The 2008 Weblog Awards
Vote for NoQuarter, finalists for "Best Political Coverage"!
You can vote every day.
No registration required!


RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Back when this race was getting underway and no one had yet dropped out, I wrote about Barack’s style of negative campaigning, in a diary published at kos called “Maureen Dowd, Not,” which was a parody of Dowd’s column championing Barack for stepping out onto the low road.  He’d made a joke that made Michelle laugh, alluding to Hillary’s experience, married to Bill, and he wondered, in his now trademark style, how that qualified her to be president.

I was astonished; he’d used sexist memes to get his audience to laugh at Hillary?

I had thought he was the nice guy, the one who would elevate the political discourse and treat all candidates with respect, as indeed he had suggested he would, with his words of praise for Bush and his admiration for how Rumsfled had managed the war.  So, months later, when he promised her some Chicago Smack Down, I thought, well, he’s at least admitted it and now the media and his supporters will have to admit it too.  Like, right.  

I then saw his strategy as searching out anything in Hillary’s or her surrogate’s words that could be `understood,’ (read misunderstood) to mean something offensive to African American citizens and then to express his manufactured outrage.  I said then that he was predictable, in that he would pass up no opportunity to smear her with the implicit charge of racism.

Although I thought he could probably convince some white people she was `using’ veiled racism (for what, to turn off her supporters?), that black people would see right through it, and possibly fear some backlash, but essentially forgive him, because he was a new guy and he was trying to win.  Even I could understand, sort of, I mean new immigrant groups have long used fanning racism against African Americans to `identify’ themselves with white Americans, who feared the `Otherness’ of black citizens far more than they feared any immigrant `Others,’ so they could `bond’ over home-grown and common ugly racial prejudice, with the `the enemy of my enemy is my friend and makes a more acceptable neighbor’ idea.

But my prediction that Barack himself knew better, and was being only as calculated and cynical as most other presidential candidates before him in `demonizing’ his opponent, and so would stop when it no longer `helped’ has been proven overly optimistic.

Bush did that to McCain, with his claim that John had fathered an illegitimate black daughter, which could apparently still offend enough racist pugs to sink John’s dream. Outside the question of why this would be a big deal even if it were true (is it the illegitimate part or the black part?) it certainly showed what might be seen as `prep-school racist smack down sneer and jeer.’

John Kerry was `taken down,’ over the flip flop metaphor, and he was jeered and sneered at on the floor of that now infamous GOP convention, that showed America a mob of fools slapping rubber flip flops every which way and jeering their blockheads off.  That was a smack down for sure, and the fact that racism wasn’t involved was the only bright light in an ugly campaign.  

My prediction was wrong, because Barack has kept up his `game,’ long past time when it `helped’ him win over undecided Hilary Haters, and into overtime, where he’s losing support over it, so much so that he’s enraged many of Hillary supporters with the disrespect he shows her, so much so that he may have sparked a grass roots mainstream Democratic movement to bring professionalism into our party.  Had he `closed the deal’ early on, likely no one would have noticed or cared about his jeers and sneers, and had he realized, in a cynical calculation, that this was no longer helping and stopped, he would have shown himself to be an adept politician, able to shift modes as the race goes on toward the goal of `winning.’  

Had he seen himself as the clear winner, surely he would have stopped jeering and sneering at her, and would have reached out to her supporters in a way that would show us he never really meant it. Surely if his purported style of bottom up governing were his truth, he would have listened to the 70 percent of Democrats who want a unity ticket. He would have used her strengths, asked that she be in charge of agencies like homeland security, for example, that have long needed a professional and expert head.  How nice would that have made us all feel, we’d see him as a big man who knew what it takes to unite and to bring real change to our government.  

But Barack went `a bridge too far,’ when he `responded’ to an analogy she used that had nothing to do with him: She’s been asked countless times by reporters why she hasn’t dropped out already for goodness sake, why she keeps dragging out the primary season with her obstreperous refusal to `admit’ she can’t possibly win even though she’s `harming’ Barack’s chances in the GE by showing it’s not yet over, and that she has at least as much support as Barack from Democrats expected to vote in the fall. To this constant, how dare you, she answers with history, other races went on even longer, this isn’t new, remember, this primary and that one? And in the end the party will come together, because she’ll unite behind the winner.

Barack’s response is now the stuff of legends.  He pretended her only hope to win the nomination would be if he’s off’d. Since the fears of African Americans that he might be killed have been often expressed, and deeply felt, his unveiled charge was if possible even more ugly.  For a man who attended a church where his pastor and at least some of his fellow parishioners believe AIDS was a government plot against African Americans, Barack well knows that ugly rumors can be accepted as fact, no matter how incredible. Indeed, some citizens hold equally incredible `beliefs’ about Barack’s background and his agenda should he win the highest office in the land. There are always some who will believe the most offensive and incredible of charges, and Barack must know that.   The only `political’ spin I can give him is that this gives him an ugly argument against asking her onto his ticket; `she wants the presidency over his dead body; no wonder she’d like to be a heartbeat away?’

