly, if Nixon had decided to cease all economic and military aid to Israel, back in those heady days, in exchange for discount prices in oil barrel units, the OPEC resolution would likely have been averted, as well as other things related to Muslim anger management issues.
But as Nixon would tell you, sometimes you have to make decisions immediately, according to your gut feelings, that might hurt later.
I trust the democrats will receive it with the compassionate understanding they are famous for.
Thanks for your response, Chris. I enjoy your writing.