Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A moment in history; Obama Wins Presidential Nomination.
June 3, 2008 8:18 PM   Subscribe

It's official. Obama has won the Democratic Party nomination for the US Presidency. In response, McCain has launched a "verbal sortie" against him and the media has already begun disecting Hillary's campaign.
posted by Effigy2000 (949 comments total) 40 users marked this as a favorite

 
Hey, cool!
posted by danb at 8:22 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yes we can.
posted by gerryblog at 8:22 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


I am inordinately pleased by this, despite the fact that I am not American. I had no doubt he would be the D candidate, and despite America's never-ending ability to surprise us with their ability to shoot themselves in the collective foot, I have very little doubt he will be the next president.

And that would be the first political result at the American national level that I've felt good about in about 3 decades.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:23 PM on June 3, 2008 [37 favorites]


Anybody have a link to his full speech? MSNBC only has 3:44, and I know there has to be more than that.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:23 PM on June 3, 2008


He gave a pretty good victory speech.
posted by BeerFilter at 8:23 PM on June 3, 2008


Anybody have a link to his full speech? MSNBC only has 3:44, and I know there has to be more than that.

Here.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:25 PM on June 3, 2008


I'm sorry, that's not from tonight, that's from January.
posted by BeerFilter at 8:26 PM on June 3, 2008


Excellent.

Legitimately... In a non-Burnsian way.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:27 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Armitage Shanks : The transcript is helpful, but I'm looking for video. The video linked on that page is to the MSNBC 3:44 snippet.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:27 PM on June 3, 2008


now let's just hope to God that HC doesn't get a VP nod.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:27 PM on June 3, 2008 [9 favorites]


McCain's speech was the sorriest sight I've ever seen. His smile-and-blink routine barely passes the Turing test.
posted by mattbucher at 8:28 PM on June 3, 2008 [31 favorites]


C-Span (cspan.org) has a link to video of the full speech, but only in RealPlayer format.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:29 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Video of McCain's terrible speech
posted by Poolio at 8:31 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've been discussing the democratic primary campaign with an American ex-pat friend of mine since...well it seems like 1957. But anyway, I laughed at the ridiculous process, and said maybe the US should go back to a system of choosing political leaders akin to Australia - behind closed doors, smoke-filled rooms, all that. He said it would make things simpler, but the downside would be that Hillary would have been the candidate. I can see his point. Good on Obama, now he can get down to the task at hand.
posted by Jimbob at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can't wait for the Presidential debates, it's gonna be awesome.
posted by lekvar at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


It is worth noting that, foreign press, U.S. press, and mathematics notwithstanding, Senator Clinton has not conceded the nomination.
posted by The Bellman at 8:34 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


That took long enough.
posted by gsteff at 8:34 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I was flipping the dial on the radio and learned that Obama once knew a Communist! And the word "community," as in "community organizer," sounds like you-know-what.

If that's the best the right wing can do, I think he's going to mop the floor with them.
posted by lukemeister at 8:34 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Thank God it's over. I'm an Obama supporter and not much of a Clinton fan but I've got to say, as a woman watching this election, it was extremely disheartening to see the sexism heaped on Clinton. It was even more depressing to watch Obama supporters and other democrats brush it off like it was nothing.

That said, I am looking forward to seeing how Obama does and happy to have a candidate I can actually enjoy voting for instead of gritting my teeth and pulling the lever for the lesser of two evils.
posted by lysistrata at 8:34 PM on June 3, 2008 [24 favorites]


There's a flash player here but the QoS isn't so great at the moment.
posted by BeerFilter at 8:36 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am looking forward to seeing how Obama does and happy to have a candidate I can actually enjoy voting for instead of gritting my teeth and pulling the lever for the lesser of two evils.

Seconded. Oh, so so so seconded. Ending the long national nightmare is gonna feel so sweet in 5 months.
posted by brain cloud at 8:36 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


hooray : )
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:37 PM on June 3, 2008


This is very cool.

Now, I just wish there was some way to mute all this talk about Hillary as VP. I seriously doubt it will happen, especially with her speech tonight, but it just turns my stomach.
posted by effwerd at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2008


I think it's interesting to note the spectrum of words used to described Obama's historic victory, ranging from Obama "saying" he will be the nominee, to Obama "claims or "declares" victory, to Obama "clinches" (shockingly, fox news has the most inspirational picture and headline) and, finally, "wins" the nomination.

And Hillary should be ashamed of the speech she gave tonight.
posted by ericbop at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am happy.
posted by aqhong at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sure feels good to finally win, and to win right.
posted by spiderwire at 8:41 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've been discussing the democratic primary campaign with an American ex-pat friend of mine since...well it seems like 1957. But anyway, I laughed at the ridiculous process, ...