This will be known as his `bridge too far,’ in that he’s exposed himself, as an unpleasant man, not so smart after all, who will never stop creating `meanings’ to smear Hillary (and who else) with the ugliest of motivations. It now seems likely that Barack isn’t just a politician; he really hates her, and `believes’ she’s some monster out to get him.  We can’t say that he’ll do anything to win the presidency, but may say with some evidence that in his `paranoia’ he’ll charge anything, even when it hurts him the most.  That’s the `fatal flaw’ psychologists have noticed in some candidates who can’t win the biggest cheese: for some psychological reason they have to be `true to themselves,’ even if `themselves’ isn’t worthy of being true to, and even when it means they reduce their chances. One thinks of Al Gore selecting the impeacher Joe Lieberman as a running mate and excluding Bill Clinton from his campaign.  Fervently held so-called high roads, as much as fervently held ugly low roads are equally stupid in presidential races. Statespersons see themselves as representatives of something bigger than themselves.   (To paraphrase Barack, I’m not against politicking; I’m against stupid politicking.)

But on a cheery note, Barack has shown us all how to play jeer and sneer. Some of us remember this `game’ from elementary or `primary,’ school, when many little boys still see little girls as scary or creepy `Others’ who must be warded off with incantations and spitting at and the like.   I recall a survey taken in a fourth grade classroom, where the children were to choose which children they most wanted to sit next to and which ones least.  There was one little outcast boy named Leslie in that classroom, who was sensitive and bad at sports, and was the scariest `Other’ to the rest of the boys, judging by how they taunted him. One little boy answered in the survey that he’d least like to sit next to “Leslie, and all the girls.”  

The tried and true way to bond with `the popular group,’ is to taunt the common enemy.  It’s the stuff of bullying and the making of outcast children, some of whom grow up to be dangerous.  

Thanks to Barack, and with help from Marc Rubin at Tom Paine, we can now all learn how to play this `uplifting and inspiring’ game of Jeer and Sneer.  Rubin noticed that after Barack first `assumed’ she meant she hoped she would win because she hoped he’d be killed, he called her remark “unfortunate.”  He then accepted an apology from Clinton that she didn’t give him “because he didn’t have one coming.”  Rubin sees this as “the equivalent of hitting the ground after you sucker punch someone so the person can’t hit back, and if they do you scream that you’re being attacked.”  How many times have we seen bullies do that with weaker kids, to get an `excuse’ to beat up on them, and if not in person, then in movies?  (If any sixth graders who don’t know this are watching, that’s how it’s done.) The real fun part of this trick is the audience who does see through it, sees that she didn’t hit him but he acted hit, and then played her victim, and made a weak fool of her, to their delight or dismay. When he pretends to take the high road, and `accepts’ her apology, he’s taking his bow.  

Then, when it’s supposedly over, he must enjoy it more; he takes Keith Olberman’s insane rant and sends it out to all newspersons. See what she is, Keith knows, she’s a cootie girl. Ick.  It’s jeer and sneer.  

On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that “The Clinton’s” are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit.  

I’ve often had the strange sensation in this campaign that there are two alternate realities.  Hillary’s campaign is old fashioned: reach out to the voters and ask for their votes.  She’s cheery and upbeat and optimistic about the future of this nation. It’s like a remake of Rogers and Hammerstein’s, State Fair, updated with representation from all of America. She’s the American Girl candidate, running against Bush, pledging to reverse his policies and bring efficiencies and professionalism to Washington. One of her big applause lines is `it’s a tough job, hire me, and I’ll clean up the Bush mess.”  

Barack’s case seems mainly to be about her, how bad she is, how wrong she’s been, how awful she is, how racist and selfish and horrid she is.  His campaign is more like Neil La Bute’s, In the Company of Men.  

So now we may be delivered a seemingly flawed human being as our candidate, and we’ll have to support him, and how much will he enjoy that, because John McCain wants to expand our nuclear arsenal to include more so-called tactical nuclear bombs. John is on the crooked talk express, a nice guy on the outside, and bent on the inside.  Between Barack and John, there is a clear worser.

But we still may get our American Girl, ready and willing to work her buns off to achieve a better nation.

Go Hilary!!

UPDATE: I got this from a commenter, seems I heard the statement incorrectly and here is the correction:

his is a follow up to this comment by kasjogren

What Anna Shane heard:

On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that “The Clinton’s” are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit.
What was actually said:

TONY COX: Hurricane Katrina aside, for the moment, what do you think are the main Republican platforms that make minorities shy away from the party, Debra?
Ms. DEBRA DICKERSON: Interesting. I think that the - their orientation against considering race to be a prime mover in a lot of situations. That basic disagreement that race is still a big problem for people who are not part of the white race, that’s the major stumbling block. I think entrepreneurship in that sort of thing is very appealing to blacks, but it’s that we don’t want to talk about race, and we believe ourselves to be color blind and it’s all just about paying attention and working hard.

