I do feel (rightly or wrongly) that the Obama people have called me a racist–starting in New Hampshire with the talking heads saying older white ladies voted for Hillary because they were closest racists. I find myself thinking about all the black people I’ve worked with over the years and channeling Steven Colbert’s “I don’t see color” line — even though I know he means it not the way I’m thinking about it. To my ears, the Rev. Wright thing is a perfect match for the Obama approach–calling everybody a racist. As a result, I certainly am thinking about the culture of grievance sometimes expressed–which I always ignore, on the proposition of let’s communicate on a level where we have no conflicts, and wondering whether Matt Taibii is right that it’s none of my business to judge. I’ve never felt as white as I do as a result of this campaign.

I guess you’re saying that you’re feeling the same way about being male–but where I said that I haven’t a clue. As for anyone listening to me did I say they did? My husband knows better than to fight with me, my brother not so much (not at all), and my son, bless his loving heart, has decided to go with Mom. But that’s all personal stuff, not about the merits of the argument.

You’re right that I do feel antipathy to Tim Russet but again it’s not about him being male. Tim Russert says we have no universal health care in this country because of Hillary Clinton. I find that ignores some other causes. You may be right that she blew it big time, I just feel like I don’t have enough information to judge. Maybe Susie can tell us after she finishes Carl Bernstein’s book.

Regards.

So sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest anything like mindless sexist cultist. I don’t really talk to living breathing people about politics, it’s way too divisive, besides I’m surrounded by evangelicals and Republicans (all very nice people by the way). I do talk to my family, and what I said applies to my brother and my husband, to which I always reply, what is it with white men hating Hillary. (My 17-year-old son has agreed to side with me, but that’s a different story.) I do think Hillary is judged by a standard that is way different than had she been unknown before this campaign. All you have to do is read the comments on the Obama sites, there is often a litany of 1990s crimes, including that she killed Vince Foster (no doubt while having hot lesbian sex and selling hard drugs from the Mena (?) airport). As others have said, so much for the progressive blogosphere being reality-based.

I think the AUMF vote is a good example of her being judged more harshly than others. How many Obama bloggers and pundits were gung-ho for the war at the time? How many democratic politicians were more gung-ho than she, many of them Obama supporters now? It’s hard to remember how much courage it took to be a Robert Byrd. The only one I remember on TV being against the war was Scott Ritter, and everyone sagely agreed that he was a mental case. People supported the war because we were still in revenge-mode for 9/11–let’s punish the A-rabs for doing this to us, and in doing so we’ll remake the Middle East to be just like Kansas, and we’ll be safe evermore. Sane voices were few and far between.

I don’t agree with her vote either, but I think she’s being judged far too harshly for it. I doubt either Hillary or Barack would start more wars, but Barack’s inexperience is an item of concern. And as I’ve already said, I think she cares about peace. I’m not sure what Obama cares about.

Not that anyone’s reading this anymore.

At least Hillary genuinely cares about health care (so it seems to me). I can’t tell if Barack cares at all, frankly. Frankly I can’t tell if he really cares about any of the things I care about, abortion for one, he certainly has spent too much time schmoozing with the evangelicals, and his church is hardly reassuring on that score. His right-wing talking points on Social Security and his advisors who want to privatize are another area of concern.

I really don’t get why people think Barack would end the long era of American militarism or stand up to the “military industrial complex.” First of all, does he stand up to anyone at all? Second he’s proven that he can talk bellicose to prove he’s just as hairy as the next guy–and isn’t that what Hillary’s AUMF vote was about, where is the evidence he is any different?

it makes perfect sense to me why clinton’s campaign crashed like it did. you can’t win by belittling fellow democrats.

I’m sure you believe this but my perspective that belittling Clinton is exactly what Obama has done throughout the campaign. Not that I am taking him to task for this as this is obviously one of the tactics to get to the nomination, especially when he was behind.

