The Hot Blog

At this point, Obama's biggest problem is going to be himself. I expect little from politicians, and I do expect Obama to win, but it's wearying to see him fall back into the same old right-wing framing and vacillating as he's been doing the past couple weeks. Hence a lot of the biggest Obamaites like Kos getting pissy (after he foisted him on us) or cheerleaders like Olbermann getting schooled by Glenn Greenwald. I think Clinton supporters will get over it all just in time to help eject the GOP from the driver's seat and so it goes.

He wants to win, and he knows the 'base' isn't big enough to do it.

But yeah, Kos got predictably pissy, what a demanding child he is.

It's been less than a month since she dropped out. Convention hasn't happened yet.

This is a non-story. It only gives people a reason to continute to dump on Hillary's campaign. She quit. She's out. She won't be VP. Why bring it up more so? Because dumping on Hillary is a very popular and easy thing to do.

Obama voted for FISA, and didn't take public financing. Those are two reversals on his part. Big reversals? No. Change my mind on the man? absolutely not. But if Hillary got the nomination and did either of those two things, What would the reaction be??

Kos definitely gets a little petulant. And I went from going to his site literally on the hour, to hardly at all checking up on it. One of my main issues from the internet "talking heads" is they get very childish whenever you ruffle their feathers.

To be fair, the news division of the Wall Street Journal is pretty good and doesn't carry much of a slant. It's the editorial board that is full of batshit crazy right-wingers.

(Of course, there's a chance the news division will start to drift rightward now that Murdoch owns it, but I haven't noticed that happening yet.)

First of all, Hillary did not get her ass kicked.

This was a very close race and to diminish her accomplishments is just more piling on, which is the real reason her followers remain unwilling to move en masse to Obama's campaign.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but it is what's happening and Obama has to reach out to them as aggressively as he has the religious right and the Southern conservative. To ignore Clinton's base while pandering to the others is a recipe for certain loss. She was far from a perfect candidate, but she is smart as hell and would've been an outstanding President (and I think she'd have a solid 10 point lead on McCain at this point).

As far as Markos goes, he has to realize that he doesn't speak for the entire Democratic party any more than diverse conservatives George Will or Pat Robertson speaks for the Republicans. His petulance is indicative of what drove many to Nader in 2000.

Kos is the biggest phony in the leftist blogosphere. Like a few former Republicans, he still has a love for authority as evidenced by the way he lets his diarists run off all those that oppose the ever-changing rules of the site. His political commentary is smug and childish. And his pimping Chevron on his site was repulsive.

And David, how did Clinton get her ass kicked in California, New York and all the other states she won? That's pretty revisionist.

Clinton losing at all was "getting her ass kicked." See: use of Gore for comparison.

And you know, I am sick to death of any acknowledgement that Obama won and Clinton lost being angrily pointed to as "piling on" or misogyny or whatever.

This whole piece said what I feel... that "real reason her followers remain unwilling to move en masse to Obama's campaign" is that they were brainwashed by the Clinton campaign into believing that she could only lose by force of evil, whether that evil was media or sexism or elitism or whatever was convenient that week.

Therefore, sexism was worse than racism... even with women as a majority. The media was harder on her, no matter how long they said she was unbeatable or how long they brutalized Obama with Wright or "clinging." And the kid raised by a single mother and his grandparents was the elitist while the $100 million woman was Mother Earth.

I mean...

You are right, Poland, of course. Not voting for a Democrat or voting for a Republican because your favorite candidate lost is wrong.

It's wrong because it is your responsibility to pick the lesser of two evils (right?) Two quote another blogger on this issue "I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse if he was a democrat". This is what you do, right? Here are those reverberations again.

Except that there are OTHER reveberations two. By doing this you are re-inforcing the system. You keeping it in place. You shutting the windows and keeping the fresh air OUT. And don't tell me that's Obama because that is not quite it.

This is why Bush won. The exact same reason. And why he lost Tennessee and Arkansas too. Because people do what they have to do.

And this is why you keep getting crappy candidates, David.

DP says, "the notion that the relentless embrace of Reverend Wright was not racial is absurd."

But if his mentor, who he claimed for a while he could not disown, makes racist statements, then race has already been made an issue in the worst way.

See if you can find the racism in the following quote.

The pastor also said: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/

Wrong.

You can say it's not piling on all you want, but what you're saying reflects much of what the left-leaning blogosphere has already said (that Hillary supporters are grasping for excuses about her loss). And to her supporters, that is piling on.

I understand that you're sick to death of people pointing out (correctly) that it is piling on, so why write the post? How do you think its going to be interpreted?

I'm an educated guy who watched this race very closely and supported Clinton because of her positions and history. It is completely insulting to suggest that Clinton's supporters haven't shifted allegiance because we've been brainwashed.

You write your opinion and give us the space to respond (appreciated), but don't presume to understand the collective mind of Hillary's supporters.

Hopscotch: go read Obama's entire statement about public financing. Go read into it before declaring NOT TAKING MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT... A FLIP-FLOP! Seriously, McCain has been broker than a joker for months. Let him suck of the government tithe. Good for him. We should all be so proud.

Also, really, who cares what a Hillary supporter thinks at this point? They are a non-entity and have very little choice. What exactly do you want Obama to do? Focus on women right now? It's not really feasible.

He has to go and try to reach these other groups. If he can get them on board. He's on his way to having more of a base than McBush. If not, then, he's bollocked.

He's at least trying something new.

"Also, really, who cares what a Hillary supporter thinks at this point? They are a non-entity"

Not helping.

I know it comes across as snippy, but it's an honest assessment at the present time. Who are they going to vote for this November? They guy who most likely is for them or the other guy, and his 100 year war?

When he gets the convention. There and then, will Mr. Obama have to come correct with the Hillary supporters. Who most definitely will need some face time after the Olympics.

...Or he could start building those bridges and not waiting until it's too late (which fortunately he has been doing).
He's running a multi-faceted campaign, part of which is to appeal to voters in places like Montana and Georgia, but the other part has to be to shore up the base and increase turnout beyond 2004's figures.

Good lord. I really needed to preview that last post. Let's do some DOUBLE-POST editing!

THE GUY who will most likely give them what they want in the Fall, or the guy with the 100 years war?

When he gets to the convention and so on.

"And the kid raised by a single mother and his grandparents was the elitist while the $100 million woman was Mother Earth."

Apples and oranges. Obama-the-child vs. Hillary-in-her-sixties is an invalid comparison when judging elitism. Obviously.

Let's be fair: an Obama loss (if that happens) will be blamed on racism as or more readily than Hillary's loss was blamed on sexism or whatever. There will always be loud liberal voices that deflect responsiblity for a loss, be it "selected, not elected" or "swiftboated". Gore lost because of Gore. Kerry lost because of Kerry. Hillary lost because of Hillary. If McCain loses, it will be because of McCain. If Obama loses, the temple veil will rip in two, and darkness will consume the land.

And I get the feeling in many of David's political posts that he's aggressively dismissing what he secretly fears.

You nailed it.

Yes, there was sexism in this race, but HIllary loss can directly be attributed to her terrible strategy. In particular, her decision to skp the caucus states put her in a hole which killed her campaign long before she actually acknowledged it was over.

To say sexism was a major reason for her loss is either delusional or a denial of personal responsibility.

It's a step back for women for a woman to blame sexism for her own mistakes.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: