Back home from Colorado and still reeling from Glenn Greenwald’s post where he demonstrated that conservative writers are leaping into race-baiting motion at the sign of Barack Obama’s awe-inspiring performance in Iowa, with claims that the youthful, multi-racial supporters of Obama’s will riot if he doesn’t win, an assertion that requires the audience to believe that young liberals who go knocking on doors to garner support for wonkish lawyers are just one bad day away from looting and raping. If you haven’t (I’m sure you have, if you’re a thinking sort) read Glenn’s post, just go do it. He argues in his unnervingly perfect way that this racist assertion is not only crazy, but another form of wingnut projection, because they’re the ones who have cultivated gangs of fascist thugs ready to use violence to swing an election.
Just read Glenn’s post for the meat of that point. I have a different point to make, a moment of rethinking some things I’ve said before. My endorsement of Edwards is based on the notion that while symbolic victories are very important, they are still mostly dwarfed by immediate economic issues. I didn’t feel it was much comfort to someone that’s homeless because of Hurricane Katrina to be like, “Well, we’re not going to help you, but don’t you feel proud that we’ve elected a black President?” Granted, I’m being a bit overdramatic, but Edwards has been the candidate talking about economic inequality, and that’s of emergency, primary importance in a way that I felt like the very important task of achieving representation was secondary.
But the unbelievable ugliness pouring out of the right is making me rethink my priorities. I naively thought that Obama’s personality had the possibility to transcend silly stereotypes about black men being thugs and criminals, but apparently not enough to scare the wingnuts off invoking them. It’s abundantly clear that we need to push this shit out into the open, and give this nation a chance to flush out some of the more noxious racism out there. Is it more important than avoiding some of Obama’s more moderate tendencies? I’m not sure. But more and more I’m inclined to think it might be. Is moderate liberalism that big of a deal? After all, he’s not going to be the sole leader of the nation, and even if he were a socialist, he’d have to work with Congress and that would moderate him. If his Presidency could dramatically counteract a lot of racism in this country, then that would probably have more of a long term effect than the policy differences between him and the other candidates.
So, what do you think, Pandagonians? Should I change my endorsement or were my original priorities the right ones?
Here’s some additional information that inclines me to rethink things.
97 Responses to “Obama shows strong; racists freak out”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I just don’t know. I really like Obama and he has been my favorite candidate since before he even entered the race. I have these moments (like after finding out that he won ultra-white Iowa) that i think he just might be able to do it. That he could bring in enough black and young voters to counteract the racist crazies and it would be this amazing moment in history and I could say that I always believed it was possible.
But then today my (liberal) dad showed me an email from my (conservative) uncle about how he is sure that Obama is a secret Muslim, and I just get this sinking feeling. My uncle is a decent guy and yet he buys this crap, and it makes me wonder whether it will be even harder than I think.
I guess that I, in my hopeful youth, think it is worth a try.
Change your endorsement! You don’t need any more reasons than the ones you’ve given.
I’ve not endorsed any candidate for prez, btw. The only thing I think is pretty clear is I won’t be voting for Hillary…
But to your point, who you endorse should reflect what you feel are the most important issues of concern to you. It also doesn’t mean that it can’t change. Things are always fluid.
And as far as being shocked at the race-baiting (and denial that it is occurring), I have a post going up in the morning citing Glenn’s post as well, and let’s just say I am going to hit the third rail again — and hopefully stir up enough of a discussion about Obama and the fact that both parties have benefited from race-baiting to elect candidates.
Consultants and pols know it, and know it’s effective. The fact that they feel their hands are tied with Obama says more about the lack of the ability of the consultant set’s to work with going after someone on issues. the use of “fear of the black man” fits like a comfy old shoe because too many low-information voters, and people who don’t feel they are prejudiced can be stirred nevertheless by such tactics.
Doing it in this presidential race, IMHO is dangerous territory, and they need to be called out on it.
Hope folks will tune in and comment tomorrow.
i definitely think you should change your endorsement. i find it very, very horrible that so many progressives have forgotten that we could elect gloria steinem herself and not a damn thing would drastically change. you have to work with congress, you have to work with the press, you have to work with republicans.
obama/clinton/edwards are pretty much the same on most issues. pro-choice, crappy on gay rights, against the war, etc. i will never support a liberal-er white man if i don’t have to.
oh, i support hillary, for what that’s worth.
I was watching the replay of the debate today on CNN and was reflecting on how we will look back on this race in history books (and probably novels and film). Our nominee is likely to be either a black man or a woman and it will be an exciting thing to see.
During the republican debate I turned to my sister and observed that these republicans are basically auditioning for the role of the villain in what will likely become a famous story about American democracy. It will be that the year that the first *whatever minority* runs against *whatever wealthy white representative of the status quo.*
My sister and I agree that all of the republicans look and talk like fine villains.
I would base an endorsement on who actually practices what they preach. It sure as fuck ain’t empty suit Obama.
Electing Obama would do wonders for the US international image as well.
The thing that prevents, and will always prevent, countries like China and India from assuming the full place that the US has in the world at present is the fact that you could never imagine immigrating to China or India and having a child become President. Those countries are part of the world, but the world is not part of them.
While I would vote for either Clinton or Obama over any current Republican or any likely independent, I don’t set think either is electable. The “middle name Hussein” thing will sink Obama and I think there’s enough sexism around to sink Hillary. The first woman president of the US will be a fundie firebrand who drags us back to the 19th century sometime around 20 years from now.
This leaves Edwards as the only viable Democrat. I’d love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket, though I think Hillary and Wes Clark would be a better leadership team. I’d lke to see Clark in politics and having an ex-NATO Supreme Commander on the ticket would be a huge benefit in wartime.
But is this really wartime? What sacrifices have average Americans made other than sacrificing our freedom? where are the victory gardens? Where are the recycling drives? Where is the rationing? This war is even more fake than Vietnam, at least there was a draft back then.
No, you shouldn’t change your endorsement. Symbolic change isn’t really the issue, i think the issue is still that one of these candidates presents the best option for a presidency that we won’t have to be embarassed about. If symbolic change were the issue, we would have voted for Carol Mosley-Braun last time around. Accomplished black woman, former Senator from Illinois, a progressive record every bit as strong as Kucinich, blows Edwards v.2004 out of the water on the issues. But that wasn’t what happened, was it?
It cracks me up to see Hillary Clinton touted as the first woman with a shot at being president and Obama as the first viable black candidate, all of this has happened before and all of it will happen again.
No, you should stick with the one you think will do the best job, not the most symbolically-idealistic choice, unless evidence shows you otherwise. Now, given the fact that we do know Edwards has a less-than-Kucinichy voting record and that he hasn’t done a lot besides be a presidential candidate, we can still support him if we believe he *will* do a good job as president. But if you think Obama’s record shows he’ll run things the way we’d like to see them, and he can win the general election, then set sail. You can always wait until the general to decide, Edwards is still 110% more progressive than the only other viable candidate in the race. It’s a good choice. It’s unfortunate to see it painted otherwise.