I do think that we all can see (if we choose to anyway), that the main stream media has played an enormous role in shaping the outcome, first by invalidating many of the candidates since they couldn’t get coverage at all and their message simply died, second because the main stream media sought controversy before all else which gave intense coverage to perceptive slights and insults instead of policy and the real differences among the candidates. The central feature was identity/personality, not substance.

I agree that the AUMF was a tough vote but given what I have seen from Obama, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would have made the same vote as did Hillary Clinton and John Edwards if not skipped the vote entirely…none…regardless of all his posturing on the subject, he wasn’t there and didn’t have to step up to the plate. Where was he on Kyl/Lieberman vote on Iran? AWOL

Sometimes leaders don’t make the right choices…my dad wasn’t perfect either.

wouldn’t it be a better idea to ask a living breathing person who actually is voting for him why?

in my case, it’s because of clinton’s hawkish foreign policy. the fact that she voted for the 2002 AUMF is inexcusable. and the fact that she still only gives kerry-esque excuses for the vote rather than a clear-cut apology like edwards did compounds the crime. on top of that, there’s her vote for the kyl-lieberman amendment, essentially a basis for an attack on iran. and i shuddered when she criticized obama for suggesting that we should talk with iran rather than act so belligerent to them. while i do appreciate what clinton did with northern ireland, since she entered the senate she has consistently staked out a hawkish stance. she only came around to calling for a withdraw of troops from iraq when there were hints that her presidential bid was faltering.

look, my wife is leaning clinton. a lot of my friends like clinton. i think that’s absolutely fine. i will never ever reduce my friends’ bona fide assessment of the merits of the candidates to irrational hatred or racism. that simply isn’t fair to them or their reasoning ability. it really bothers me when obama supporters are dismissed as irrational like that. and, frankly, it’s a bad argument to make. how can you ever expect to win me over if you ignore my actual concerns about clinton (see above) and instead dismiss me as a mindless sexist cultist? when i read comments like yours, it makes perfect sense to me why clinton’s campaign crashed like it did. you can’t win by belittling fellow democrats.

I also think she has a unique ability to tune out the noise. Most normal humans who have been subjected to the treatment she has would have dropped out of public life a long time ago. I think she keeps going because she really cares about the problems and the policies.

In contrast, Obama seems to be singularly lacking in courage.

As for Obama and Pakistan, I’m sure I’ll be corrected with transcripts and videos, but my impressionist recollection of that whole thing was that Obama felt himself to be pushed into a corner, he was being painted as not tough enough, and he wanted to prove that he too could be a Power Ranger. For me it wasn’t about whether strategically or as a matter of policy what he said might make sense, it was that he said it in order to prove that he too could drop bombs like a real man. Ugh.

Overt ass-kissing to AIPAC? You must be referring to Obama. He’s been bending over backwards to pander to the Jewish community (and possibly their white evangelical allies). You might find Obama’s speech to AIPAC to be a good example of ass-kissing.

Why are people voting for him? Because they hate Hillary and are voting for the alternative. And they hate Hillary not for any sane reason but because of the brutal portrait painted by the media for the last 15 years.

On the racism stuff I think I’ve already said here that Obama’s affiliation with a pastor and a church that preaches hatred is a window into his soul that is less than reassuring.

Oh and he lies a lot too–the lobbyist thing isn’t the only thing he’s lied about. It seems that the only way he can respond to criticism (or to people voting for his opponent) is to claim his critics (and the voters who chose otherwise) are racist–but then we’re back to that church again.

Hillary is following the DLC model of elections… an 18 state strategy fighting for precisely 50%+1 of the vote and no more. This has been a losing strategy for Demorats for almost two decades, and has left many State Democratic Parties completely moribund. Everyone touts how Bill Clinton won with this strategy, but the fact is, Bill Clinton won thanks to the presence of Ross Perot, and never once got more than 50% of the vote.