I was discussing the absurdity of this 2-year long process with a prominent political scientist and I thought I was all cool, saying how fucked up America is and he kind of put me in my place and said something like "It's the most important job in the world, I'm OK with the process being constant and exhausting." No disrespect to the Australian Prime Minister, but I don't even know your name. There are going to be schools and airports and buildings in four continents named after Barack Obama.
posted by mattbucher at 8:41 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


"... I laughed at the ridiculous process, and said maybe the US should go back to a system of choosing political leaders akin to Australia - behind closed doors, smoke-filled rooms, all that."
posted by Jimbob at 2:33 PM on June 4

Indeed, Jimbob. I've been saying the same thing. It's interesting how in the US, two people from the same party verbally destroying each other to get ahead in full view of the public is seen as a good thing, but in Australia, the same thing destroys any chance either person (and their party) has of getting power.

That said, I'm not sure that this protracted battle between Obama and Clinton has been all that good for them. So yeah, something akin to preselections in the US would be far less damaging in the future, methinks.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:42 PM on June 3, 2008


Senator Clinton is like Wayne's ex-girlfriend in Wayne's World.
Stacy: You don't like it? Fine. You know Wayne, if you're not careful, you're going to lose me.
Wayne Campbell: I lost you 2 months ago. We broke up. Are you mental?
Senator MCcain has already started running ads quoting her praise for McCain and dismissal of Obama.

If gigantic balls are one of the qualifications you're looking for in a president, Obama gave his speech tonight in the same place as John McCain will accept the Republican nomination in September. "im in ur base killin ur d00dz" [stolen]
posted by kirkaracha at 8:42 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


*spits in Harold Ickes eye*

*spits in Mark Penn's eye*

There. Let the healing begin.
posted by mediareport at 8:43 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


I think it's pretty amazing that Obama will be accepting the Democratic nomination forty-five years to the day after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech". I mean, goddamn that is some potent symbolism right there.

Also, WTF Clinton? She's not making any decision now? Um... what decision is there? She lost. Officially. In what way can she still contest this nomination?

She missed a fantastic opportunity for party unity and closure tonight.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [20 favorites]


I'm excited about this, but I'm also a bit frightened: this is going to be the most dirty, vitriolic and racist campaign since the 1960's. The Republicans are under no illusions that Obama has an enormous, singular weakness: his skin color.

Over the next 5 months, we are going to see the Republicans rip open every half-way healed racial wound this country has. They're going to run TV ads in Ohio and Florida of Obama with quotes from Pastor Wright set to hip-hop music in the background. You're going to hear AM radio hosts strongly hinting (never explicitly saying, of course, just hinting) that there are pictures of Obama smoking crack with prostitutes, or reading the Quran, or having an affair with a white woman. The pictures will never appear, of course, but thats ok. You don't need pictures -- just rumors.

You're going to hear ominous reports from right-wing blogs (provided by, of course, "reliable sources in law enforcement" or something) that African-Americans will probably riot if Obama isn't elected in November, and that patriotic white Americans should be prepared for "any eventuality".

Republicans now have a single, unified goal: whip America into a furious racial frenzy by November 5th. As a strategy, it's horrifying -- but probably effective. If they can convince even 40% of white Americans that Obama represents an existential threat to their unquestioned dominance of American life, then it's over. The Repubs will win by a landslide.

Hell, MSNBC just spent 5 minutes debating weather or not Obama can convince Americans that he's "one of them". What exactly is that supposed to mean, aside from a racial context?

No, the Republican party is going to spend the next 5 months tearing this country apart at the seams to keep Obama out of office. Worst of all, they might actually succeed.
posted by Avenger at 8:45 PM on June 3, 2008 [85 favorites]


I haven't been paying much attention to Hillary, as she was not my candidate of choice. What sexism was heaped on her? And was it coming from the Obama camp?

The only critique I've heard from other Obama supporters is annoyance at a sense of entitlement they get coming off her, as though Obama were somehow taking her turn.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:46 PM on June 3, 2008


shockingly, fox news has the most inspirational picture and headline

Gotta build 'em up before you can knock 'em down...
posted by tapeguy at 8:46 PM on June 3, 2008


No disrespect to the Australian Prime Minister, but I don't even know your name.

Shane Warne, for the record.
posted by Jimbob at 8:47 PM on June 3, 2008 [23 favorites]


That said, I'm not sure that this protracted battle between Obama and Clinton has been all that good for them.