I think the most important aspect of Glenn’s post is not specifically the spew against Obama, but that the Republicans will do this no matter what. Whether we end up with Edwards, Hillary or Obama as a candidate, the right is gonna rev up the hate machine and go into high gear. No one should base their endorsement for a candidate on how foaming at the mouth the Repubs will be toward them, since quite frankly, they’ll be foaming at the mouth no matter what. It’s just how they work.
What would be really great would be if the Democratic candidates generally would pull together as a team–if the so-called “front-runner” would be a person who accepts and values the “rivals” as part of a collective effort to win the Presidency (and more ground in Congress and of course also more control of more state and local governments as well) and will include all subdivisions of the party in all decisions. In short–it would be great if the Dems were in fact a party, in the European sense.
So if in fact Edwards and Obama are in negotiations, and Kucinich has already begun throwing his support toward Obama–that’s great! If that is–Obama will include both of them, in some significant degree, and more importantly their supporters, in future policy decisions.
After all, no matter who might win, that would only have been the beginning of the struggle from our POV. Progressives would still have to lobby, to develop movements on the grassroots level, to move the goalposts of national debate back leftward after several decades of a systematic corporate effort to drive them rightward.
I’d say the thing to do is keep Edwards’s hand as strong as possible during these negotiations, both to persuade Obama to move into a more clearly progressive (on the bread-and-butter issues Edwards is strong on–which would in fact be consistent with being strong on issues like multiculturalism etc) direction and also so that when the camps merge, the whole is stronger.
There is something inherently limiting about having a single executive like the Presidency. Accepting it as given, and taking advantage of the strengths of such an institution, we would want a President who is inclusive and open, as opposed to a single-minded visionary, however congenial a particular vision might be to any one of us.
Obama has always been a Rosharch candidate; no one really knows for sure what his personal priorities and inclinations are in terms of policy. I read his memoir (most of it; I didn’t quite finish) and frankly I was a bit turned off by how he shaped the whole narrative around his rather obsessive search for his father, for paternal roots, when in fact his legendary father had abandoned him at a young age, leaving him to be raised–and well, and lovingly–by his mother who I felt his narrative kind of took for granted. So when people say that his sites, speeches, campaigns, etc give a rather creepy vibe about women, gay folk, etc, that is unnerving.
But what I liked about the Obama that he revealed in his memoir was his background as a community organizer–depending on exactly what he accomplished in that role and how, that strikes me as the kind of background to look for in a truly Democratic President for the 21st century.
If Obama can in fact include the visions and persons of people like Edwards and Kucinich in his program–that is something like the dream come true.
So I say, keep on backing Edwards, as a way of backing Obama, and a general progressive victory across the board. The stronger Edwards is, the better use he will be to Obama if Obama is as good as I might hope he might be.
And if he’s not, then Edwards remains the right person to back.
I suppose it is a bit silly to write Clinton off completely at this point. But her chances to be the inclusive uniter of progressives came long ago, and zoomed right past her with her showing no interest. Perhaps she too will re-orient away from single-minded, self-centered personal victory over all to a more coalition-minded approach, and thus stay in the running. If she can come around to that kind of thinking–then she too could be a far better President than she has given us cause to hope for thus far. But frankly I find the whole thing easier to think about if she is written out of the race at this point.
As for the Liberal Avenger, who said:
Well, from my Menshevik Mark POV, Hartmann too is a compromiser and appeaser, because he thinks that properly regulated capitalism is good and sustainable, whereas I think the evils he decries are inherent in private property in the means of production, and any sort of mixed neo-New Deal type system Hartmann might endorsed would be politically very unstable. Either the countervailing public authorities would find that modern global industrialism can be better managed overall (and much better from a working-class point of view) by directly socialist means, and so scrap private property in the means of production–gradually and systematically, but inexoribly–or else, the forces of private ownership will once again smash and break free from any public-interest restrictions, using their inherent power of entitlement by ownership as leverage to once again conquer full political power.
Because the latter is the “corportion” that is, according to LA, “here to stay.”
Despite my more radical theoretical position than Hartmann, I’m perfectly comfortable working with the corporatist, elitist, imperialist political order we have now, knowing that there is no quick and easy route to Utopia from here (hence the name of my sporadic personal blog, “A Freeway In Hell”). So I suppose if LA would listen honestly to Hartmann they would find that actually he too is willing to be a realist here and now.
But it does us no good to abandon a positive, hopeful vision for the future. For me, this is muddling through to progressive democratic socialism in some form or other. I don’t really know where we are going–I just figure we have to do our best each step of the way.
For now–back Edwards and hope for a convergence of an Obama/Edwards–or who knows, Edwards/Obama?–ticket!
Edwards needs the support. You don’t need to get behind Obama now because he might win the nomination, that is what coming together after the convention is for. I’m serious, the only way to make actual progressive policies matter to these candidates is to back the ones pushing progressive positions until the convention.
Frankly (from the school of Any Democratic Change Would Be Better Than the Last 7 Years), I’d be happy with Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. I think they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and they’re all only human, and a win from any of them would be a welcome sign of hope.
But - and I say this with a heavy heart mindful of the recent Bhutto tragedy, and with the utmost faith in the wingnut contingent to be as hateful and repulsive as possible - I desperately fear for both Obama’s and Clinton’s lives if either of them win. I really do. There are far too many wingnuts with guns who would be driven mad at the very idea of either of them in the White House. It would be another JFK, only ten times more sickening and depressing, because it would be a symbolic change to elect either of them…. and an equally symbolic assassination.
I’m still with Edwards. Symbolism does not matter as much to me….and I agree with Edwards that the opposition can’t be “niced” to death.
All the vague kubayah humming from the Obama camp doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if his method of governing is going to be that conciliatory. Don’t we get enough of that from Pelosi and Reid? The president should *lead* on the issues of importants, and Edwards has it right on the corporate theives needing to be put back in their place.
Even if Obama was electable, about which I still have serious doubts (even more after reading Greenwald this morning), I think between his “can’t we all just get along” attitude and the reaction of the right wing to having a black man elected president, I think it’s highly likely he’ll get damned little done while he’s in office. And the upshot of that will be that it would be a snowy day in hell before America gave another person of color a shot at the presidency.
I’d be happy with Edwards/Obama, with Obama lining up for 2016.
Edwards needs the support. You don’t need to get behind Obama now because he might win the nomination, that is what coming together after the convention is for. I’m serious, the only way to make actual progressive policies matter to these candidates is to back the ones pushing progressive positions until the convention.
Bingo. That’s pretty much what I was going to say.
But more importantly, to those people who are saying don’t support Clinton or Obama because they’re not electable, stop it. If ever there were a year where a woman or an African-American could break through, this is it, and even if it turns out to not be the case, we need to face up to it rather than concern-trolling the issue.