That is the entry point until the party can understand that we still- that many black people still see race as a major issue and it’s not a comfortable place to bring up things about race. So that’s the major stumbling block and race is so far down on their list, and I think a lot of black people have a lot of affinity for a lot of Republican ideas. Again, we are a very conservative people. But many of us still agree that race is still a stumbling block. And when they say no it’s not, that’s your basic problem right there.

Mr. ERIC BROWN: And I find it interesting, because this present election cycle has really shown - or should have shown a lot of blacks that, does race really matter with the young Democrats? I mean the Clintons have gone out and their surrogates have gone out to prove that, you know, race doesn’t matter. Look how they have gone on to treat the people of South Carolina. Look how they have gone on to talk about how the, you know, working-class white person is more important than a black person, that’s who we are going after as far of votes.

COX: Yeah, but the counter-argument to that, obviously is Barack Obama, the fact that the party has embraced him and is supporting him.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post119 Comments »

Comment by usedmeat | 2008-05-30 23:38:36

You go with what you got and since obama couldn’t challenge any signatures he took the low road.

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:14:07

Why would I support a Party that has rigged the primaries and disenfranchised the voters of MI & FL….
Why would I support a candidate that has ties to Radicals and Racists…
Why would I support a candidate who resorts to coercion…
Because I’m a lifelong Democrat ?

If Obama is the Democratic Nominee it is ILLEGITIMATE….IT IS CORRUPTED

OBAMA IS UNFIT FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE…HE IS A FASCIST…

Comment by ownaa | 2008-05-31 05:29:17

YES….YES….YES

Now is plan B

We don’t have to wait till after the GE, do we?

 
 
 

Comment by Karen | 2008-05-30 23:39:07

NICE POINTS —–NICE WRITING –THX

http://www.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hateamerica.png

it says
;IF U HATE AMERICA -YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE OBAMA::

Comment by ownaa | 2008-05-31 05:30:42

I detest that woman, please don’t quote her

 
 

Comment by so saddened | 2008-05-30 23:39:49

and we’ll have to support him, and how much will he enjoy that, because John McCain wants to expand our nuclear arsenal to include more so-called tactical nuclear bombs. John is on the crooked talk express, a nice guy on the outside, and bent on the inside. Between Barack and John, there is a clear worser.

i simply must disagree. i will never support obama. disagreement over a policy issue, such as expanding the nuclear arsenal, can be resolved through the usual political means. that’s why we have congress, etc. but having a person who i believe is simply evil as our president is another matter entirely. and obama is the one i see as “nice guy on the outside, and bent on the inside.” i see him as so seriously bent that he is dangerous.

Comment by AF catfish | 2008-05-30 23:46:37

So with you. Tactical nukes are a horrid idea, but we can work this out with McCain. Obama - there is no telling what he will do.

Comment by Karen | 2008-05-30 23:49:05

WHAT HE WILL DO???

Comment by Karen | 2008-05-30 23:50:12

He will say —Can i please just finish my waffles???

Comment by Catsarepeopletoo | 2008-05-31 00:08:59

While he’s eating his waffles, all the people lined up to pull his strings (the liberal elite, the Chicago operatives, the black liberationists, the Muslims like his cousin Odinga, and more) will be destroying America.

 
 

Comment by SensibleWoman | 2008-05-31 01:28:55

WHAT HE WILL DO???

Umm…Oops! Wrong button…wrong country. Hmmm…maybe I’ll just wait to see if someone ELSE will speak up and apologize. That oughtta fix it.

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:17:46

Hmmmm….This is where a basic knowledge of Geography is critical.
Of course we can all take comfort in Obam’s excellent appreciation of the Great Lakes of Oregon….

Comment by ownaa | 2008-05-31 05:32:53

and History

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by jangles | 2008-05-31 00:06:06

“…so seriously bent that he is dangerous.” Yes, totally agree. His pattern of behavior is writing itself indelibly on this election process and that pattern is made of “not acting” being present but not engaged, never taking a clear, direct stand but umming and haaaaing. He did not deal with the Wright situation until it came off the rails; he is not dealing with Pfleger even as Pfleger is coming of the rails. How many times did he vote present? He stalled and refused to deal with MI and Fl and now it has come to a showdown and it is coming off the rails. His record in office is one of failing to act and demonstrate constructive leadership; as chair of the board for the Annenberg challenge in Chicago City Schools he failed to act as the program consistently showed no significant student gains in any measurable area. Obama is Bush III and what makes him worse is that his advisors and associates are far worse than GWB’s. Bush has nearly destroyed this country. Obama will finish the job.

 

Comment by stodghie | 2008-05-31 00:24:57

me too! i see obama as deeply flawed and dangerous for this country.

