BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM

Is that right, Mrzzy? Well, I'm surprised it hasn't come out already, then. The Republicans could really make hay out of that! I would assume, that like all presidential candidates, Obama now gives the public the general impression that he believes in God? (my impression is that what most of them really believe in is winning... ;-) )

These questions of whether one is religious or not are matters that simply don't play any significant part in Canadian politics...nor can I see why they ought to. What does it have to do with being an effective public servant?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

It should never be allowed to slant a campaign around an individual's religious beliefs or lack thereof, unless (as in the case of Bush and Huckabee) they feel compelled to shove those beliefs down others' throats.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:04 PM

The Repbs are screwed... One of the reaasons they have been successfull in the past is because they have put together a coilition of the Christain Right and the few ol' time Repbs who wouldn't break ranks...

Oh yeah, they can still depend on this coilition... Poroblem is that the Dems have put together a coilition of old time Dems, the independants and the young voters...

So if the Repubs play the religion card all it's gonna do is energize the Dems to vote becasue in playing the relegion cars it will look again that the Repubs are catering too strongly to the Christain Right and that will cost them... It will be intersting to see just what the Repubs find that can work for them rather than against them???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

Well....they could arrange for another "terrorist" event prior to the next election, I suppose. It would have to be a big one.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:38 PM

I wouldn't put that one past 'um, LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:08 PM

More power to the shields, Scotty!!!!!


Ach, Ah'm tryin' Captain!! Ah'm tryin'!!!!

Star Trek: The Next Generation: "Return to the 21st Century" episode XVI

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

STOP!

The race thing, in the context of these elections, is designed to try and bait Obama and his supporters into getting sucked into a race argument.

If that happens, then his campaign will truly be undermined. as it will descend into a squabble about race. Middle america will get uncomfortable, embarrassed and defensive and he'll slip away.

Understandably, the issue of race is one that inspires extremes of frustration in those who have been on the receiving end of it.

But I would appeal to Obama's black suppporters not to get drawn in. If you want him to win you have to constantly divert attention to his strengths as a politician, not jump to his defence as a victim of prejudice.

Don't play the role that the baiters love to wind you up to play.

Look at Obama - Last I saw, his own response to it was to say that he knows Hillary Clinton isn't racist and he was sure it was all just a big misunderstanding.

Because he knows that the argument of who should be president is of far greater importance than the argument about whether Clinton is using racist tactics - and he knows which victory he would rather sacrifice.

Every time someone stands up and says "hey ... that's racist" in this campaign, they push race higher up the agenda and Obama loses control of his campaign.

Do you really want him to be answering nothing but incessant questions about his views on who is and isn't racist?

Can't he be allowed to set a precedent as a black politician who isn't defined by his stance on racial issues but by his stance on other issues?

He's done really well in this respect - don't blow it for him now.

Don't bite!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:24 PM

I think you are so right, Lox. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:43 PM

Not to worry, Lox...

After livin' with Karl Rove we all are on our toes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:45 PM

Brilliant post, Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:56 PM

Lox is of course right. And fortunately, Obama has recognized this from the start--but it certainly is a tricky line to walk. Obama needs black votes--but cannot be typecast as a "black politician". His very ability to transcend this--and other labels--is one of the biggest sources of his appeal.


Another point:

"One interesting thing is that he grew up atheist". Source, please.

NB--there is a big difference between "growing up atheist" and growing up uncertain about religion--which I daresay some of us have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:09 PM

Yeah, I sort of wondered about that "growing up atheist" bit too, Ron.

I grew up in a family that never went to church, we did not officially belong to any religion, and I was not instructed to be religious or to read the Bible. Neither was I instructed to be an atheist! Neither was I instructed NOT to believe in God or anything else like that. I was basically simply left alone to form my own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:27 PM

Why does he need to be a "black" politician to appeal to "black" voters?

More bait?

A good candidate will hopefully appeal to as many voters as possible.