I support Edwards for pretty much the reasons Amanda has articulated–he’s the closest to calling for an open class war on the wealthy, and we need that. I also don’t think he’s going to get the nomination–I’m still voting for him at the end of the month, but I don’t expect him to win. And I’ll happily vote for and support and campaign for and send money to whichever person comes out of the Democratic side n November.
Sexism prevents Hilary from really having a chance.
I have been mostly an Edwards man, since Obama makes too many nods towards tolerance of generally accepted repression. I’m also more interested in having a president being free to act in our best interest, when Obama is going to be getting the Clinton*2 treatment.
Although, the things to be said in Obama’s favor aren’t that insubstantial…whatever the liebermanite tendencies he might have, he *is* a pretty liberal voter, and he *has* acted to push thoughtful and liberal laws (his illiberalities tend to be acts outside of direct legislative affairs, and tends towards acts similar to Clinton’s Sister Souljah actions, and not towards permitting the execution of retarded men).
As I’ve said before, I think anyone who wants to run for president *now* is friggin’ crazy, and none of them looks all that prepared for trouble that the ‘09-’13 era will have, let alone the revival of the Arkansaw Project. Any of the three major canidates will make excellent sacrificial virgins.
What’s alot more important is shutting down the RWNoise Machine and makeing sure that Republicans suffer for their policies and not the new president. That way, the 2012 election won’t have reactionary forces prepared with Jeb…
I suspect that Obama is substantially more savvy at getting things done on the legislative level than many posters are giving him credit for. Some of his work in the Illinois legislature suggests a fist inside the velvet glove of bipartisanship.
However, other folks are also right that if you think Edwards is the better candidate, support him NOW. This is the time to go for your first choice—and be glad that we have the relative luxury of having a couple acceptable candidates. That wasn’t what we had four years ago.
No matter how much these fuckers bleat on with their racist crap, it only gets traction in the real world when working and middle class people are anxious about their economic security. If you believe Edwards can address the economic insecurities of ordinary Americans, he will do more to prevent divisive political campaigns gaining real strength than any amount of anti-racist campaigning around Obama’s presidency.
sunsin at 8, try viewing the US from the rest of the world and you might realise that the “full place the US has in the world at present” isn’t quite what you think.
Defend obama against smears, but endorse or vote for whichever of the three you think would make the best president.
(I’m an Obama voter, btw).
Personally, I’ve seen enough of Obama’s record here in Illinois (try archpundit.com if you want the solid rebuttal to the “present” votes crap that Hillary’s peddling right now) to know better than to worry about what kind of president he’s going to be. Edwards has the luxury of campaigning angry — Obama cannot because of who he is — but John’s Senate record gives me the willies. As does Hillary’s.
Honestly? I don’t think that racist people would change their minds just because we had a great black president. In my experience, racist people will just ignore he is black and the right will all deny that he did anything at all. I know a lot of racist people. They work side by side with fine black people (and even like them) and are still _very_ racist. So, I don’t think it will matter to them at all. They know the stereotypes. They know they are wrong. They don’t care. I many times have called them on it, and they shrug it off.
Note, this is just what I see where I am from. Who knows? It might work in other places.
My point is that these racist attacks have are targetted at a racist base.
I say don’t support some one you don’t like because of racist people. They are hard to change.
I think the claim that Obama is full of ‘vague kumbaya’ is a ridiculous red herring. Watch his victory speech from Iowa. He’s right on the money when he describes hope as not an emotion, but an actual manifestation of the best of our character. Such a manifestation isn’t about sitting around the campfire, but about damn hard work. You do the work because you hope. I know that his talk about working across partisan boundaries runs the risk of sounding wimpy in the face of right wing corporate power, but Obama’s not an empty suit — he’s a community organizer and civil rights lawyer who has worked his ass off to get where he is now. And along the way he has shown himself to be seriously capable of drawing together coalitions across political boundaries. That doesn’t make him a sellout, that makes him a seriously capable politician who knows how to pursue what he really believes is good for his constituents (see the police-interrogation taping in Illinois).
I think Amanda’s right about symbolic victories, and in addition to the symbolism at play here about race, its also about what kind of nation we want to be. Obama is the right candidate because of his symbolic importance AND he is most capable of posing the kind of questions that need to be posed right now in our nation’s history. I deeply respect Edwards (I’m hoping for Obama/Edwards ‘08), but Obama is the candidate we need.
Endorsements are made for a reason. You had substance and logic behind your choice with Edwards. I presume that was an actual endorsement, and not just a horse race prediction. If you want to change to a more popular candidate, be my guest. But Edward’s economic message is still vitally important and none of the other Dems are picking up on it.
The middle class are losing out not only economically, but politically as well. As promising as Obama may ultimately become, Edwards us now singing the tune that gladdens my heart.
I really don’t know. I definitely liked Obama’s speech–it’s been a while since I’ve seen someone sound like they wanted to be the president of the WHOLE country and not just of the people in their party. (Maybe I don’t listen to enough political speeches and everybody says that. Actually, I *know* I don’t listen to enough political speeches.)
Have always been an Edwards girl, with Obama running a close second. Am therefore in the same spot as Amanda. If, in fact, they are not substantially different in policy, I’d LOVE to see a black man win. That would be SO COOL.
Would love to see an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket. Wondering if Edwards would accept a vice-presidential slot again, after the Kerry/Edwards disaster. I dunno….
I am incredibly happy to say that there is no wrong choice! I am truly undecided and as it happens I love each and every one of them. I am even happy with the second tier (and do mourn the departure of Sen. Dodd… he deserved to do better). Only Mike Gravel worries me, but even there I’ll take our crazy (Gravel) over there crazy (Paul) eight days a week!
I recommend that you stick to Edwards. Not that Obama is any less worthy as a candidate, but rather because you, after what was probably a fair amount of research decided he was the best candidate. Switching to Obama will not make this country any less racist any more than switching to Clinton would make this country any less patriarchal. Ideally we look at the positions of the candidates and choose those with which we agree most. You did that and I respect you for it. I presume that in this neighborhood race and sex had nothing to do with it beyond asssuring yourself that each was not spouting racist or sexist memes and that is easy to agree with.
I have not been able to decide, but here in VA it has never mattered yet…. I wish I lived in a state where it *did* matter! At some point we need to ditch this IA-NH thing and go to a national primary just so a larger sample of voices get heard.
Just as another data point for you, you might read this over at TalkLeft. An interesting analysis of the different varieties of populism.
My [biased] advice is to go ahead & stick with Edwards, since that’s where your heart seems to be right now, but please try not to go all Stoller/Krugman & crap on Obama out of vindictiveness or self-righteousness.
As far as my own assessment of the Big 3 goes, I posted the following in the debate thread, but it probably fits better here:
Absolutely not.
You’ve endorsed the candidate you feel best represents the direction you think the country needs right now. By all means, continue to support Edwards as long as he remains a viable candidate. And if he gets the nomination, more power to him and I’ll join you in supporting him for the general.
If segments of the right are going to flare their racist colors, let them. It’s only reflecting back on them, and it won’t have a good outcome in this of all years. There is no reason for us to cave in to the Republican concern trolls who think they know what’s best for us in our internal party decisions.
I say all this as a “lean Obama” voter. My state’s primary is a bit late in the game this year, so my vote may not be as important in determining the pres nominee. I’m fully committed to backing any of the Democratic candidates who make it to the gate, because even the weakest of them is head and shoulders above anyone the Republicans have to offer.
I agree that there’s no reason to change your endorsement unless you really, really feel there’s a strong reason to change it. As others have said, we can all come together after the nominee is picked — no reason to shut the other avenues down prematurely.
On another Obama note, I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but … my cube mate at work is not particularly political. Kinda liberal, with some knee-jerk conservative moments. White and working-class from the San Diego area who’s worked her way up.
And she LOVES Obama. Loves loves loves him. Has given him money several times, really wanted to have dinner with him when he had a contest, follows his campaign closely. There is no one else she’d rather vote for. If the nominee is someone else, I’m not even sure she’ll bother to vote in the election.
I do think that Obama is managing to touch a chord in a lot of white voters who wouldn’t normally think of voting for the “black” candidate. And that’s what has the Republicans running so goddamned scared. The man may actually be able to transcend race just enough to win. Don’t forget, Illinois is a fairly conservative state in the southern half, and all of those crackers turned out to vote for Obama. Why? Because he went down there, campaigned his ass off, and told him that he was going to work hard for them. And they believed him.
My mom gave me the “Obama is a crypto-Muslim” spiel too, and I think I might have gotten through to her, for once. I said, any time any Republican (who of course claims to be a Christian of some stripe) does something that she doesn’t approve of, she is willing to write it off as something worthy of being forgiven, because none of are perfect, etc. But by casting Obama as a Muslim, she’s given herself a get-out-believing-him-about-anything card. He can’t ever say anything that she’d be willing to believe, because she’s got this idea that he’s even lying about his religion. I asked her, how is this fair, to treat Republicans who don’t apparently live in anyway a Christian life differently from by all accounts a very good man who you can tell yourself is Muslim because of his middle name? She seemed to understand what I was saying. Now, my mother is a 27% if there ever was, and the best we can hope for is that she won’t vote in the general election, but there might be a way to convince people that the Muslim business is a) crap and b) bigoted as hell that can only help us out if he’s the candidate.
I endorse Edwards because his HEALTH CARE POLICY is the Sanest. THe End.
Oh I would also like to watch him brush that hair. GRRRWWOOWWRRR. HA HA HA
Oh by the way I seldom say it but i ALWAYS think it: I HATE THE SPAM THINGY, it NEVER works for me, I can’t see the numbers on my tiny laptop screen and my comment always gets rejected like three times because my comments take so long to write. Becuae I really do try to write interesting ones! PUHLEEZE change to a different spam filter thing!!
I HATE IT
I HATE IT
Support who you support. Any time I worry about any of the Dems, I look over at the GOP clown car and thank the Ceiling Cat that I’m not a Republican. Clinton, Edwards, or Obama would be about a trillion times better than the best GOP candidate, who is…uh…I’ll get back to you on that.
I will say this in Obama’s favor: I don’t think he’s nearly as moderate as he comes across. He’s actually got a very liberal voting record in the IL state senate; he comes across much more moderate than he is. I know that doesn’t always make the hardcore partisans (like me) happy, but the counterargument is that sometimes, even if you’re just showing respect to your opponents, it can help grease the skids better than if you’re playing smashmouth. (The key is that you behave yourself when you’re dealing from a position of superior power; with Congress and the presidency, the Dems could afford to be genial in ways they simply can’t right now.)
I myself am still sorting things out, as I was probably a Dodd supporter until he dropped out. (Yeah, I know, but still.) I’m not pushing Obama; I’m not backing anyone specific right now. But that’s the case for Obama, and it’s not a bad one.
I wrote something a while back that appears to have disappeared completely. Sigh.
OK, the short version is–the more the Dem candidates get together and start collaborating with each other, conferring seriously about policy options, and acting like a democratic party as opposed to a high school Class President competion, the better. If Obama and Edwards and Kucinich work with each other, I don’t care which one has the title.
But this is only good to the extent that this corresponds to an actual coordination of different viewpoints representative of the interests and views of the broader public. That’s what democracy is supposed to be.
As far as endorsement strategy goes then, I think it is far too soon to switch to backing Obama. If Obama is going to be good, it is going to be because he turns out to be good at bringing people together in a positive way–this means that if he and Edwards get together, the combination is stronger, not weaker, for the extent and committment Edwards’s people bring in, both for their original candidate and for the issues and values he represents.
Keep pushing Edwards then–if Obama is worth supporting then the better Edwards and his issues are supported, the better the ultimate combination will be.
I’m serious, the only way to make actual progressive policies matter to these candidates is to back the ones pushing progressive positions until the convention.
This would seem to me, too, to be the sensible thing for progressive Democrats to do. But this whole discussion has, from the start, cut out the most (some would say the only) progressive Democratic candidate running for president this year: Dennis Kucinich.
But then again, I left the Democratic Party years ago…in part because even progressive Democrats seem inclined to run to the center long before the convention.
I don’t think it matters, so if you believe in Edwards, stick with him.
Personally, I’m beginning to wonder about an Obama/Edwards ticket…
Really, I don’t see a huge policy split between Obama and Clinton. I think that’s why they’re fighting each other so hard, and why Edwards could throw the campaign either way. The difference is rhetoric, and Obama, frankly, rocks as a public speaker. Best I’ve seen in a long time.
Getting the Republicans out of power is the most important point. I say this as someone much more libertarian than most folks who comment here - they need some time in the woodshed to remember what role they should play in adversarial politics. Clinton is the establishment candidate, in loyalty, training, campaigning, and sympathy. She won’t do anything seriously new that other’s wouldn’t, either. I think the same mostly goes for Obama, but he would sell it better. That can be bad, as well as good.
The nicest thing I can say about him is that he manages go attract Republicans. After Rove, that’s a breath of fresh air, and might have real effect considering the obstructionist bullshit they’re currently calling ’strategy’ in the legislature. So, consider maybe a year or two of log-rolling, until ‘10 comes around.
He’s a hell of a speaker, and that does count for a lot more than it should. I worry about what sort of horse trading might happen in practice, but I worry less about that than I do about not having the executive change hands. That goes for Clinton, too, even though I have more reservations about her. Edwards isn’t going to win, but I can see him as a VP, and having an impact. (Isn’t the VP a fourth branch of government these days? *cough*)
I think with the way he brings out young people, he will cause a lot of downticket wins. Obama with 62 dems os more progressive then kucinich with 51.
You shouldnt endorse. Theyd both be great.
I endorse people using their brains to pick whoever suits them best.
Do folks really think Edwards would accept VP? I think there’s absolutely no way. If he doesn’t get the nomination, I think his political career is over.