 
 

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-30 23:52:04

I must be cynical. I knew from his Reagan speech what the plan was.

It would be to destroy her.

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:19:51

Not just her….The Party built by FDR….Typical Fascist tactic….

Comment by Genevieve LeFevre | 2008-05-31 08:54:19

Exactly. He’s a puppet of the neoconservatives. All fascism starts as a grassroots, youth-driven change ideology driven by fanaticism and propaganda slogans like “unity.” Once you lay the groundwork, bring in the big guns, inflame nationalism and use the moral laxity of the left and the conservative ideology of the right, “patriotism” and “democracy,” wreak havoc rinse lather repeat.

 
 
 

Comment by greg | 2008-05-30 23:56:39

I agree with so saddened.

No Obama ever. I never understood how people on the “religious right” could vote against their economic interests and support Repubs. Now I understand. So much for Marx.

Comment by ownaa | 2008-05-31 05:38:04

So much for Marx.
I like that very much. How many …many times through history that proven to be wrong. I argued that pariticular thing with many communist but they always tried to explain in so many ways, but it still as u said so much for Marx

 
 

Comment by Gloria | 2008-05-31 00:04:47

I wish Corrine Brown would kick him in the teeth.

Here’s my tribute to her…

“Corrine Brown Has Been Fighting for the Vote Since 2000 and Is Fighting for Hillary Clinton Today”

http://tinyurl.com/3utyhk

Revisit some of here courageous acts…

 

Comment by Faust | 2008-05-31 00:07:27

I’m sorry, but this has to be one of the most insane, crazy screeds I have read in some time. Are you serious? These are your beliefs?

I know I’m the “enemy” here and all that crap. Fine. Demonize me. But this rant …? I don’t understand it.

You inflate and cast aspirations on everything that Barak Obama says. To you, every breath the man takes is an insult to Hillary (notice, to “l’s”) Clinton’s very existence.

These are the facts. Hillary Clinton started this contest - and that’s what it is - with more advantages than any candidate since George W. Bush. Not only does she have the name recognition, but over 100 Superdelegates pledged for her before a single vote was cast. She started out with the lead.

No one handed this to Barak Obama. Yes, he had buzz coming out of 2004. It was anticipated that he’d run. But no one, in Nov 2007, took him that seriously. Certainly none of the presumed front-runners - John Edwards, Hillary Clinton. But he campaigned his ass off. Everyone knew the rules coming in. And I’m sorry it hasn’t turned out for you. I know how that feels - I wanted Gore to come in. I wanted Edwards after that. And no matter what you think, none of the reasons I disliked Hillary was because of her gender. Zero. If anything, that was a net positive, in my view. I have nothing to prove that but my word, so you have to take that.

But Obama worked his ass off for every one of those votes. So did those people who showed up for him. I believed with all my heart that Dean should have won Iowa in 2004. But he didn’t. He didn’t because he simply got out-hustled. Out-played. It was heartbreaking. But he didn’t deserve it. He wasn’t entitled to it. Neither was John Kerry. He won Iowa with his campaign. He won, fair and square, by playing by the rules as they’re laid out.

Politics aren’t for the tame. Hillary is tough, and she’s ran a very strong campaign. But don’t turn a blind eye to faults, because it was THOSE that made her lose.

No matter what you believe, Anna - and I sincerely hope that belief is not wide-spread - Barak does not have a built-in advantage because he his half-black. To pretend that racism does not exist while sexism is so wide-spread as that not only does it knock off the “inevitable” candidate but also raises the black dude up, is beyond intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, you should feel ashamed of yourself.

I won’t deny that sexism wasn’t involved in this race. It’s called a glass ceiling for a reason: when you break through it, you’re going to get all sorts of cuts. To deny it also doesn’t apply to Obama, that only Hillary’s ceiling is an unbroken one and thus she’s entitled to the nomination because of it, is asinine. Both have had equal airing these past 6 long fricken months.

But ultimately - and I no longer address this to the author, because I don’t believe the motives are good nor do I believe that I can speak to her hate - this isn’t a cult a personality. I could give fuck-all whether it was Hillary or Obama when this started out. I didn’t care for either of them. But Obama won by the rules. He ran his campaign no more rougher or dirtier than any other person ran theirs. Hillary was no saint on the campaign trail, and neither was her husband.

The United States is a nation of LAWS. For the last 8 years this has not been the case. Rules are made, and they aren’t to be broken just because the person breaking them thinks they’re above reproach in doing so. That’s not how it works, and that’s not how it SHOULD work. Haven’t we learned that the last 8 years? Isn’t it that that John McCain is offering us more of? We are not, nor should we be, a country of personalities, or men, or women. Isn’t that what we are fighting for?