I don't see it as a tricky line.

The way I look at it, There are many routes into the same vortex.

The trick is to focus on the vision you have and to get people behind that.

Obama may just have the charisma and focus to keep the momentum going.

I certainly hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:38 PM

There is a lot of pressure on him--from some quarters--look at what Sharpton, etc. are saying. So far--for the best possible reasons--which we have both noted----he is resisting it. But he still needs the votes of Sharpton and people of similar attitude. That's the dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

AMEN, brother Lox!

I found it amazing that it took so long for somebody to start yammering about race. I watched what was probably the lamest debate I've ever watched most of. The moderator (whose name I have forgotten) kept prodding about race, and some guy in the audience began to loudly protest. They got him to shut up and probably dragged him outside, but the guy was right.

I found it inspirational that Obama won in Iowa, got pretty damned close in New Hampshire, and the guys who made predictions based on demographics were finding that nobody much was paying attention to race... except for the pollsters and predictors. I thought, 'we have finally grown enough as a society that people are voting for the best person, NOT the person who most resembled them.' Then came the idiotic comments from pundits and press, until that moderator tried to force the issue.

I know he's Black. Yes, I've noticed. I don't care! The press is stuck in the past with a viewpoint that has become effectively irrelevant, and they don't know how to deal with it! The world has moved on, and they're left scratching their heads and trying to figure out what IS important, now that race is proving to be not that big of a deal.

Meanwhile, that moderator hasn't been paying attention... or maybe it's not so innocent. If people can be persuaded to see Obama as the Black candidate, it will distract from the issues and it will be divisive. That's the opposite of what he's about and it undermines his whole platform. It really is, and should be, about voting for the best candidate

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:01 PM

Don't forget though that Sharpton only represents those who agree with him. He doesn't own the "black community".

In London recently, a black rapper was quoted as saying that the term "Black Community" was outdated.

The context was that of youth development schemes in the inner cities. He argued that there was no black community, just poor communities that in some areas were predominantly black.

I don't know who plays golf around here, but the best golfers in the world are the way they are because they concentrate on where the want the ball to go, not on the pitfalls they need to overcome.

If you want an opponent to hit the ball into the water, just say to him "watch out for the water" he won't be able to think of anything else and ... splosh!.

And while we're on the subject of Golf, another apparently white preserve, look how tiger woods has upset the status quo there.

People don't see him as a black golfer any more, just a good one.

Change is happening guys and it's good and as long as Obama concentrates on his game he'll continue to be in with a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM

Lox has made a good point, but I bet the "race" issue doesn't go away, or the "religious" issue if the Republican surregates can nail Obama with that one. They will do anything to derail his campaign from issues of importance to this country such as the ill-advised war in Iraq and the subsequent undermining of our economy (is there anyone out there that can't correlate the two?).

It could all be a strong test of Obama, but I doubt if it will be a fair test.

I still haven't made up my mind between the Democratic candidates but I sure hope we can come up with one strong enough to end the martial law state we've been living under the last 7 years. And I know lots of long-time Republicans who have expressed interest in voting Democratic as well, and Obama seems to be their man. They want "change," whatever that is!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM

Washington Post:

Black Dreams, White Liberals

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 18, 2008; Page A19

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . . It took a president to get it done.

-- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7

So she said. And then a fight broke out. That remarkable eruption of racial sensitivities and racial charges lacked coherence, however, because the public argument was about history rather than what was truly offensive -- the implied analogy to today.

The principal objection was that Clinton appeared to be disrespecting Martin Luther King Jr., relegating him to mere enabler for Lyndon Johnson. But it is certainly true that Johnson was the great emancipator, second only to Abraham Lincoln in that respect. This was a function of the times. King was fighting for black enfranchisement. Until that could be achieved, civil rights legislation could only be enacted by a white president (and a white Congress).

That does not denigrate King. It makes his achievement all the more miraculous -- winning a permanent stake in the system for a previously disenfranchised people, having begun with no political cards to play.