Between Obama and Edwards I have no counsel to offer, but I join in the condemnation of your awful, awful, awful spam filter.
Some of us are old!
I am endorsing no one, because we’ve got a great field. I’m watching the NH debate again, and I am even more impressed with the depth of the democratic bench.
At the same time, Obama does win the Taking Stock Primary, as he’s the first democratic candidate to be featured in a comic
For another angle to this, you might want to have a look at Lower Manhattanite’s description of his family’s reaction to Obama’s win in Iowa. Hadn’t occurred to me that part of being the 1st black POTUS was increased concern for his day-to-day safety.
(Hillary may have the same problem, since she attracts a similar class of nut-jobs, but you don’t worry about her so much.)
I love Mike Gravel so much. I want him to live on my couch.
I would also like to brush Edwards’ hair…
damn the spam numbers suck. the fourth one is always too squished to read
First of all, I think asking online commenters about changing your endorsement suggests a lack of confidence in your choice. So he didn’t win. Big deal. I’ve liked Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, and John Edwards in past years, but neither of them became the nominee (though Edwards did get on the ticket.) You won’t seem spineless if you change your mind for your own reasons, but to ask blog commenters to tell you if you aren’t in the right sets you up for charges of spinelessness if you follow our advice. So my advice is, stick to your endorsement and inform us when you’ve changed it. Anything else suggests you’re too wishy-washy.
What you could do, since you aren’t a major newspaper and are in fact free of hundreds of years of tradition, is give a list of positives for all the candidates you find acceptable. It will free you from having your detractors wetdaydreaming about you biting your tear-stained pillow after your choice doesn’t win. Because I honestly think you don’t have that much to worry about from any of the viable remaining Democrats in this race. Edwards’ focus on economics, Clinton’s focus on competence, and Obama’s focus on steering our country in the correct direction are all vast improvements over a third GWBush term. And that’s what really matters. Not your endorsement. Not your ego. Not your pride. The Presidency of the United States of America is most important.
And I endorse my home state’s John McCain for the GOP nominee. If he resigns, our Democratic governor can decide who gets his Senate seat. If he gets the nomination, he will ensure some pissed off Huckabee and Paul supporters will go elsewhere or stay home. And he’s going to run as a supporter of torture. It’ll be fun to watch a tortured veteran squirm as he answers to how many North Vietnamese lives were saved when he talked to his captors. He has to answer that question on a moral, political, and personal level that will make him so pissed off that it will make Howard Dean’s scream look like a gentle exhale.
You won’t seem spineless if you change your mind for your own reasons, but to ask blog commenters to tell you if you aren’t in the right sets you up for charges of spinelessness if you follow our advice.
Other people call this, you know, discussion. Conversation. An exchange of ideas to which you bring an open mind. But sure, call it spinelessness. That’s helpful.
However, this:
What you could do, since you aren’t a major newspaper and are in fact free of hundreds of years of tradition, is give a list of positives for all the candidates you find acceptable.
is a good suggestion.
6:30 am Monday- Local news for NH/Southern ME has Obama and Clinton tied this morning, with Edwards slighty behind. McCain leads Romney 33 to 27%.
The one plus about being an lifelong registered Independant is that I don’t vote in a primary. Some years, that same is a negative. But damn, the view is great here on the fence.
Edwards “didn’t win?” True he isn’t the frontrunner yet–based on Iowa for Crum’s sake–but he’s always been characterized as “distant third place” in MSM, but here he is, a fairly strong #2. I’d characterize that as “coming from behind.”
Perhaps he can never be the frontrunner, but the point is that any Democratic candidate ought to take the point of view he represents very seriously. What Obama for instance should do is accept something closer to Edwards’s content to go in his genial, “let’s all be friendly patriots together” package, and of course I think he can and should accept not just the ideas but the persons–the candidates, and the people behind them.
You know, there are more executive offices to offer people than just the VP slot, and it is reasonable also to hold out a credible offer of a respectful place for advisors and helpers outside the formal admin as well–and of course a genial and honorable person would honor such pledges as long as the persons so invited reciprocate reasonably.
As a metaphor Teddy Roosevelt’s saying “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is sensible. Obama can be the soft speaker–in democratic politics, particularly for a party that characterizes itself as representing the broader majority after several decades of being systematically looted by gangs of propertied elitists, the Big Stick would be populist engagement and involvement. And that’s what progressives can offer, whether formally inside the administration or outside it.
All populists ask is that serious consideration to the general welfare (as seen from our worm’s-eye view) be given by the admin, and that we not be sold out and undercut in the manner in which Bill Clinton, for instance, sold out GLBT people after courting them in ‘92, by first saying his strategy for them was going to be modeled on Truman’s advancement of racial civil rights by ordering integration in the military–and then abandoning that effort when the Right counterattacked, as though Clinton couldn’t have seen that coming (and either been prepared to stare it down as Truman stared down the racists in 1947, or have sensibly chosen a more workable tack in the first place)when he offered the inducement. From my POV, that seemed like a rather questionable analogy in ‘92-’93 anyway, not the best way for a President to advance acceptance of GLBT people–but having adopted the strategy, I think Clinton should have followed through. Same thing with national health care–having taken it on, it was bad enough he came down in favor of a corporate welfare system, but political poison that he then let it get shot down, before the ‘94 elections gave the House to the Republicans.
It sure did start looking to me then that the Progressive magazine’s response to Clinton’s ‘92 election was a cover saying “4 more years” (of Reagan/Bushism, that is) was if anything an understatement. Kind of like Clinton picked these issues, and his way of handling them, precisely to set them up to fail so he could wash his hands of them (in blood, as it happened…)
I sure do hope Obama has a different sense of what constitues effective political strategy, and is willing to actually “dance with the one that brung him.”
But what this country has always needed is an effective political Left. John Edwards is not what I would call strongly leftist, but at this point supporting him seems like a good way to strengthen the hand of progressives, and thereby strengthen the hand of liberal moderation as well.
In other words–if you want Obama to be able to deliver on the implicit promise of being able to at last break the back of systematic racism in this country, or at least set it far back, support those to his left if you agree with them (or Obama himself as he clarifies the progressive content of his own stands, if any), and the more symbolic aspects of progressivism will come with that general shift to the left. It would be foolish to shift support to Obama just because of his symbolic message, because he surely would not have the strength to follow through on it no matter how much he wants to if we don’t empower a progressive alternative to the ever-rightward drifting business as usual in this country, all across the board.
Give him that Big Stick, be part of it, and we will be the ones he speaks softly on behalf of. And I think that would work out well for everyone.
Dang, that’s my second (link-free, nasty-word free) comment on this thread that just vanishes into the ether. I will not attempt a repost–just to repeat my first remarks, re jon’s “Edwards didn’t win!” remark:
I rather think that when you’ve been characterized for a year or more by the MSM as “running a distant third,” coming in a close second to the front-runner qualifies more as “coming from behind.”