Well . . . it's been good for her. Is it so insane to think that she's staying in to make absolutely sure he can't win so she can run on the "I Told You So" ticket in 2012? Before you say "yes, that's insane" think back over her campaign and in particular listen to her speech tonight, when Obama has literally already won the nomination.
posted by The Bellman at 8:47 PM on June 3, 2008


I'm glad that this is over; I hope that the Dems can find a way to heal any division that occurred during the process and get on with things.
posted by never used baby shoes at 8:48 PM on June 3, 2008


yay its finally over!

....wait you mean the election isn't until November? oh ok.
posted by lilkeith07 at 8:49 PM on June 3, 2008


Very interesting race, it has been the only interesting politics I have seen in years. I subscribed to MSNBC just to watch this (I am not even American).

Politicians (and voters for that matter) always burn regular people, I have worked on campaigns before and I am not sure why I get the sense this is different. I caution people against true believer syndrome but this is a lot of fun right now.

I'll just give a bit of foreign-guy perspective here. The USA was at one time, a real inspiration to the rest of the world - very innovative on all matters (including progressive politics), lots of small-l liberty, and good reputation in other countries (Africans for example, love the USA for not participating in colonizing Africa). I used to love weekend trips to the States when Canadians didn't need passports. I hope this is the comeback of the good America....
posted by Deep Dish at 8:49 PM on June 3, 2008 [10 favorites]


Yes we can.

PSA: At midnight this changes to "Yes we are."
posted by jayCampbell at 8:50 PM on June 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


I've said it before, but I'm generally flabbergasted at the idea that the two major party candidates for the US Presidency are both people who I respect. I mean, I have a strong preference for one of them* but the other guy seems like a genuinely good guy who I profoundly disagree with.

So much better than last election's choice between why oh why! and eeeeeeeeevil... like the froo-its of the deveel.

*No prizes for guessing which goat-herder's son this former cowherd supports.
posted by Kattullus at 8:51 PM on June 3, 2008


Gotta build 'em up before you can knock 'em down...

Rupert Murdoch: Obama's a Rock Star
posted by MegoSteve at 8:53 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


oboyoboyoboy. I knew it was coming but still. oboyoboyoboyoboy!
posted by merelyglib at 8:53 PM on June 3, 2008


“The Republicans are under no illusions that Obama has an enormous, singular weakness: his skin color.”

Of course, they will be touting this as his main advantage. As we all know, Blacks are now the privileged and elite of America.
posted by ijoshua at 8:53 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


It's a marvelous thing. Part of what's so very fine about it is that Obama won this thing, not primarily by being grandiose and inspirational, but through steadiness, perseverance and planning -- good qualities for a president.

And McCain looks scary-terrible -- dusty, droning, clenched and unpopular. It's not an inaccurate impression.
posted by argybarg at 8:53 PM on June 3, 2008


Hell, MSNBC just spent 5 minutes debating weather or not Obama can convince Americans that he's "one of them". What exactly is that supposed to mean, aside from a racial context?

Here you go, try not to vomit: Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama’s problem. America is Mr. Obama’s problem.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:53 PM on June 3, 2008


now let's just hope to God that HC doesn't get a VP nod.

Why? He won. But she's a close second. In fact, she's the strongest runner-up in democratic primary history. What better way of demonstrating unity among democrats than to name her VP?

And if naming her VP ensured a victory in November, why wouldn't you want it?

For those Obama supporters who have stated that they will not vote for Obama if he makes HRC his VP (love those acronyms), aren't they committing the same sin they've been accusing certain Clinton supporters of making if they vote for McCain out of spite/revenge? In fact, it'd be even worse because their candidate was nominated for president and they're still not voting.
posted by cjets at 8:55 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


I didn't make it down to the event tonight, but people were queueing at 10:30 AM and there's an insane amount of traffic in the residential neighborhood's just west of downtown St. Paul (Selby and Western for you locals).
posted by nathan_teske at 8:55 PM on June 3, 2008


Republicans now have a single, unified goal: whip America into a furious racial frenzy by November 5th. As a strategy, it's horrifying -- but probably effective.

And the rest of us also have a singular, unified goal -- to stand strong and show them that we're better than our doubts and fears. Personally, I'm glad that rather than a usual compromise strategy the Democrats have been adopting in recent years, 'hate, but don't sound too mean,' the logical strategy this year is 'hope.' And Obama's the right candidate for it, too.
posted by spiderwire at 8:55 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


Over the next 5 months, we are going to see the Republicans rip open every half-way healed racial wound this country has.

Solution: send all the white people back to England.
posted by SassHat at 8:55 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


Someone on MSNBC: "I really wish I could hear Abraham Lincoln's reaction tonight."