Obama is following the Howard Dean model of the 50-state strategy. He understands the game is delegates, and he’s fighting for them in every state, not dismissing or writing off any precinct.

And true to form, Obama is winning the game (he’s even winning Texas), and Clinton is losing it. In fact, just looking at how the campaigns have been run says a world to me. Obama’s run an amazing campaign. Tight and reponsive, with amazing organization on the ground, with lots of energy and bringing in lots of new blood. Hillary’s campaign was lazy and arrogant, with no plan for after Super Tuesday, and completely dismissive of any state that didn’t support her, and no ground game in many states that were critical, leading her to 12 straight losses.

Between Howard Dean and Obama, there’s lots of energy at the local and state levels, Democratic parties are resurgent all over the country, fundraising is through the roof, new registrations are at an all time high… if nothing else, we’ll see a lot of new Democratic blood at the state and local levels, ready to move up in the future. And if Obama is the Nominee (and he’s practically guarenteed to be) his coat-tails will be pretty long.

I started out as an Edwards supporter, shifted to Hillary, and finally shifted to Obama. I’ll gladly vote for any Democrat (I’m glad we have such a bunch of good candidates this time), but Hillary has been working very hard at losing me lately, and it’s really painful to lose respect for people I supported so whole-heartedly for so long.

Anyway, the move away from the losing DLC “Republican Lite” strategy, away from Carville and his nasty clueless ilk, away from the 50%+1 strategy, away from the special-interest big-money inside-the-beltway politics at all… THAT is the “change” I’m voting for, the “Hope” I’m voting for, and it’s what inspires me.

What I said on Kos, with many others, before they purged all of us for being “divisive” or whatever.

I’m trying to cry you a river over this, but since you won’t let me comment on your site, I’m finding it hard to crank up the waterworks.

Whether my inability to comment on your website is due to a technical glitch, technical ineptitude, or overly vigorous spam filters on your email I do not know. Maybe you think I’m an asshole, or maybe you think I’m a moron, or maybe it’s just a true desire on your part to keep my voice down. I do not know.

You cats don’t even send out a bullshit form letter when you deny a commenter’s account. What am I to make of this? What powerful and nefarious forces have aligned against me and my millionaire candidate?

But, whatever. For now, me thinks thou doth protest too much.

my reaction to your comment #11 is pretty much what chris said above in #14. i don’t get why anyone would be at all upset about the use of themes like “hope” and “unity” or “transformation”.

It’s not that I (speaking personally, not for anyone else) am against the notions of hope, unity or transformation, it’s just that I’m not buying it because I don’t believe there is truth in the advertising/candidate. After you’ve seen enough election cycles, you get jaded and just don’t buy into the new guy, the next Kennedy or ??? We remember what happened to saviors like Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Albert Gore, John Kerry and once in a while, it would be nice to win.

I’m sure I’m not the only who feels this way but I am only empowered to speak for myself.

With age comes cynicism, which undoubtedly accounts for most of the youth support for Obama and middle age + for Clinton…that doesn’t make for much more than a contest.

As was pointed out to me many, many, many years ago…old age and treachery overcomes youth and skill.

Perhaps not always but most of the time.

Perhaps not this time either but maybe…

I’m a Democrat and a Philadelphian and this whole ‘winning’ concept is a bit foreign to me. I’ll be honest with you; I find that I don’t understand a lot of things lately. My wife says it’s the glue. Sometimes I agree, but then I huff a little more and forget what I was agreeing with, so I just do whatever the collective asks.

Anyway, I hope you find that truck. I know a lot of people don’t really care for turnips, but they’re actually pretty tasty when used in a decent application. Also, I wouldn’t touch the hair. You look divine as is. Maybe let them touch up the color a little , but nothing major.

Lambert, I couldn’t agree more. A politician running for president using standard issue themes like unity, being an outsider, bringing change to Washington, and watery shlock about reaching across the isle represents a level duplicitous mendacity which has never before reared its vile head in our politics.