It isn’t total victory, but it means that Edwards’s message and positions should be taken very seriously by Obama or whoever winds up in front.
Vice versa, since it is not yet out of the question that Edwards himself will wind up in front–Edwards should of course take heed to what Obama’s current and probable future success (even if he does slip behind later) means, and integrate inclusion of that perspective into his own.
I will say this is all shaping up to be a more hopeful early primary season than I had feared; it looks like things are beginning to fall into place already.
If Edwards is still in the running when the California primaries roll by on Feb 2, he’s got my vote; if he throws in with Obama, than Obama has got my vote with great enthusiasm.
I don’t see why you should change a thing, Amanda. If Obama wants to deliver on the symbolic promise implicit in his very candidacy and its success, he will need a populist progressive wing of support; backing Edwards now seems like a good way to gather that kind of strength for the final haul, no matter who winds up in front.
I agree with:
Molly NYC: It’s my understanding that Obama’s Secret Service protection started earlier and is at a higher level than ever before for a mere candidate. Clinton’s was already at the high
“ex-First Lady” level. No-one who remembers 1968 can fail to be nervous watching Obama’s combination of RFK-like charisma and racial iconicity (?um. if you know what I mean), but I actually think the Secret Service does a lot better at these things than they used to.
The Republican debates according to a 9-year-old is *priceless*.
Doctor Science, that is BRILLIANT!!!
I understand the impulse here, but it seems to me that: race vs. gender vs. class is the wrong way to look at the race. I think the better question is who is poised to make the kinds of changes we want to see in the United States? I agree that having an African American president would send a powerful message to the United States and th global community. However, what would his administration actually do? Would that radical change in the perception/embodiment of the president be enough for you, in the long run?
So, I think the real question is, when you look at policies, proposals, rhetoric, and voting records, Is Obama really that candidate for you?
Obama doesn’t need your endorsement right now; he’s busy building a rhetorical case in states where he’s campaigning. What we actually need is continued & sustained looks at all 3 leading candidates’ policies–what they’ve written and what they’ve done and what they’ve proposed. For me, Obama presents the weakest case for his ideas in print; there’s a serious disconnect between his proposals in print (weak, not well strategized) and what he’s promising on the campaign trail. I am also troubled by Obama’s continued rhetoric of “change.” While he purports to the candidate of change, he’s fairly conservative, by liberal standards. To wit: he, just like Clinton, is guilty of wanting to bow before corporate pressures.
I continue to think that Edwards is the stronger candidate in terms of ideas and policies and rhetoric and vision and ability to pull it all together.
Lots of people love Obama because he makes them feel good…how many people can actually tell you where he stands on the issues, though?
Skipping lots of the hard votes in Congress to keep from getting flack for it later is not the way to govern (check out his voting record!) and I predict that lots of people are going to get thrown under the bus in the name of “bipartisanship” and not wanting to make waves if we elect Obama.
Sheesh,
The fact is the Senate will still very likely have enough Republicans to get obstructed endlessly. Bipartisanship will have to be employed if anything is to get done. And as far as salesmanship goes, Obama has a track record (dating back to Harvard and the Illinois legislature) of being able to sell proposals whereas Clinton and Edwards can be obstructed much more easily (or at least the justification for the obstruction is an easier sell to GOP voters.)
But who am I fooling? The Republicans will go apeshit over any Democrat. James K. Polk could fucking rise from the dead and the GOP would criticize his border policy.
Given the sort of anti-woman nastiness that’s been thrown at Hillary for *years*, your reasons for backing Obama would seem equally good for backing her.
Overall, here are my thoughts, reposted from my own blog:
In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, “Why I can’t get excited about Obama . . .”
When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said “this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He’s got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn’t vote for the Iraq invasion!”
Since then, while I still think he’s the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he’s lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here’s why:
(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book “Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer” by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don’t think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.
(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie “gayness can be cured” guy from his South Carolina support concert.
(3) Having skimmed his book “The Audacity of Hope”, the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the “undeniably vexing issue of abortion” and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice–probably–but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal” for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don’t speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.
(4) He didn’t even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn’t going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.
(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there’s absolutely zero indication that he’s going to try to accomplish any more than the others — he’s almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he’s done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish–or even try for–real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.
(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don’t think Reagan was a good president. And things like “hope freed the slaves” actually bug me far more than “morning in america”, since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who’s studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.
That said, if he gets the nom I’ll almost certainly vote for him (much as the thought of voting for a nuclear power supporter makes me wanna vomit)– not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I’d a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.
Oh, I’m all for genuine bipartisanship. I’m not for capitulaion at the drop of a hat on really important issues just to keep from pissing off the other side and I’m NOT for shirking your duty as a senator to pass on vote after vote so you won’t get questioned on it during your campaign.
Obama is all style, no substance and his parroting of rightwing talking points and fundiespeak along with his overly religious-themed associations with bigots (damn, making a known homophobe part of your tour is NOT a good move) make me *extremely* uncomfortable with Obama.
Hrm. It seems the older I get, the more radical I get, and I’m increasingly sceptical of getting too entangled into an electoral political system and party apparatus that is hostile to progressive causes. I can’t get behind Edwards because of his wishy/washy statements on marriage equality. What I fear is that any of these candidates may end up as another Bill Clinton, one that actually harms us because we take for granted that he’s going to support our interests when elected.
I just don’t see the point in endorsing someone when you know that the relationship is going to become adversarial the morning after election day.
Fair enough. But I’d rather have an imperfect candidate of my ilk than an imperfect candidate of theirs.
What great accomplishment have Edwards and Clinton made? To say Obama has no substance isn’t making me scared in the face of whatever it is they did.
The homophobe thing bugs me too, but what did Clinton do for gay rights? She and Edwards seem to be all for their support, but I haven’t seen much action or even much strong rhetoric from them. Again, what substance have we to judge them?
I’ll gladly vote for any of those three, but right now I’m strongly leaning for Obama. And style is really about all I have to go by, but I really like his.
What it shows to the rest of the world is that George W. Bush’s America™ is mean, stupid and lazy except where telling others what to do and then doing the exact opposite works.
What? Don’t they already associate with low and disgusting people? Haven’t the Bushies proven themselves to be worthy of being the group of people that should be rounded up and sent to Mars? The ‘religious’ right open supports a candidate for the anti-christ and it doesn’t phase them.
I fear for this country and I fear for Obama and Hillary’s safety.
If Fox News didn’t exist and there wasn’t a race for the bottom on teevee opinion/news shows then I’d feel much better but with Fox News and many other outlets of hatred spewing if 24x7x365 I do fear for the future. If the racist base of the GOP had the degree of control of the media they have now, back when MLK was marching, we’d be a nation of skinhead fascists making the Third Reich look like a knitting club meeting. My fear is that the ‘bounce’ that Obama is getting is manufactured to make him the candidate and like Bhuto, he’s being set up.