This was my thought too. I am looking forward to hearing the reactions of the civil rights leaders, and wish that some of them were still here to see it today. As a naturalized citizen, it makes me happy - whatever happens next.
posted by gemmy at 8:56 PM on June 3, 2008


It would be beyond fantastic if Obama somehow got Senator Chuck Hagel as his VP. It would send an enormously powerful message of change to reach out to a Republican in a display of unity. Hagel is moderate, anti-war, anti-Bush, etc, so he's not exactly the Republican core, but his selection would do a lot to back up Obama's message.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:57 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Afroblanco, check www.barackobama.com, it's up there.
posted by iamabot at 8:58 PM on June 3, 2008


*sits down, fastens seatbelt tightly, hangs on for the ride, hopes it ends well*

And by "well" I mean "Obama for President".
posted by loquacious at 8:58 PM on June 3, 2008


Cool, I was working on a post for this, here's the text:

On June 19th, 1865 General Gordon Granger arrived at Galveston Island and informed the people of Texas that all slaves were free.

143 years and 17 days later, a black man has become a nominee for the President of the United States.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:58 PM on June 3, 2008 [7 favorites]


And McCain looks scary-terrible -- dusty, droning, clenched and unpopular. It's not an inaccurate impression.

Yeah, I got that too. People seem to respect McCain a lot, I am guessing because they weigh his credentials as a war hero heavily. John McCain as a "straight talker" seems to be marketing/press. Really, I think John McCain should try to run as a dignified, qualified man and try to nix the attack machine as much as possible because it will make him look reactionary. I think smart republicans try to sit this one out, and keep their powder dry for a few years from now.
posted by Deep Dish at 8:59 PM on June 3, 2008


I think Hillary should be promised a Supreme Court nomination just to get her and bill out of the way. It would be a brutal confirmation hearing, but she would be confirmed, and she'd likely do a lot of good there, and be able to get a lot accomplished.
posted by empath at 8:59 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


Hagel's a Neanderthal on social issues. He has been consistently anti-war, but a bedrock Republican on most other areas too.
posted by argybarg at 9:00 PM on June 3, 2008


(shockingly, fox news has the most inspirational picture and headline)

that is a surprising photo for fox. they've spent years playing on the fear of hillary becoming president. i guess they don't know what to do now.
posted by bhnyc at 9:00 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Gotta build 'em up before you can knock 'em down...
Rupert Murdoch: Obama's a Rock Star


My experience watching the near monopolous (is that a word?) Murdoch press in Australia over the last decade is that they're more interested in picking a winner than picking the evil guy. I remember after the start of the Iraq war - the local Murdoch paper was rah-rah-Bush-rah-rah-War. Then 90,000 people - almost 1 in 10 people in the city I lived in - came out onto the streets to protest. The local paper went anti-war the very next day. Of course, individual editors and personalities have a great deal of influence, but I think picking a candidate who looks like being a winner is just as important to them as trying to influence public opinion. It's easier to be right from the start.
posted by Jimbob at 9:00 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is really great. It's certanly the first time I'll be able to vote for a candiate that actually inspires me in the General election. I like Gore now, but he was beset by Democratic paralysis in 2000, and I wasn't nearly as politically plugged in as I am now. I'm mostly just glad this primary is over.

it's been good for her. Is it so insane to think that she's staying in to make absolutely sure he can't win so she can run on the "I Told You So" ticket in 2012? Before you say "yes, that's insane" think back over her campaign and in particular listen to her speech tonight, when Obama has literally already won the nomination.

If she thinks she can win in 2012 she's really crazy. She'll have totally pissed off voters in Iowa and NH by double crossing them and agitating for MI and FL. She'll have seriously pissed off lots and lots of democrats. More of Obama's demographics will be 18, and more of hers will be dead.

(of course, knowing her she'll make sure to work the rules committee and state governments to get a calender and rule set more favorable to her next time)

But either way, if Obama loses in November, a lot of people are going to place a lot of the blame directly on her.

Her speech was terrible too, openly questioning the legitimacy of Obama's win, claiming (falsely) that she won the popular vote. It only works out if you give Hillary all of her votes from MI, and give none to Obama and you take away all the votes from several caucus states (including mine!)

I wish I could just stop thinking about the Clintons entirely.
posted by delmoi at 9:00 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


Do we really need to fight over whether Clinton would be the best/worst VP candidate evar right now? Lord knows, I have an opinion on that topic, but tonight is about Obama. In the wake of the George W. Bush Administration, we just nominated an African-American male who has a legitimate shot at becoming the President of the United States.

Tomorrow is for strategy; tonight is for history.
posted by spiderwire at 9:02 PM on June 3, 2008 [9 favorites]


sweet like candy tits.
posted by brevator at 9:04 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


A look back at last year, if people want to check up on their prognostications.