In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy -- that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.

Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African American dreams still have to go through white liberals?

Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience vs. inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.

Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item -- hate-crime legislation -- on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?

The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them.

Bill is annoyed with Obama. As Bill inadvertently let on to Charlie Rose, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with entitlement. He had contemplated running in 1988, he confided to Charlie, but decided to wait. Too young, not ready. (A tall tale, highly Clintonian; but that's another matter.) Now it is Hillary's turn. The presidency is her due -- the ultimate in alimony -- and this young upstart refuses to give way.

But telling Obama to wait his turn is a tricky proposition. It sounds patronizing and condescending, awakening the kinds of racial grievances white liberals have spent half a century fanning -- only to find themselves now singed in the blowback, much to their public chagrin.

Who says there's no justice in this world?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

Some good and cogent thoughts on your part there, BB. ;-)

Jeri - "it's not so innocent. If people can be persuaded to see Obama as the Black candidate, it will distract from the issues and it will be divisive. That's the opposite of what he's about and it undermines his whole platform."

Right. No, it's not so innocent at all. It is, I think, a continuing attempt on the part of certain established interests (both on the liberal and conservative sides of the equation) to "divide and conquer" and carry off the spoils in the confusion that ensues among a divided people. If people in general were to get past seeing others on the basis of race and would just look at others as individuals...then those established interests would lose one of their most valued playing cards...the "race card". They don't want to lose that card. It profits them to keep the pot at least simmering at all times, if not boiling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:21 PM

I'm a bit puzzled by the way "fairy tale" is seen as racist. It's a sneer all right, but surely it's a sneer based on the suggestion that Obama is inexperienced compared to Mrs Clinton, rather than on "race".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM

Obama has not successfully addressed the illegal occupation of Iraq in his speeches in my opinion. I don't like the fact that he is open to promoting nuclear energy either.

I find him to be vague on issues and trading on his personality with preacher-like catch phrases such as "Yes we can". My question to him would be "yes we can, what?" He is still in the grips of the health care industry. He is still receiving corporate campaign funds.
You might say, well these are individual donors but as long as there are 527's, people like Obama apparently feel no compunction about trading on them to finance his campaign.

Dennis Kucincich is the only candidate that has articulated his plans for stopping the occupation of Iraq and halting big Pharma and the Health Care Industry through "Single payer". He is also the only candidate addressing the election fraud in the US by DIebold and other DRE machines that have privatized our votes. The silence of Obama, Hillary and Edwards on this issue is deafening.

Edwards says he wants to deploy troops from Iraq to Kuwait using them as a threat against perceived "terror" activities. In this way he perpetuates the war mongering.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:21 PM

Yes, among the Democractic candidates Kucinich is the only one proposing real changes in policy as far as I can see. Funny how he's being shut out by the networks, isn't it? That shows pretty clearly what politics is really about in America...satisfying the most moneyed interests at the top of the "food chain", as it were. They will back any politician who doesn't threaten their established interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:34 PM

Lets get real here, folks...

Most of positions of the candidates, with the exception of Paul and Kuchinich's, at this point are poll driven... That is reality...

The dems, especially Obama, have to woof-woof just enough to keep the Repubs from Willie Kingin' them on national security...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM

Of course, now that Obama is singing the praises of Ronald Reagan, we'll see how it resonates with Democratic voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

Yes, the candidates positions are poll-driven...

And the results of the polls, to quite a large extent, are media-driven....because people's views are shaped by what they hear and see on radio and TV, and in the press to a lesser extent.

So it's mostly just a question of who can dispense propaganada most loudly, continuously, and effectively to the largest number of people.

And who can do that?

The ones who have the most funding.

And who gets the most funding?

He or she who does not threaten the corporate interests of the most powerful financial and commercial entities in the country...

And those entities also own the national media outlets, by the way.

So who really controls the agenda and whose will is really being represented in the final results of all this hoopla that is called "a presidential election" and is supposed to be an exercise of popular will?

I leave it up to you to draw the obvious conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

More Bill on Reagan (9+ / 0-)
Recommended by:Geenius at Wrok, badlands, GN1927, arielle, Elise, nobody at all, Crisitunity, beltane, cybrestrike
More Bill:

Barack Obama didn't "sing the praises of Reagan" but Hillary Clinton sure did- and recently at that:

Posted on Hillary Clinton's campaign website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674 is this quote from a New Hampshire newspaper endorsement 12/12/2007:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
-snip-

George H.W. Bush and Reagan !??!

-snip-

And Hillary's husband {former President} Bill Clinton is also on record for singing the former President Reagan's praises. Here's one example:

"Chris Black | The Boston Globe | 29 November 1992
President-elect Bill Clinton, still exploring the parameters of his new position, sought some personal pointers Friday from a man who mastered the magic of leadership. Former President Ronald Reagan obliged.

"It was a good visit," said Clinton after a meeting that lasted almost an hour in Reagan's 34th-floor office suite near the old back lot of Twentieth Century Fox.

Clinton has expressed admiration for Reagan's ability to get his agenda through Congress and to inspire a sense of optimism and hope."

quoted in this dailykos front page diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126
Party of Ideas
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM PST

**

Also, see this quote from another dailykos diary:

"Obama's assertion that Reagan changed the country in a profound way by moving it to the right is entirely value-neutral; he never says this was a "good" change, merely that it was a big change. This strikes me as inarguable. The majority Reagan created remains in control of the country to this day, including many people who considered themselves crossover voters, "Reagan Democrats."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/18220/4768
Hillary Clinton's Favorite Presidents: Reagan, George H.W. Bush
by G C
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM PST

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton has lost a large amount of support among African-Americans, with a majority of black Democrats now supporting Sen. Barack Obama, according to a new poll out Friday.


Sen. Barack Obama has the support of a majority of black Democrats, a poll found.
1 of 2

In a national survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., 59 percent of black Democrats backed Obama, an Illinois Democrat, for their party's presidential nomination, with 31 percent supporting Clinton, the senator from New York.

The 28 point lead for Obama is a major reversal from October, when Clinton held a 24 point lead among black Democrats.

"There's been a huge shift among African-American Democrats from Clinton to Obama. African-American Democrats used to be reluctant to support Obama because they didn't think a black man could be elected. Then Obama won Iowa and nearly won New Hampshire. Now they believe," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

Here's part of Obama's radio interview that mentions Republican President Ronald Reagan:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. "


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html?nav=rss_email/components

A video segment of that interview is included with that newspaper article.

-snip-

Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan's son in response to what Obama said:

"If I understand what he was saying I can't entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change," Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post, a liberal political site. "As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift right now."
-snip-

Of course, Bill Clinton [on behalf of his wife Hillary] and John Edwards are playing politics with Obama's words.

For instance, check out how Bill Clinton misinterpreted what Barack Obama said:

"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/18/589163.aspx
"Bill Also Hits Obama On GOP Ideas"


-snip-

Here's what Markos Moulitas, founder of dailykos wrote:

"Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were "all the good" ones.

In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of [kos's book] Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were "ideas"."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:37 AM

today HRC spoke about a president not being able to "wave a magic wand." Now, doesn't that tie in with fairy tales etc..just a subtle reminder...I don't think she says stuff accidentally. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM

You are right, mg... These statements are tested before control groups before unleasehed in the camapaign... Since Clinton doesn't really have anything on Obama her campaign is trying to portray him as some kinda joker who is not in touch with reality...

Well, I'd rather them take that tact then the one they were on last week in trying to convince US that Bill Clinton was the first black president... I don't know who thought that one up but it sho nuff didn't work...