Do not underestimate your opponent. Is anyone else reading Art of War? The election is already decided… Hopefully there aren’t many bodies to count in the aftermath.
Personally, his litigation background is what appeals to me about Edwards. The Bush people have stacked the courts and government agencies with sleeper wingnut zombies and I want a president who will see his job as a search and destroy mission.
Yeah, I like Obama’s speeches and all that, but frankly, he’s not mean enough to attack the many, many urgent matters before us. Ever listen to a group of Quakers try to reach consensus on an issue? I don’t think we have that much time.
“What’s alot more important is shutting down the RWNoise Machine and makeing sure that Republicans suffer for their policies and not the new president. That way, the 2012 election won’t have reactionary forces prepared with Jeb… ”
I still think Bobby Jindal will be the next GOP nominee, be it ‘12 or ‘16…incidentally, it takes the “racial or gender breakthrough” issue off the table and gives the GOP more room to try to run on “Democrats are teh real racists cuz robert sheets byrd was in teh kkk 60 years ago!!111!!!11!!”
Isn’t one of the legacies of the Bush presidency that the President doesn’t have to work with Congress?
Maybe because we’ve had worn out copies of “Art of War” and Machiavelli for decades is part of why I remain an Independant, Pinky…
Doug Wilder was elected Governor of Virginia in 1989, and four years later, the same state elected George “Macaca” Allen to the same office. I don’t think that the election of Barack Obama will do any more to rebuke racists than the election of Doug Wilder did.
What it would do, IMHO, would be to make it easier for other black politicians to run for high office, because they can point to Barack Obama when wobbly primary voters ask whether their community is ready to elect a black candidate.
Of course, I’m an Edwards supporter myself, so that might influence my opinion here.
For more on the various racial angles raised by the Obama campaign, see: http://www.freedomroadproject.blogspot.com
I think it’s important to break the glass ceiling simply because most of the populace doesn’t really think; they don’t examine their thoughts or subconscious beliefs (they elect actors, for God’s sake). If Clinton or Obama were actually elected it would finally bring some of our fellow Americans kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. (Not the twenty-first; too big a leap will explode their tiny brains).
I (cynically) think that Obama will have to look and sound reeeally good to even have a snowball’s chance in hell. I doubt he could win on the issues. No wonder he and Clinton seem so centrist; they’d just be the nutty unelectable fringe if they sounded really liberal.
Unfortunately, I really believe that the vestigal racism (and sexism), even from some who call themselves progressive, is going to kick in and leave us with more of the same. I bet anything that many women will just not “feel comfortable” unless a man’s in office, and we’re already seeing the shit Obama’s facing.
Support those who fight the hardest against the Corporatocracy. Obama’s lobbyist ties and his failure to do his job as Senator (Hillary as well) shot him down the reject chute for me.
Obama only recently started to veer towards the populist camp when Edwards’ began getting the big support.
Yes it would be great to have the first Female President or the First Black President as a symbolic blow against the very real racists and sexists in America.
But- would it be Great to have A President Obama or a President Clinton in what could be the most important Election of our lifetimes- As we enter a major recession due to Corporate policies?
I don’t think so. Edwards is the only choice to help truly fight against the corporate raiders and war profiteers who have highjacked the country.
I think Sam Smith at the Progressive Review has a very good run-down of why NOT to throw your support behind Obama. The reasons are many…
I agree with you to a point (I support Edwards as well). As powerful as the symbolism would be in an Obama victory, I get the feeling that any real progressive change would be held in check by the people that surrounded him. After all, he’s would be an American president, the whole African-American thing would be incidental, never-mind that when Whites govern it tends to benefit them (by design or not) more so than any other group.
In other words, he cannot bring his experience as a person of color to the Presidency.
And as powerful as symbols are, and can be, this is a time for government to directly help make people’s lives easier, especially those of us that feel as if government has abandoned them for the rich and the well-to-do.
ANYONE with Hollywood’s version of Henry Kissinger, Z. Brezinski, the original “Great Gamer” on staff, is more of the same, lame version of conceptual drivel that Capitalists fob off on the “elective” process.
Drive on.
Call out the racists but don’t change your endorsement. Just as ethnicity and gender aren’t reasons to oppose someone, they are also not reasons to support them.
I wonder…
If Obama, Clinton and Edwards were all white men or all black or all women and there was no excuse to talk about sex or race issues, who would be the frontrunner then based on the issues?
Just a thought.
ANYONE with Hollywood’s version of Henry Kissinger, Z. Brezinski, the original “Great Gamer” on staff, is more of the same, lame version of conceptual drivel that “Financial Wizards” fob off on the “elective” process.
Drive on.
What you’re saying is actually the reason that I was for Obama last February. Then I leaned more towards Kucinich, then Edwards. But I’m leaning more back towards Obama now, again because of the reasons you mention. The sad part is that Vermonts Primary isn’t until March and being a small state my vote isn’t going to count for much anyway. I’ll strongly support any of these 3 candidates though for the general election.
His race will help him more than it hurts him in the general election. The number of white people who will vote for a black guy with a weird middle name to show that they’re not racist outnumbers the people who won’t vote for him for the same reason by a large amount I bet.
“The number of white people who will vote for a black guy with a weird middle name to show that they’re not racist outnumbers the people who won’t vote for him for the same reason by a large amount I bet.”
It will certainly be interesting to see. But we may not like the answer…
“What great accomplishment have Edwards and Clinton made? To say Obama has no substance isn’t making me scared in the face of whatever it is they did.”
This is a (depressingly) good point. *sigh*
Amanda, the LiberalAvenger post you linked to about Edwards appears to be written by a Free Trade Flat Worlder who calls Thom Hartmann a “nativist”. I especially like that nice touch at the end where he genuflected before the Almighty Corporation.
I’d take anything he had to say about Edwards with a giant grain of salt.
But “show” whom, AF? Ballots are still secret.
I tend to think that a vote to end the status quo will also work toward ending the Government Of, By, and For the Corporations, even if neither Clinton nor Obama expressly target economic disparity in their speeches yet. After all, what is lack of health care but an economic matter? What is this war about? It’s all about entitlement and keeping the Big Dogs on top. At least show a real change by getting rid of the (wealthy) white male default in the Presidency.
(Though if Edwards gets the nomination I’ll certainly vote for him).
They’d like to collectively show the entire world.
Seriously, how often do racial minorities get elected in anycountry? Can you see a Turk (or even a Pole) being Chancellor of Germany? A Basque being Prime Minister of Spain? Or a Kurd being President of Turkey?
“I didn’t feel it was much comfort to someone that’s homeless because of Hurricane Katrina to be like, ‘Well, we’re not going to help you, but don’t you feel proud that we’ve elected a black President?’”
I’m a New Orleanian whose family lost everything in the Federal Flood after Katrina. House, business, possessions, daughter’s toys… etc. And I’m a proud supporter of Obama precisely because his GulF Coast Recovery plan is better than Edwards or Clinton. Edwards’ plan is not bad, but it makes no commitment to Category 5 protection, nor does it address the insurance crisis. These are the true emergencies in New Orleans, because housing and poverty cannot be helpfully addressed in a place that is unprotected and uninsurable.