Btw -- I broke the wright story a few days after he announced his bid. How come I didn't get any credit for it?
posted by empath at 9:05 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


cjets: "now let's just hope to God that HC doesn't get a VP nod.

Why? He won. But she's a close second. In fact, she's the strongest runner-up in democratic primary history. What better way of demonstrating unity among democrats than to name her VP?

And if naming her VP ensured a victory in November, why wouldn't you want it?
"

Because it would be incredibly awkward and inauthentic to take the person who's spent the last few months relentlessly sliming and attacking you, even going so far as to compare you unfavorably to the Republican nominee, and then make that person your second-in-command?

Because the Clinton duo carries a full measure of baggage and drama, issues which would inevitably overshadow Obama's unified, hopeful message?

Because Obama's platform is all about Change and challenging the status quo in Washington, and that making a consummate insider and establishment juggernaut your running mate is the best way to undermine that renegade image?

Because Clinton's late-term surge in popularity is not as strong as it appears, given the sizable boost she was given by Republican crossover shenanigans and the dubious math she uses to calculate her popular vote totals?

Because every action and argument she's taken recently flies in the face of logic, tact, and party unity, and seems devised to deliver her the nomination no matter the cost or the depths of the intellectual dishonesty involved, and that the last thing we need in the White House next year is more of that?
posted by Rhaomi at 9:06 PM on June 3, 2008 [85 favorites]


Also, i call dibs on the post announcing that he's won the election in November since i posted the first obama is running for president post and it got deleted :(
posted by empath at 9:08 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


For those of us who admire, respect and maybe even adore (a little) Obama; for those of us who have spent 25 years or so waiting for a politician we can actually support instead of holding our noses and voting for; for those of us who bring our children into the room to let them hear a powerfully-spoken message of hope instead of turning them away from mindless blather of a smirking demagogue; for those of us who know hard times are coming but are confident we could weather those times and emerge stronger with the right person at the helm, not just in terms of sound policy, but in terms of inspiring national leadership; for all of those people -- for all of us -- I'm afraid, the electoral math doesn't look good. It has been my sad contention since I first began to follow the Obama campaign that America (electoral America, anyway) simply does not elect a black man President. Not even one as astonishing as Obama. Not yet. It makes me heartsick and I can only pray that I'm wrong (and I've been overly pessimistic about Obama on MeFi before) or that McCain screws up badly enough to lose a large "gimme" like Florida, but I dout it.

And HRC tonight has shown that "for the good of America and the Party" (her words) she's going to make absolutely sure she does nothing to help.
posted by The Bellman at 9:09 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


I broke the wright story a few days after he announced his bid.

I think you also wrote the "just words" speech, and without any borrowing! Didn't you? I can't find the dern link.
posted by Miko at 9:11 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Something to think about: It's been exactly 6 months since the Iowa caucuses, and it's 5 months and 1 day before November 4th. This campaign is more then half over. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and it will be interesting to see if Obama is able to keep the tone high-minded like he says he wants to.

One thing that's there's not too much uncertainty about: Barack Obama will win.
posted by delmoi at 9:11 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


It'll be so refreshing to bitch about how President Obama is screwing up America with all his Liberal policies. I can't wait.
I'll betcha the "liberal media" doesn't give him an inch.
Makes you wonder just how much the GOP actually paid the networks to air their crap.
Billions.

Obama, Harrison Ford '08!
posted by Balisong at 9:11 PM on June 3, 2008


As a general rule of thumb:

I like Obama, but tend to dislike his supporters.
I dislike Hillary, but tend to like her supporters.

The election is his to lose. Lets hope they don't prove it yet again.
posted by RavinDave at 9:11 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow. What a speech.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:12 PM on June 3, 2008


I haven't been paying much attention to Hillary, as she was not my candidate of choice. What sexism was heaped on her? And was it coming from the Obama camp?

The worst of it came from pundits and talking heads and other idiots. Just more of the same really. My two biggest headaches throughout this primary season have been the sexism against her and the racism against him. I do feel that she has drawn much nastier comments than he has. Unfortunately, as Avenger pointed out upthread, things are about to get really ugly for him as well, I fear. It's all just making me tired. I hope the majority of Americans out there will be able to see past it.
posted by lysistrata at 9:13 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


The local paper went anti-war the very next day

I'm aware Murdoch's papers have switched in other countries, but Fox switching sides seems too much to hope for.
posted by bhnyc at 9:13 PM on June 3, 2008


She lost. Officially. In what way can she still contest this nomination?

1) It is not official. It is official when the delegate votes are counted in Denver.