Obama has not run a dirty campaign, regardless of what it says above. It has been rough. And the media …. the media has, as always, been in the right-wing’s pocket. I don’t understand how, as Democrats, that can be misunderstood. I get all the reasons why you believe that Hillary should be President. I honestly do. But she lost by the rules, fair and square. As Democrats, you don’t need to accept Barak Obama. But you have to be okay with giving him a chance. Otherwise, all those ideals that you believe Hillary believes in - well, frankly you do NOT. You’re simply a Republican.

Comment by greg | 2008-05-31 00:22:31

I started out a Hillary supporter and then took a serious look at Obama. I was somewhat disappointed with Hillary’s campaign but when one looks into Obama’s record, how he won his first elections, his connections to Ayers, Wright, Phelger, etc., his poor record in Illinois and his non-existent record in the Senate,his lack of experience, his current advisors who would be become the top people running the country, his misogny, his absolutely horrible treatment of Hillary and Bill, his lack of any record of bringing people together on anything, his praise of Reagan and Rumsfeld, his support by the Bush energy plan, his ties to lobbyists ( like Axelrod) and no record accomplishments - I came back Hillary. Hillary is the best candidate by far. If a make had Hillary’s record this would not even be a contest. What on earth has Obama accomplished to be worthy of support for the Presidency of the United States? Even Bush has more experience and could not believe Repubs would put someone up with that record. Now we Democrats are doing the same if not worse. What a wonderful world.

Comment by Jeremiah "God Damn AmeriKKKA" Wright | 2008-05-31 02:26:28

He is the Hope and Change Candidate

None of that stuff you listed matters

Hope they don’t notice and Change the subject if they do.

 
 

Comment by Susan1968 | 2008-05-31 00:34:01

Faust, you say:

But you have to be okay with giving him a chance. Otherwise, all those ideals that you believe Hillary believes in - well, frankly you do NOT. You’re simply a Republican.

I was wondering —

How much does the Obama campaign pay you to place comments on blogs?

Your assumption is Obama holds the same ideals as Hillary and ergo we have to vote for him.

But you see — Obama does not hold the same ideals as Hillary.

One can easily figure this out by vetting him, looking at his past history, and apprzising the people he has been involved with for 20 years.

Including his “they always raise the bar” wife. Who, in fact, got into Princeton because the bar was lowered for her (Michelle admitted her SAT scores were not high enough for Princeton — if you were white.)

So go sell crazy somewhere else.

Comment by Fred C. Dobbs | 2008-05-31 01:14:15

Pretty sad when you’re an Affirmative Action admittee for SOCIOLOGY?

Must be lots of fun to get carved on by an Affirmative Action surgeon, drive across a bridge designed by an Affirmative Action engineer or ride in a 767 commanded by an Affirmative Action captain.

Because, remember: it’s NOT whether someone knows his ass from a hole in the ground and has proved it. It’s whether or not his/her Self-Esteem is maintained!

Sic transit Jefferson’s meritocracy.

Comment by so saddened | 2008-05-31 01:33:51

fred c. dobbs, omg! i didn’t realize michelle obobo’s affirmative action admission was for sociology!!!

but her self esteem seems at an all time high.

as far as i can tell, mr obobo’s law review editorship was also affirmative action - read somewhere that he graduated in the top 25% of his class. at my school, that’s WAY below the level required to even get ON the law review. and his school is supposedly superior to mine (lol).

Comment by Genevieve LeFevre | 2008-05-31 09:07:14

OBOBO is the funniest I’ve heard yet. That could well describe his latte-loving cult members from all-white private communities.

 
 
 
 

Comment by Shainzona | 2008-05-31 00:38:50

 

Comment by ELlen | 2008-05-31 01:40:01

Finally - the truth and some reason to all this garbage. Anna’s article was the biggest piece of idiocy I have read in a long time. one of the candidates will lose…by the numbers. What is so difficult to understand about this? The Obama-haters on this site will never accept anyone but Hillary - do what you will and vote accordingly, if it makes you feel good - but don’t expect any good will from your fellow democrats who will vote as democrats.

Comment by so saddened | 2008-05-31 01:49:15

we will indeed do what we will. and your “good will” is of no concern, nor is your opinion that we are not voting “as democrats” since we are voting against obama.

btw, democrats actually believe in democracy. strange concept to obamaites, i realize, but true.

 

Comment by Jeremiah "God Damn AmeriKKKA" Wright | 2008-05-31 02:23:44

oh Eat the Barack off my big fat log.

 
 

Comment by Jeremiah "God Damn AmeriKKKA" Wright | 2008-05-31 02:22:37

No Obama Ever

Hillary or McCain. No Other Option.

Thats all you need to hear then.

 

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:23:30

Faust…appropiate moniker…How much did you pimp your soul for to Dear Leader…Hmmmm ? Take your Fascist pablum somewhere else….yawn….