What is interesting here is that Clinton is pulling out alot of tricks on Obama that the Repubs would have pulled and it's exposing just how alot of these tricks can backfire...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:38 PM

I'm wondering what Democrat the Republicans would feel most comfortable voting for, those who say they are appalled at the excesses of the Bush Administration and the consequent recession we are now in.

I would think John Edwards but some of our family's long-time Republicans surprised me by saying Obama. I would think that John Edwards would also be vulnerable to the "lack of experience" argument. Being a one-term U.S. Senator and a Vice-Presidential candidate doesn't really stack up as an impressive resume. Being a successful trial attorney demonstrates some dilligence and skill but still doesn't impress me very much.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:59 PM

Charlie-

One reason Republicans are more open to Obama than to Edwards is his willingness to have a "big tent"--to try to put behind us the constant clashing partisanship--in order to actually make progress in the US. Edwards' theme is definitely class warfare in the US--not as grating as Hillary--who is guaranteed to unify an extremely fractious Republican party against her--but still not inclusive, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 02:49 PM

Another irony in this irony-filled political season is that Obama's very inclusiveness--which makes him the strongest candidate in the general election-- makes it less likely he will get the Democratic nomination. His recent reference to Reagan in neutral terms, for instance, will hurt him now--and he'd best address that soon. I believe Reagan was a huge step backward for the US--but my view on it is nothing compared to the rabid feeling of many Democratic primary voters---whose votes Obama will need to get the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:50 PM

uperdelegate from S.C. endorses Obama
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. --A Democratic Party superdelegate from South Carolina on Friday endorsed presidential hopeful Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator appeals to independents and disillusioned Republicans.
Waring Howe, a Charleston attorney, holds a position with the Democratic National Committee that allows him to support anyone at the party's convention, regardless of what happens in the South Carolina primary Jan. 26.

"With him at the top of the ticket, Democrats will have a candidate they can run with, not run from," Howe said of Obama.

Howe also is the Charleston County Democratic Party chairman and a member of the state party's executive committee.

"Waring Howe is a valuable addition to our South Carolina team and we're excited to have his support," said Stacey Brayboy, state director for Obama's campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:21 PM

Repost from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/164336/475/779/439592


"Did you think this was going to be easy?
by Common Cents
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM PST

I see a lot of saddened folks around here. That is to be understood. It seems as if we have taken one more step to the same old shit in the Democratic Party. It looks like the party is deciding to shoot itself in the foot again with an establishment candidate arguing for a return to the past. But folks, Barack Obama is facing a party establishment that has been entrenched in power for three decades. The Clintons have ruled this party with an iron fist for 20 years. Did you think it was going to be easy? Did you think taking on that power structure would be a walkin the park? JFK won the presidency by a razor thin margin. RFK was in a hard fought battle. Abe Lincoln was third on the first ballot of his party's convention.

Change is never easy. Transformation always has resistance as well it should. You must be shaped by the fire to ever be ready to lead.

Obama has always been the underdog. Most historians think RFK never had a chance even without his murder. If assaulting the establishment and replacing the power structure was easy it would be done more often. Howard Dean launched an attack on it and was turned on and destroyed by the establishment. Barack Obama has more money and a larger base than Dean, but this was never going to be easy.

2-1. That is the count. As for delegates won? They are in a dead-heat. Conventional Wisdumb in the summer was that Hillary would be dominating. The fact is that she isn't. She lost Iowa, admittedly never her strongest chance. She eeked out a victory in New Hampshire and Nevada. Both states she dominated with entrenched interests. If you had told Hillary in the summer that she would go down to the wire against Obama in Nevada and New Hampshire her campaign would've laughed.

What is the significance? Howard Dean raised money and fought the establishment but never made any ground electorally. Barack Obama is already showing that there is an opportunity for change if only we seize it. The establishment is not able to trounce him in the polls. And come South Carolina he could even up this race heading into Feb. 5 with all the money he needs to compete.