2) She can still contest this, because Obama has almost 400 delegates who are allowed to change their mind. This nomination race is now only about the 680 superdelegates. Obama has a +126 advantage in pledged delegates, but if Clinton can throw enough shit and make Obama appear unelectable, she can win the nomination

Unless, of course, Clinton can get a floor vote to seat FL and MI 100% for her, which she *will* try. In that case, the advantage drops to about +70 Obama, and makes it that much easier.

Her speech tonight made it very clear. She is not done. She doesn't care about the party. She will fight, she will fling shit, she will do everything in her power to get that nomination, even if it destroys Barack Obama, even if it destroys the Democratic Party, even if it destroys herself.

It's not over until she says it's over.
posted by eriko at 9:13 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


This is going to be intense! Obama has to appease Hillary, and somehow maneuver her massive amount of voters over to his side. McCain is going to be eaten alive in the debates. They better give him a spell of clarity, or something. He needs to stop smoking scrolls. Obama wanted to be in the game. He's neck deep in one of the most incredible games played in European history. The Clintons are like the Detroit Pistons of the 80s. They will beat you down and make you cringe at the thought of being in the same room with them ever again. I wish I had some of what he has. McCain is about to get a lesson in some 'act right'. Did anyone see the 'pound' Michelle gave Barack right before his speech? It was corny and cool at the same time. Looked like a Welsley Snipes kind of moment. By the way, all he has to do is pound on McCain about the economy, and keep his speeches hopeful and fresh, and deal with the 'experience' thing(by getting people like Colin Powell, and Wesley Clark as advisers), and he'll have it clinched. Can't believe I said this much. I'm really happy now, and I'm poor as hell. Deeply happy. Big O happy!
posted by Flex1970 at 9:14 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


I have been talking to someone on another board, and following along on the math, looking really closely at all the amazingly comprehensive exit polling done during this primary.

And one thing really, really sticks out (something I wasn't expecting, and certainly not to this degree): while there have been plenty of individual lunatics and fuckwads saying sexist things about Clinton during the last 6 months they have not been a signifigant voting bloc. In fact gender has turned out to be massively beneficial to her across the board.

The basic answer is that in every single state voters who considered gender to be important in their decision of canidate went for Clinton by large (and sometimes absolutely huge, such as in NH) margins.

The factors that really mattered in this election were race, income and education (in that order). And there is data to back up this assertion.

I... I won't really go into how decisions about race factored into voting. The scale of that was just depressing.

If people are interested I can post more on the breakdown. This race makes for some very interesting statistics thanks to how closely it was followed and recorded by the media.
posted by Riemann at 9:15 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Despite Clinton's dead-on Tracy Flick impersonation down in the bunker a while ago and McCain's zombified attempt at drawing disaffected Dems, I'm feeling pretty good right now. Obama made some serious history tonight, and no-one's gonna ruin that for us.

Tomorrow: back to work, and I make nice with a disappointed Clinton fan I know. Then we both get to work on the local Republicans. Then in January we all start cleaning up this mess.
posted by Kinbote at 9:15 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Best. Birthday. EVER.
posted by tristeza at 9:16 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


Avenger,

I'm hoping the racist stuff backfires. I don't know how much longer these GOP tactics can be effective. They've gone after his church and basically forced him to leave it, which has to be a real personal wound, unless he's a cold, heartless political machine. They've gone after his wife, which is rather tasteless. Given how he has run his campaign so far, I expect Obama will attack McCain with policy disputes and discrepancies, for the most part. There's no advantage to be had from any personal attack. If it gets ugly on the GOP side, that's going to just heighten the contrast and focus Obama's message: this is what's wrong with Washington.
posted by effwerd at 9:18 PM on June 3, 2008


I hear more about Obama's skin color from Democrats and liberals than I do from Republicans and conservatives.

Attention Democrats & Liberals & Progressives: just because I won't vote for Obama does NOT mean that I am a racist cracker. It means that I disagree with his proposed policies, such as pulling troops from Iraq and promises of universal healthcare.
posted by davidmsc at 9:19 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


McCain didn't really say this, did he?
"Senator Clinton has earned great respect for his tenacity and courage," McCain said.
I'm not really sure how that could get past editors of a major American paper.
posted by A-Train at 9:19 PM on June 3, 2008


I have a bottle of wine I'm saving for the debate where Obama pushes McSame's buttons to the point where we get a angry, sputtering "Vesuvius" moment of no return.
posted by RavinDave at 9:21 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


The Racist-crackerdom is just a bonus?
posted by Balisong at 9:22 PM on June 3, 2008


So the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee fails to decisively win his party's popular vote, loses another state primary election (South Dakota) on the final primary date, still can't close his party ranks, gets stiffed on national television by the supposed runner up in this inelegant game of musical chairs at what should be his moment of triumph in a staged appearance in the hall the Republicans will rent in a few months, and somehow looks like Presidential timber?