 

Comment by ownaa | 2008-05-31 05:53:13

Is airamericaradio in the right wings media too, the left blogs. I never in my life listened to such hatred like the one comming out of those even more than they do the Bushs. You cann’t possibaly think all those super delegates supported BO because they think he was best. I remember Lews from Goergia, came out and said he is a Clinton supporter and believed she is the best, but he can’t go against the will of his people because they voted for Obam. Well if we apply that concept then Kennady, Kerry and the rest of them from the states she won the popular votes should be behind her. Then this thing will ended today and she wins. You can’t just pick and choose the rule and laws. Besides the most important factor and object of this excersise is GE which is better suited for the job; BO is not.

 

Comment by Amy | 2008-05-31 08:29:49

He most certainly has run a dirty campaign and it is he that has received every opportunity to rise above since the media has been complicit and his record has received almost no scrutiny until late. He is the one that has had all the advantages. Even the FLA, MI debacle has worked to his favor. Now it seems that he will actually be rewarded for taking his name off the ballot and refusing to a revote. Uniter? I have never voted republican in my life but I will if he gets the nomination. As usual the women has had to work longer and harder and endure more rath and scrutiny than the man. Shirley Chisolm remarked that she had received more prejudice as a woman than she ever did as an African American.This race has proved that.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-31 09:02:30

Agree, Amy. Obama HAS run a dirty campaign.

He reminds me of George W. Bush in 2000: to the public, he appears cheery and positive and “noble.”

But behind the scenes, his campaign staff is running every dirty trick possible. The Chicago way, and all that.

He’s a fraud. I’ve never seen the Democratic Party so DIVIDED by a candidate who plays like he cares about UNITY.

Stick a fork in him. He’s done in the GE.

 
 

Comment by Genevieve LeFevre | 2008-05-31 08:58:35

“cast aspirations” on everything Barack Obama says… now that’s funny. perhaps he meant “cast aspersions”? who’d have thought the devil himself made Freudian slips!

 

Comment by MEchelle Hates America! | 2008-05-31 10:39:52


But Obama worked lied his ass off for every one of those votes. So did those people who showed up for him.

Remember the bitter folks comments in San Francisco?

The part the MSM buried is the TRADE part.

This was right after he and his advisor in Chitown told a Canadian rep that Oblowme was just blowing smoke up the asses of the voters re: NAFTA.

Then in San Fran with the Corp. Domineers of the World United crowd that lying sack of shit is caught off script about bitter folks clinging to trade!

WTF?!!

 
 

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-05-31 00:11:58

Barack Obama - to know him is to loathe him.

Comment by Cindy | 2008-05-31 00:21:48

I loathe his puppetmasters even more. They traded their souls to pull his strings. Barack appears to have always been soulless………and never having had a reflection in the mirror.

Comment by Mary | 2008-05-31 09:05:23

I think we’ve learned that Barak Obama will do ANYTHING to win.

Much like he did in Chicago.

And I think we all know that his failure to “clean up corruption” in Chicago proves that he’ll do very little to clean up anything in Washington DC.

He CULTIVATES relationships with the power brokers, for his own ambition.

No thank you. He’s nothing new.

 
 

Comment by so saddened | 2008-05-31 00:22:52

truer words were never said.

and to think that obambi actually has the gall to say that the more people get to know him the more they like him!

hillary or mccain. no other option.

 
 

Comment by Lorelynn | 2008-05-31 00:13:04

Crooked Talk Express? hmmmm, I own the domain name crookedtalkmccain. If Obama’s the nominee, I won’t bother to use it on anything.

I can’t believe. Who knew there were so many hateful Dems?

Comment by stodghie | 2008-05-31 00:26:13

go look in a mirror!

Comment by Genevieve LeFevre | 2008-05-31 09:11:01

she doesn’t have a reflection in the mirror, either.

 
 
 

Comment by portia9 | 2008-05-31 00:19:33

I agree wholeheartedly with this entry except for one point: Obama as the nominee is not the lesser of two evils. I don’t think I can vote for McCain, but I know I can’t ever vote for Obama.

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-05-31 00:22:42

I an inclined to agree. I would not like to vote for McCain … unless the alternative was worse. Like Obama.

 
 

Comment by Faust | 2008-05-31 00:20:06

Also - to be clear, I’m not disrespecting Sen Hillary Clinton. At all. I do admire her. I do like her. I simply do not prefer her to be President, for a variety of reasons. If anyone would like to have a sane discussion, I’m up for it.

What I don’t understand is this hate towards Obama. It seems to come straight from the reptilian brain that I normally associate with Republicans. I refuse to believe that you’re all secretly McCain supporters - the irony would be great, but I have more faith than that - so I just don’t get it. It’s not like he’s behind in the States won.. Or the Delegates won.. Or the Superdelegates. I know the Popular Vote argument .. but living in Minnesota, a state that had a caucus in which every participant was counted, I’d like to have my vote count. We did, after all, stay within the rules before the contest started.

Comment by stodghie | 2008-05-31 00:27:30

yeah! right! those talking points are being watered down now in the hopes we are as dumb as ya’ll.