Going against the machine is tough. Did you think the Clintons were going to roll over after Iowa? They've been here before. They will sling whatever mud and use whatever tactics to win. They have the majority of the experienced grizzled voters. And yet Obama is still gaining on her. He is still right with her on money and votes.

It is remarkable that Obama is doing as well as he has done. It is still a very tough road for Obama to defeat the establishment. But there is no cause for pause or need to be downtrodden. This thing is far from over and Obama is in the driver's seat in South Carolina. So no need to give up or get down. This is no time for "Woe is me". This is a time for working. You have to outwork the Clintons not just out-hope them.

Obama has the message. Obama tapped the real key word of this campaign. Everyone has ripped him off including the Clintons. Now he just has to keep doing what he is doing and working as hard as he can along with all of us who want to take this party back.

Let's just keep working."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:53 PM

Repost from:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881

"OBAMA WINS MOST NEVADA DELEGATES...Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said. "

-snip-

If my understanding of what happened is correct, the reason why Obama got more delegates than Clinton is because he won more rural caucases than she did.

Note: I also posted this on this Mudcat thread:
BS: Nevada Caucus Snafu thread.cfm?threadid=107800&messages=27

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:02 PM

MizziAzizi,

As a campaign worker in RFK's campaign, I strongly dieagree with Common Cents assertion that RFK didn't have a chance... He, IMO, was a shoe in... Havin' just taken California and with McCarthy's support going down and HHH's going down (mostly from the actions of LBJ) RFK was on his way...

Just wanted to clear that one up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

So who was Sir-Han Sir-Han working for? Did anybody ever figure that out? Did anybody try?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

"I believe Reagan was a huge step backward for the US--"


                Ron - We finally agree on something!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:26 PM

From my reading, it appears that Barack Obama got one more Nevada delegate than Hillary Clinton because of his very strong performance across the state other than Clark County.

Obama won Reno and many rural counties. However, he and Hillary split the delegates in Clark County [Las Vegas at large casinos].

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:44 PM

My exact point on another thread/s, Rigs.... Where's the motive??? Ain't none...

These folks, or their kids, are still around and so Obama better mind his p's and q's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM

I would like for Obama to speak out and say that Kucinich has been getting a raw deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:57 AM

Speaking of raw deals, how 'bout the way the Clintons have run a dishonest, divisive, unprincipled, race baiting campaign?

Folks here may be interested in listening to*-as I do-this conversation over at dailykos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/194727/333/630/439733
"some thoughts about Bill Clinton and Nevada"
by kid oakland
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM PST


[*"Listening to" means being a lurker and not an active participant in the conversation. Of course, some folks may be interested in joining in that conversation or have already joined in that conversation. I haven't since I prefer to be active in only one Internet community, and for me it's Mudcat]

Selective comments:

"IMO ... If it comes down to McCain as the Repub
nominee vs Hillary as ours we will not stand a chance in hell of winning the Whitehouse. We'll loose all the middle votes if that is the choice offered ... IMO.
-by Alizaryn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:55:04 PM PST

**

"And the blacks..... who have been shocked and dismayed by these turn of events and by Bill's antics. I should know as I am one. I support Obama but I have loved the Clinton's since I was a kid. I would have had no trouble voting for Hillary if Obama didn't get it. But then Clinton lost Iowa and all these things started with Bill. He was so angry and upset by Obama winning. He butted into the race, not as a husband of the candidate but using his clout as President to totally lie about Obama's record. His actions and his words about Obama have shocked me. Him going down to a caucus to influence voters to vote for his wife has shocked me and made me depressed.

This is not to say that I won't vote for Hillary if she got the nom, but I won't be enthused about it. Excited. I will merely be, once again, voting against someone instead of for them.