He's inept, at best. More importantly, he's still the Chicago ward politician who couldn't win in the ballot box.

And he's nobody's President, yet.
posted by paulsc at 9:22 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


John McCain is the new Bob Dole.
posted by washburn at 9:24 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


I don't think the Clintons need to be appeased. They've played their hand poorly and it will only appeal to a core group of hardliners if taken to its ugly end. Could it lose the election for Obama? Sure. But that wouldn't bode well for her prospects either. Obama is now incontestably the nominee. They can seat Florida and Michigan in full and make every accommodation to bolster her delegate count but it won't matter. The scorched earth approach may be appealing to the Clintons, but I don't think every one of the rest of her supporters and staff would agree. She'd be dragging a lot of people down.
posted by effwerd at 9:24 PM on June 3, 2008


If you think who is Obama's VP/running mate isn't important, I have two words for you: DICK CHENEY. Mrs. Clinton could move into his office and not change a thing. Seriously.

But I'm just as interested in McCain's running mate. I sincerely suspect he will not have much control over the decision as the GOP's Usual Suspects put a Cheney Jr. into that role to keep an eye on Johnny, just as they kept an eye on W.
posted by wendell at 9:24 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


davidmsc: I don't think anyone is suggesting that only racists could fail to fall in love with Obama or that you are a racist because you don't intend to vote for him (at least, I wasn't suggesting that). There are lots of perfectly intelligent, non-racist people out there who love war and sick people or whatever and who therefore intend to vote for McCain. The point is that when you add those people up with the racists, it becomes difficult (or, I think, impossible) for Obama to win the necessary states. All the turnout in the world of new Obama voters in solid states won't change that, either.
posted by The Bellman at 9:25 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Every time -- every time -- that McCain said "That's not change we can believe in" -- and he said it many times -- he gave this completely and obviously artificial little "ha ha".

It had to have actually been written into his speech. Which I find so laughably absurd to almost be pitiable.
posted by Flunkie at 9:25 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pssst ... paulsc

Romney beat McCain in Montana. What's that say about him as "Presidential timber"?
posted by RavinDave at 9:25 PM on June 3, 2008


And he's nobody's President, yet.

Yet.
posted by brain cloud at 9:26 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


John McCain is the new Bob Dole.

That is not a hard image to place in one's head. Now, as a non-American I had no idea who Bob Dole was until he ran against Bill Clinton and when I saw him I thought "right-wing loon". Thing is, Dole was around the media after the election was over, and seemed to be a fairly pragmatic politician. If McCain has a chance he is going to have to run on his history, reputation, and pragmatism. If McCain runs a hard-right campaign full of attacks, he becomes a historical footnote.
posted by Deep Dish at 9:29 PM on June 3, 2008


Wow... I guess-not wow. Haters forever. He lost the popular vote by 7000? Who did you vote for the last two elections paulsc? Forget it, I don't care anyway. Why can't you be happy for an historic moment? I'm black and I'm happy now. I'm not thinking about shit in the future, cuz I KNOW THE US OF A. I'm happy now. He lost SD, not cuz he's inept. He just had a GREAT opponent! This is the beauty of this whole race? There is no ineptness on the Democratic side.
posted by Flex1970 at 9:29 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


One more thing about this Hillary as VP crap (and yes, I'm very much trying to reassure myself most of all): giving in to Clinton's power play would be a terrible sign of weakness. It's the exact wrong approach to VP selection.
posted by effwerd at 9:30 PM on June 3, 2008


Oh happy day!
posted by ColdChef at 9:31 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Romney beat McCain in Montana.
That was four months ago.
posted by Flunkie at 9:32 PM on June 3, 2008


"Romney beat McCain in Montana. What's that say about him as "Presidential timber"?"
posted by RavinDave at 12:25 AM on June 4

Since that occurred back on Feb. 5, I take it as solid evidence McCain can run a national primary campaign, and exit with the gracious endorsement of his defeated competitor. Something, I think, Obama would have greatly wished to have, tonight.
posted by paulsc at 9:32 PM on June 3, 2008


Jimbob He said it would make things simpler, but the downside would be that Hillary would have been the candidate. I can see his point.

True, but the upside of that is, Hilary would have come out as the candidate, Obama as the VP, and there would not have been anywhere near the damaging internal struggle that we've been watching for the last three months.

And if anything ... unfortunate ... happened to Hilary*, Obama would have been President.