 

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-31 00:34:53

Believe it.

Because that is what will sustain you through the Fall, when your Obama character loses his ass.

He’ll be happy. All he wanted to do was destroy Hillary.

He never really even wanted to be president.

He’s a destructor. Not a builder.

Comment by Faust | 2008-05-31 00:40:50

For what reason was his goal to only destroy Hillary? To what ends? To elect John McCain? To have himself elected … and then to destroy America? Why is he hatching evil plans? When he graduated from Harvard he could have done anything - yet he goes into community organizing while working part time for a University. Was he biding his time? Building an army?

Why would a person go through the absolute hell he has gone through - the death threats to both him and his family - for the express reason of “destroying Hillary Clinton”?

I’m not making fun, or being insulting. But these are delusional, illogical thoughts.

Comment by Jeremiah "God Damn AmeriKKKA" Wright | 2008-05-31 02:33:28

Faust, seriously take your self and go drown in your obama koolaid.

Serious discussion about the merits of the candidates my ass.

You fail at earning your 25 cents a post you paid obama blog troll.

Seriously go choke on some arugala.

 

Comment by anna shane | 2008-05-31 10:02:51

to win the primary? Everyone thinks, and I hope rightly, that anyone can beat a pug this time, so the only one that matters is this primary. He’s trying to win?

 
 
 

Comment by A | 2008-05-31 00:37:54

No, it actually comes from Obama’s behavior.

..deeming the Clinton’s racists
..Calling anyone who won’t vote for him racist.
..His affiliation with .that .hate .church.
..His BS RFK smear.
..The hideous sexism in his campaign.
..His apologizing for Republicans at the expense of Democrats
..David Axelrod.
..Disenfranchisment of MI/FL.
..Donna Brazille.

And the list goes on.

We have reasons to dislike Obama. And reasons not to want him to be elected. I will work against the man. And I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life.

Comment by AnninCa | 2008-05-31 00:41:35

Ditto. I’ve never seen a Democratic candidate be so divisive in my life.

He has done what Rove dreamed of doing. LOL*

We now are even looking at down-ticket. We now are examining our own party.

Woe be unto those who just thought they had their votes locked up.

I’m taking a list and checking it twice.

I want these creeps out of government.

I want to see real public service, which means…..THINK!

 
 

Comment by HARP | 2008-05-31 00:43:16

You want to follow the rules. Follow these rules and take them to back to kos or whatever other galaxy you came from.

ule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as “no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February” (Iowa), “no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February” (New Hampshire), and “no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February” (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That’s more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That’s more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That’s more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee’s Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren’t punished fairly. In fact, they weren’t punished at all.
And what about Florida & Michigan?
Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to “impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate.” And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren’t applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.

Comment by Faust | 2008-05-31 01:13:11

Whatever galaxy? I’m from Superior, Wisconsin; currently living in St. Paul, Mn. I Democrat. A pretty liberal one, but I keep an open mind.

New Hampshire has it in their state constitution that they must be the first primary in the nation. They are bound by that to move it ahead. Regardless, all 3 were waived by the DNC before the nomination process started. It is a fact that the Clinton campaign does not dispute.

The rules were signed off by all participants of the Democratic Party nomination contest. They were agreed to by all parties, unanimously.

Do I agree that those 3 should always go 1st? Absolutely not. But the time to argue for such things is before the process starts, not in the middle and not when it’s about to end. Every single person involved in every campaign knew the rules when it started. The Party, as a private organization, makes their own rules as they see fit. And as long as everyone is in agreement when the nomination process begins - as they were - then there’s no bending or breaking or anything with those rules.

Now, if you want to discuss how to change how the nomination is done in 2012, then let’s do it. But 2008 is set, and the Party did not change the rules they made to benefit Obama half way through the process. Why should they do so to benefit Clinton?

Comment by lost in fla | 2008-05-31 02:09:46

Regardless, all 3 were waived by the DNC before the nomination process started.

I believe you are wrong on this point. As pointed out in this article by BTD over at Talk Left on Wednesday

The Famous DNC “Waivers” For the 4 Early States

In fact, they did not until AFTER they had scheduled their primaries in violation of DNC Rule 11, which was never formally amended. According to the DNC Memo of today, this makes these “waivers” against the DNC Rules. But worse than that, there is nothing in the circumstances of those waivers that are in any way different from the Florida situation. In short, the rules are rules for the DNC, except when they are not.

The national party had tried - before New Hampshire’s case wound up on its docket - to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee “has the power to waive the rules for any state,” explaining that “these rules can be changed only by the full DNC.” Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.

(Emphasis supplied.) The DNC Memo issued today has no explanation for how this could possibly comply with the rules while it stands by its position that the RBC can not seat the full delegations for Florida and Michigan on May 31. Why can’t a “waiver” be issued on May 31? This is an unanswerable question for the DNC.