And that hurts. It really really does."
-by Niwind on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM PST

**

I feel you.
I have spoken with many family members and friends and what I get is this, "If she is the nominee, I won't vote for her." White folk need to understand this. If black folk get mad like this, and they are across the country, they will not show up to the polls. The Clintons KNOW THIS.
-icebergslim on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM PST

**

Honestly its not even about Obama, but it's all about the preception. AA thought that the Clinton's were their friends and that they would never do the things they are doing now. I still remember Michael Baisden telling Bill that it wasn't the fairytale remark that pissed the black community off, it was his tone. His angry tone about the fact that Hillary was beaten by Obama, almost like "Who does he think he is?" type of tone that pissed us off. And he's right.   

To have that betrayal is hard, especially if you've admired them for years. And that is what the AA community is reacting to.
-by Niwind on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM PST


**

"What is going on here???
We have moved this race to the 1 on 1 stage. We are either tied or beating her in delegates, we are headed into SC where he is 9 points up. Southern states comming up have large AA populations, he is challenging her even in NY. Want to know why Bill is talking about knocking on peoples door in SC and they are going to be holding hands in church in NY because they cannot close the deal without AA suppport. That is part of the calculation that they could do whatever and still win, please SC can hold the line, they know it and they will. The Clintons know they have galvanized the AA vote with their tactics. We cannot start folding our tent when we are still have a chance to win.

by jazzyjay on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM PST

**

"jazzy, no one is folding ANYTHING...
today was a WAKE UP CALL for both sides. this will be a slugfest to the damn end. but nothing wrong with talking scenarios. my first is President Obama, first foremost. but having a damaged Clinton at the top of the ticket is not news to many states ears. her challenge was winning today, but did she? no. she could not win NOTHING outside of clark county in nevada. where obama showed his prowness and won OUTSIDE of clark county and enough in clark county to win the delegate race, which is technically the caucus. she just showed how damaged she is in a 'swing state'.

that is how elections are won, with a coalition."
-by icebergslim on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:48:35 PM PST

**

"Same thing that I see and I am not black.

The topic came up more in MI because the powers that be that campaigned for Hillary here (gov and Senator) when asked if this move where voters had no choice, no voice would split the party they happily shrugged it off.

No, we'd all gather around the nominee and work hard for her. Would we?

We watch the campaigning. No, we really won't gather round. This isn't about our candidate of choice winning or not but the ways they are trying to beat him.

Their victory seems to matter more to them than the good of the people, the party or the country.

It is a betrayal."
-by joynow on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM PST

**

Clinton is seriously turn me off.
I am not AA, but I am a woman of color and the divise tactics that the Clintons have used has me incensed. I was completely open to her as the nominee. I thought she had the ability to be a good president, but since she has shown a willingness to throw good democrats under the bus to advance herself, I no longer think so. She is as selfish as her husband. I'll pobably vote in the general for her if she is the nominee but won't feel bad for her after the republicans get through with her. Karma is a witch afterall.
-by gatoazul on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM PST

**

All of this is why Clinton is toast in November
If she gets that far, she'll frankly be fortunate to get 40% of the vote. The Republicans appear poised to nominate the candidate their candidate that is most acceptable to swing voters, while Democrats are flirting with nominating a divisive, unelectable candidate that independents won't vote for.

Further, Clinton has angered some union members. She's also irritated the NRA members with her "I'm against illegal guns," comment because to them there are no illegal guns. She pissed off the peace crowd with the Iran vote. And she's pissed off the African Americans, who are breaking 5-1 for Obama only a month after it's been 50/50. If she gets the nomination, the Democratic coalition (blacks, women,anti-war activists, young voters, union members, etc) is in tatters.

Her only dim hope is to put Obama on the ticket with her. But she can't do that. Her entire primary campaign has been, "He's not ready to be President." So do you put somebody who is "not ready to be President," a heartbeat away from the Presidency? She can't. There is one other black statewide elected official--Gov. Patrick, and he is less experienced than Obama. Given that VP candidates usually have to be statewide officials, she's up the creek. The only possible out is Jim Clyburn for VP and I doubt she'd do that. If she picks someone like Bayh, she's given the Republicans a giant opening, which McCain will seize upon by choosing JC Watts as his running mate. Not only do blacks state home in this equation, many will even vote for McCain.