In my considered judgment, Obama has by far the best plan and that is one of the main reasons I and many others down here will support him.
I understand the example was “a bit over-dramatic”, but your political use of what would “comfort” the victims of the Federal Flood actually undercuts your case for Edwards. Obama’s commitment to the Gulf Coast is certainly not substance free, and is arguably superior to Edwards’.
If you’re interested, you can review the Dems’ plans at this link:
http://www.moronosphere.com/rayinneworleans/archives/the_democratic_katrina_recovery_plans.php
“I didn’t feel it was much comfort to someone that’s homeless because of Hurricane Katrina to be like, ‘Well, we’re not going to help you, but don’t you feel proud that we’ve elected a black President?’”
I’m a New Orleanian whose family lost everything in the Federal Flood after Katrina. House, business, possessions, daughter’s toys… etc. And I’m a proud supporter of Obama precisely because his GulF Coast Recovery plan is better than Edwards or Clinton. Edwards’ plan is not bad, but it makes no commitment to Category 5 protection, nor does it address the insurance crisis. These are the true emergencies in New Orleans, because housing and poverty cannot be helpfully addressed in a place that is unprotected and uninsurable.
In my considered judgment, Obama has by far the best plan and that is one of the main reasons I and many others down here will support him.
I understand the example was “a bit over-dramatic”, but your political use of what would “comfort” the victims of the Federal Flood actually undercuts your case for Edwards. Obama’s commitment to the Gulf Coast is certainly not substance free, and is arguably superior to Edwards’.
If you’re interested, you can review the Dems’ plans at this link:
http://www.moronosphere.com/rayinneworleans/archives/the_democratic_katrina_recovery_plans.php
“Seriously, how often do racial minorities get elected in anycountry?”
Not often, but this one was particularly interesting to me…
When hillary was ahead the right used stereotypes of women, now with obama ahead they are using black stereotypes. Although isn’t he actually only half black? Isn’t his dad black and his mom white? Why are people falling into the anyone not fully white is black mentality?
Any way the right is using whatever fear factor they can to take down the leading Democratic candidate. Fear is all they have.
Amanda, I’d still back Edwards, but I hear ya. I’m really pretty pissed reading about this crap, not that I should be surprised. Regardless of how far Obama goes, this is a fight worth fighting right now. Younger generations overall are much less racist and homophobic than conservative pundits. If Obama is the nominee, and the right keeps pushing this crap (which they will), their latest employment of the Southern Strategy will help them in some of those states, but also create backlash and heavy turnout for the Dems, especially among young people. If conservatives want to display their true ugliness yet again, really, bring it on. (Similarly, as someone noted upthread, I’m not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I want to see substantive criticism of her versus sexists attacks.)
Thgis hilarious ad captures the hillary problem perfectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBPMKyyaBA
Electing Obama would do wonders for the US international image as well.
Not really - you’re a superpower. What you do is important to a lot of people. You get judged on your actions, not on your image or your rhetoric.
NZ might get away with talking one way and walking another (and we do - try mentioning “agricultural runoff” every time a Kiwi spouts off about being Green…), but the important countries can’t.
Electing Obama would do wonders for the US international image as well.
Not really - you’re a superpower. What you do is important to a lot of people. You get judged on your actions, not on your image or your rhetoric.
NZ might get away with talking one way and walking another (and we do - try mentioning “agricultural runoff” every time a Kiwi spouts off about being Green…), but the important countries can’t.
I (cynically) think that Obama will have to look and sound reeeally good to even have a snowball’s chance in hell.
I don’t think that’s a problem by any stretch for him. The only candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat, who gets even close to him in terms of looking and sounding good is Edwards. And even then, Edwards looks a bit like a pretender compared to Obama in terms of speechifying and just general gravitas. Obama is what Americans really want in a President—youthful, inspiring, handsome, eloquent. He’s RFK all over again. Don’t believe the Chris Matthews hype about how we’re set on fire by doddering old men.
Has NZ ever had a Maori PM?
Am I reading this right? You’re thinking of changing your endorsement based on what some racists think and might do? Or that a vote for Obama will expose and end racism? Seriously?
Oh and the whole general “the world will love us when we have a black president” meme has got to be the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard. If there was anything to it, wouldn’t the world at least like us for Colin Powell and Condi Rice?…
Deputy PM at one stage - Winston Peters.
I don’t think there would be a problem with a Maori PM per se (one of our first was Jewish).
The problem is lack of viable personalities - our most prominent, Peters, is a banana republican. He has a firm place in the Parliamentry system as leader of NZ First (the party of the scared and elderly) and is therefore a Cabinet Minister due to an agreement with Labour, but likewise no chance of leading a government - thank God.
There’s a Maori Party, which serves as a voice for the tangata whenua in Parliament, and Labour co-opts Maori voices into a very wide tent (cf Dover Samuals and Parekura Horomia). The best chance for an actual Maori PM would be through the Labour Party, but there’s some very good white and Pakeha politicians sitting at the top of the pile first - Clark at present, with Cullen as her heir apparent, and the most prominent Maori politicians have screwed up very publicly.
Note that a PM isn’t a President.
I sub, and that seems to be the consensus among the (mostly black, inner city) teenagers at the school where I work the most. They’re all really excited about a black man running and being a viable candidate, especially in the first election many of them are eligible to vote in, but they’re all sure he’ll be assassinated either during the campaign or, if elected, very soon after he takes office.
I’m wavering between Edwards and Obama in the primaries, although my heart is with Kucinich. I’ll probably vote for Edwards, because I also think it’s important to keep the more progressive voices strong so that we have a better position when it comes time to sit at the bargaining table.
Yeah, if we had a Parliamentary system Hillary Clinton would be a shoe-in. Women seem to do a lot better under Parliamentary systems than Presidential ones.
Yeah, if we had a Parliamentary system Hillary Clinton would be a shoe-in. Women seem to do a lot better under Parliamentary systems than Presidential ones.
Possibly because holding together a coalition is different from appealing to an electorate.
He’ll be given the Harold Ford treatment any day now.
Amanda, I agree, he’s all those things. I just literally have no faith (at the moment) in the populace. I don’t believe they’ll put their money where their mouth is; I think they’ll use the war as an excuse to maintain the status quo. Like I said, most people don’t even give their unconscious prejudices a thought. I live in a red area of a blue state and you wouldn’t believe the shit that comes out of people’s mouths.
I’m half hoping that by spewing my cynical bilge all over the place, it will magically backfire and we’ll actually wind up with a president we can be proud of. But I’ll stop spewing now. Everyone was filled with optimism in ‘92 when Bill was running, so maybe we won’t screw this up, either.
(I never watch Chris Matthews. Just reading what the blogs report on him makes me puke).