Though Dawson and others on Rules [and Bylaws Committee] now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that’s not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day “prior to or after the dates” spelled out by the DNC.

And indeed, the DNC Memo now says that such waivers were not allowable. That is the problem with the DNC Memo. It puts Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in violation of Rule 11. It is a position that simply is untenable.

And here from the horse’s mouth, were the rules changing before our very eyes:

Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would “grudgingly support the waiver,” warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that “the days of ‘privilege’ may end soon.”

Not only did “first-primary-or-die” New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire’s. But New Hampshire’s Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/211834/452

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:26:50

That was hard to read….It was vertically challenging…

 
 
 

Comment by ELlen | 2008-05-31 01:45:25

Why do you refuse to believe what has been discussed a hundred times? Those four states received permission to move their primaries up AFTER FL and MI scheduled their primaries…they had the okay to go ahead from the DNC. FL and MI did NOT! For various rules, those four states had the right and permission to hold their primaries prior to Feb 5th…no other state did.

Comment by Genevieve LeFevre | 2008-05-31 09:24:49

It has been wrongly discussed 100 x then, because the rules say the DNC and Howard Dean and Donna B do NOT have the authority to waive the rules for some states regardless of their archaic privileges in our nominating process. Only amending the rules or holding a formal committee meeting determining that the states in violation of the rules did all they could to comply can accomplish a “waiver.” That is not the case here. All five states broke the rules.

 
 
 

Comment by Susan1968 | 2008-05-31 00:46:13

Faust is defintely a paid Obama blogger.

The talking points are woven in.

I know marketing logic when I see it.

Admit it Faust — you’re on the BO payroll.

Your mission — to seek out Hillary supporters who say they will not vote for BO in the general, say nce things about Clinton and guilt us into “unity” for the sake of the DNC.

Sorry, no.

Comment by HARP | 2008-05-31 00:57:14

Vote for BO. I would rather be water boarded.

 

Comment by HARP | 2008-05-31 01:01:18

Go back and tell your boss that you have met a superior force and you have FAILED ON YOUR MISSION.

 

Comment by Daniel Carver | 2008-05-31 01:10:56

Ive seen Faust’s arguments word for word on other blogs. He just copies and pastes the same crap that’s sent to him, along with a healthy paycheck from his Dark Master, Barack X, I’m sure. Note how he doesn’t even respond to the questions he’s asked. Just like BO, unwilling to listen. 67 percent of the states Barack X won in the primary/caucus are Republican states and will never go Democratic, let alone a black. He has flip-flopped on every one of his positions. His “Gangsta” style caucus system is a joke with college age punks and unemployed AAs who have nothing to do except usurp the will of hardworking Americans, so that the wealth of this nation can be returned to them as entitlements and reparation. When this nightmare reaches its final stage, we most all consider that Barack X is the most liberal senator in the US Senate, and he’ll fill congress with even more of his type. Let it be known that Barack X has STOLEN his speeches straight from the pages of JFK and RFK and the rest he stole from Hillary. He is a plagiarist and a thief, stealing this nomination from Hillary. He is a typical thug stealing what does not belong to him.

So take that message back to your Dark Master.

Comment by Fred C. Dobbs | 2008-05-31 01:22:13

His work looks like he’s not likely to be compensated off the top line of Scale for Obamabots.

Maybe a coupla cases of Cheetos, a pallet of Jolt Cola and a dozen 750’s of store brand vodka for his poor mother, from whose basement he blogs.

 
 

Comment by Faust | 2008-05-31 01:16:11

Susan - I wish that were so. I’m no more that than you are a paid McCain operative.

I’m just a Democrat. I get my paycheck from a CEO that is so Republican that it makes me want to puke sometimes…. But I have no ties with any campaign. Sorry…

Comment by Jeremiah "God Damn AmeriKKKA" Wright | 2008-05-31 02:35:45

Troll Alert. Faust is a paid obama blogger. Ignore Him.

Comment by workingclass artist | 2008-05-31 04:31:09

Faust must have studied in the US….his english is pretty good for you average Obama troll from GAZA….Maybe he’s a corporal…

 
 

Comment by anna shane | 2008-05-31 10:13:16

i take your word for it. I think the paid bloggers are required to admit it if asked directly or reflect badly on their employer. I’ll vote for the nominee, but that won’t be enough to get him elected and I’m from a state that is more than solidly Democratic. What I see and wrote about isn’t limited to me, it’s very widespread and must be at least considered by his campaign. We’re not pugs, but we feel like we’re being destroyed along with Hillary. He makes some mean-spirited joke, like the ones he made on Jon Stewart, and I can blush, all women of a certain age have come to recognize the ways we’re diminished by ambitious men who want the same job we’re trying for. He’s gone too far, it’s gratuitous and looks to me like he’s enjoying diminishing her so much it’s unseemly, a huge turn-off. At the same time he has his own problems, and it seems so contrived to blame his ‘negatives’ on her. She’s running fo