Fine. And to think I thought that irony was a dying art.

But would you be good enough to get in touch with the Obama Fan Base, who’ve been pestering people with their “personal conversion narratives” — though to be fair, they were only doing what the Obama campaign trained them to do — and get them to stand down, because, as it turns out, Obama’s just another pol?

Thanks. I’d do it myself, but I’ve got to go looking for that turnip truck you seem to think I’ve fallen off of. And then I’m getting a haircut and running some errands. So….

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689619,00.html

my reaction to your comment #11 is pretty much what chris said above in #14. i don’t get why anyone would be at all upset about the use of themes like “hope” and “unity” or “transformation”.

besides, i basically agree that obama has to run a rhetorically optimistic campaign. the country is in a strange place when it comes to racial politics right now. we are still a deeply racist nation, and yet racism itself has been completely discredited. what that means is that even racists don’t want to acknowledge that their racists feelings. and so, they hide their racism behind other things, usually class or cultural. they don’t hate black people, they hate people who are too “ghetto” or whatever. the long and short of it is that lots of people who otherwise wouldn’t support a dark skinned person, are willing to support someone who doesn’t come across as culturally black. that’s what was behind biden referring to obama as “clean” and “articulate.” it’s what’s behind the widespread popularity of tiger woods and colon powell. and obama benefits from that as well.

but he would not be able to pull it off unless he talks in optimistic terms. he can’t be “the angry black man” or else that will literally ghettoize his candidacy. i see his optimism as a rather smart strategic choice. whether conscious or not, that’s what he had to do. if he started cribbing off of edwards’ speech and talked about corporate power, he would come across as a lot more threatening than edwards ever was. (and incidentally, that’s why the wright thing was potentially so damaging)

the bottom line is that these guys are all politicians. they’re playing to win and i don’t hold their strategic decisions about how to present themselves against them. after all, i want my politicians to win. people have mentioned that clinton is limit by what she can get away with because her words and actions will always be viewed through a sexist lense by a portion of the population. but obama also will also be judged through a lense of who he is. i actually think it is impressive that he found a way to turn it into a positive.

how’d that work out again????

PS
Clinton takes MORE cash from law firms–which I guess are now “lobbyists” than Obama.

so I guess they are more beholden to people that want favors and influence than Obama right?

And of course, Obama gets way more small donations from far more individual donors.

Just as he leads in votes, delegates, and states, he also leads in small donors and is less dependent on big money people, law firms–I mean “lobbyists”–and other special interest groups.

I see a big diff in For. Policy and OVERT allegience/ass-kissing to AIPAC. Not saying AIPAC would lose influence in an OB administration but I think other voices will be heard.

I just want a president I can be proud of.

ps…
Bayh (Clinton superD) said last night:
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,”
So we shouldn’t expect OB to win NY or CA in the GE since HRC won them? Come on!! That is just total bullshit! What’s next? Counting primaries bill won and add them to hrc totals?

this is like some sort of “surge” strategy where they keep adding metrics and benchmark ideas but ignores victory chances….

2. Snuzy, you write:

that’s why so little of your criticisms of obama don’t seem very substantive to me. sure, he’s a politician, takes money from big business, sometimes says stuff that i wish he hadn’t, et cetera. i never thought otherwise. and i don’t really think that there are many obama supporters who do either.

Sure. What I said on Kos, with many others, before they purged all of us for being “divisive” or whatever. The only problem is that if Obama’s just another Chicago wardheeler, that makes all the verbiage about unity, and change, and transformation exactly the steaming crock we called it out for at the time. It’s the old feeling of being pissed on and told it’s raining. It’s not the pissing that’s the problem, so much; it’s the insult, and the power trip, of being told that what any fool can see and feel is piss, is not, in fact, piss, but holy water. It reminds me of the run-up to Iraq. My unity pony is still on back-order, I guess.