This is all why national polls show McCain 49 Clinton 38. It's conceivable that Hillary loses every state. Her nomination would also be disastrous in the swing house districts that the new majority was won in. If the party chooses to shoot itself in the foot again, it can. Nominating Hillary would be doing that. She may win the nomination with this, but in reality she's only ensuring that she'll lose with this b*llsh*t.
-by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM PST

**

I will vote for her, but that is the limit.

I can not work for somebody who has conducted a campaign designed to split the Democratic coalition.

Yeah, it worked.

We are split.

It will take work and agressive fence mending to get me to support anything she does.

I do not trust her any more than I trust Terry McAuliffe or Karl Rove.

Yeah, if she is the nominee, I will mark an "X" on election day. But I will do that with deep, deep regret and that is all I will do to help her campaign.

There was no reason to conduct such a negative race-based campaign and yet, that is what she choose to do.

I, for one, am disgusted.
-by dengre on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:05:35 PM PST


-snip-

Note:

Reflecting my own sensibilities, I edited that "b" word in that next to the last comment that I reposted.

Also, in this discussion, AA=African Americans

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:12 AM

Btw, Peace, I'm not disregarding or downplaying Kuchinich.

Kudos to him for spearheading [and funding] the audit in New Hampshire as well as other progressive positions that he has taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:27 AM

What, the Clintons playin' dirty pool?!?!?!?...

How could that be???

Well, MiziAzizi, I think the only difference between us here is that I won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination... I just won't vote for anyone for president seein' as there won't be a Green candidate on the Virginia ballot...

Just cast my votes for other offices... But not Hillary McCain, ahhhh, McClinton....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:16 AM

Azizi-

I'm not sure I'm any more comfortable forming opinions about political candidates based on chatrooms (even Mudcat!) than I am on opinion polls or the national media. They all make some impression but the decisive thing has to be what experience you as a voter or campaign volunteer bring to evaluating all these messages and what the candidates actually say and do.

I was very unimpressed when I first heard the Clintons at a Democratic special event in Maine, way back in 1991. But I certainly underestimated their campaign skills. I was favorably impressed with Bill Clinton's first term but perplexed how the Republicans outmaneuvered him in the second term. And I was amazed and disappointed at his willingness to get involved with a young intern, What stupidity. Bill Clinton may be a continuing liability, part of the package that comes along with trying to elect Hillary President. I do prefer it when both campaigns resolve to "make nice." But it's doubtful that their leadership in that effort will make much of an impression on their more ardent supporters, or the media looking for "breaking news."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:24 AM

I think there is a strong possibility the Republican partty will end up fronting McCain in November. He's the veteran, the steady-on guy, and he bristles with their favored militarist aroma.

Against him, the Clintons will have a brawl. IF we can force the Democratic NAtional Convention to field Obama, the whole contest changes. In my opinion we have a better chance of beating McCain with Obama than we do with HC.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:40 AM

Team Clinton is busily and efficiently alienating black voters. Again, one of the ironies in this irony-filled political season is that she can actually far more afford to be seen as pro-black than he can. And she's throwing this advantage, like so many others, away.

But it looks at this point like she's playing racial politics with an eye to capturing California (about 20% Hispanic to 6% black).   She's playing the delegate game--pure and simple--knowing that she already has the advantage there since she locked up so many "superdelegates" so early.

So on the way to the nomination she's destroying the Democratic coalition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

I agree, Amos...

The candidate that the Repubs are thirsting for is Hillary... They can have a field day with her... She will bring out the Repub base like no other Dem... She is a lightning rod...

The cnadidate the Repubs have no game plan for is Obama... He will frustrate them at every turn... There isn't one thing that they can come up with that he can't counter...

Even the drug use issue will backfire on them...

Obama/Warner or Obama/Richardson '08...

and...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

...600...

B~