i agree with that, except that they have staked out pretty different approaches to foreign policy. and obama’s is simply better. his policy papers and speeches on foreign policy have been really really good. i almost wrote a post contrasting obama’s speech on the anniversary of the iraq war with clinton’s largely substance-less iraq speech given on the same day. you can find hints of that post i didn’t write here and here. there’s a reason why clinton has attracted the liberal hawks when she formed her foreign policy team.

and yes, clinton has more experience, though i think her foreign policy experience seems to be mostly spin. it seems rather clear to me that she was not a typical first lady and took a far more substantive approach than, say, laura bush, the things she did were more in line with her interests, about things like women’s issues, family leave, children’s issues and health care. she has a real strength there. which is why i think it is sad, and a bit embarrassing, when she makes up scary incidents about her trip to tuzla (as if getting shot at, even if it happened, somehow constitutes “foreign policy experience”) or resorts to bushesque scare tactics like that 3 a.m. phone call ad.

also the clinton white house was pretty chaotic all the way through both of his terms. i don’t think it was just a matter of a “learning curve”, i think for all their brilliance, they’re just the kind of folks who tend to exist in a cloud of chaos. so yes, the clinton transition was chaotic. but so was their 7th year in office. there were a whole lot of sloppy leaks, resignations, and petty squabbles in the administration pretty much all the way up until bush vs. gore. and, for that matter, her campaign is a bit of a mess as well. why the hell does she keep listening to mark penn? why does she keep relying on criticisms that are based on horseshit? (like the “obama wants to attack pakistan!!!” lie) those things, to me, are a sign that she really isn’t that skilled at running things. and frankly, like atrios, a lot of times i just feel like her campaign is insulting my intelligence.

so yeah, i fully acknowledge that clinton is a skilled legislator. and i also think that on most issues clinton and obama are not far apart at all. however, her foreign policy is not a clean break with the bush doctrine like obama’s is. plus, clinton’s not just vote for the 2002 AUMF, but also the fact that she was one of the leading hawks of the democratic party and helped kill an alternative that would have required bush to go back to the UN before he started the war, shows a profound lack of judgment. and the fact that she voted for the kyl-lieberman amendment just 6 months ago shows that she hasn’t learned her lesson from the 2002 vote.

that’s just how i see it. and that’s why so little of your criticisms of obama don’t seem very substantive to me. sure, he’s a politician, takes money from big business, sometimes says stuff that i wish he hadn’t, et cetera. i never thought otherwise. and i don’t really think that there are many obama supporters who do either.

I’m reading the Carl Bernstein book on Clinton ( I highly recommend it, by the way), and man, she and Bill fucked up their incoming transition royally. Really, any way they could screw up coming into office, or ways to shoot themselves in the foot once they were there, they did it. But Clinton’s too smart not to have learned from those mistakes. I don’t think we’ll see a repeat. So yeah, I think that kind of experience is a big plus.

Frankly, under the circumstances, I don’t think we can afford that much of a learning curve. If we weren’t in such a scary mess in so many different ways, Obama would be a good-enough choice because he’d get to grow into the job. We could afford to wait.

But I just don’t think we have that much time to spare.

so what’s the point? that obama is a politician? that obama gets campaign contributions from various interests?

where exactly is the big revelation?

The money “turns bad” for the same reason it does from any large contributor - they expect something in return, like access and influence.

once again, i think we’re in the realm of campaign spin. and once again, i think you’re arguing against some straw-man obama supporter who doesn’t believe the obama campaign ever spins anything. i really don’t think such a person exists, which is why this line of attack comes across as so unconvincing.

I mean, the past few months have been all about how craptacular Obama is. Well, what’s so great about Clinton?

“one example from earlier in the campaign”

So, we are recycling news from january 8, 2008 now?

here’s a thought, instead of spending all your efforts making sure we know that obama is just as deceitful and lacking in character as HRC, why don’t you tell us all the reasons you like HRC and why the majority of delegates, voters, and states are making such a huge error in supporting Obama?