* Like losing the party leadership (and therefore, the Presidency) in a no-confidence motion. We do that, too.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:32 PM on June 3, 2008


He lost the popular vote
That is only true if you count the Michigan votes for her, and zero Michigan votes for him.
posted by Flunkie at 9:35 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I was talking to a friend while listening to the Hillary speech and he summed it up as "I've known plenty of failures in my life, but Hillary Clinton is the worst," and I'll basically agree as at this point she's planning for magical fairies to deliver her the win or planning/making a call for Obama to get shot.

There's an enormous difference between being tenacious and fighting to the end and just embarrassing yourself and acting delusional. You might run as hard as you can for the best time you could get even if you were doomed to lose a footrace, but if you kept running after the finish line was crossed and said that you were still a competitor you're just being idiotic.

Many comments tonight at the Hillary Clinton blog are about as hilarious to read as the choicest delusional "FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON" otherkin furries, but with the caveat that the scorched earth (I think that refers to something specific in the political blog discourse, which I don't necessarily mean) strategy it looks like she's going for is fucking scary, saying that as someone who doesn't support any of these three politicians.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:35 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I NEVER thought I'd pull a reddit quote, but this shit made me spit out soda:

She's trying to get the DNC to let the Canadian provinces vote, as well as the lost Roanoke colony , and residents of Narnia, Corcuscant and Middle Earth. Every vote counts.
posted by lattiboy at 9:37 PM on June 3, 2008 [12 favorites]


McCain... for RETIREMENT!
posted by Flex1970 at 9:37 PM on June 3, 2008


So the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee fails to decisively win his party's popular vote, loses another state primary election (South Dakota) on the final primary date

Obama won the popular vote. Hillary Clinton is a Liar. Her metrics don't include several caucus states, including my own. If you include everyone who voted for Obama, including in caucuses, then he received more votes. If you give Obama most of the uncommitted vote in Michigan, he wins. There is no realistic way to count the popular vote in a way that gives it to Hillary. Obama hasn't been making a big issue out of this because it's totally irrelevant to beating McCain, and he's shown a remarkable ability to let unimportant things slide, unlike Hillary.

Also, Mitt Romney won Primaries after he dropped out

He's inept, at best. More importantly

If you say so. What does that make Hillary?

If you think who is Obama's VP/running mate isn't important, I have two words for you: DICK CHENEY. Mrs. Clinton could move into his office and not change a thing. Seriously.

Cheney has all that power because bush gave it to him. Look at Dan Quale.
posted by delmoi at 9:37 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


I still don't understand the scattered comments in the media (and such as a few above) that mock or muse that Obama is supposedly 'limping across the finish line'.

Are you kidding me? Mere months ago, Hillary Clinton was an unstoppable machine on a Sherman-style march to the proverbial sea. The fact that an individual virtually unknown to just about everyone before the 2004 campaign has won the nomination over the former First Lady of the goddamn United States is mind-boggling, and people are actually questioning why he hasn't won by more?

The fact that he won this race at all is nothing short of incredible, and I for one believe the Democratic Party -- and more importantly the country -- couldn't be in better hands.
posted by billypilgrim at 9:38 PM on June 3, 2008 [30 favorites]


That is only true if you count the Michigan votes for her, and zero Michigan votes for him.

It's also only true if you count all the many people who crossed party lines and registered Democrat, since the Republican nominee was clinched months ago, just to vote FOR Hilary because they know Obama will be much tougher to beat.

So, yeah. The 'popular vote' Hilary is claiming? Not so much.
posted by brain cloud at 9:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


So just what colour is that terror-alert-popsicle now?
posted by pompomtom at 9:39 PM on June 3, 2008


I couldn't vote for Dole because I thought he was too old to relate to what I, (as a thirty-something), needed in a presidential leader.
McCain is in the same swift-boat.
posted by Balisong at 9:41 PM on June 3, 2008


Okay... this picture of McCain... does he just look like a steretypical pirate (yarrrrr) or does the picture look like some specific cartoon character?
posted by Kattullus at 9:43 PM on June 3, 2008


just because I won't vote for Obama does NOT mean that I am a racist cracker. It means that I disagree with his proposed policies, such as pulling troops from Iraq and promises of universal healthcare.

A racist, no. But some other words do come to mind.

Still, carry on, believe what you will, vote for who you like. Without disagreement and difference of opinion, democracy is a sham. The more ordinary people engage one another on real issues like war and healthcare -- rather than the sham issues like lapel pins and tearducts that the Media Douchebag Complex force on us -- the healthier your democracy will be, and the likelier it will become that someone is elected as president who is actually worthy of the position.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:43 PM on June 3, 2008 [9 favorites]



Many comments tonight at the Hillary Clinton blog are about as hilarious to read as the choicest delusional "FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON" otherkin furries, but with the caveat that the scorched earth


You mean you've never seen... HillaryIs44.org
I highly doubt obama could win a second term

let’s face it he is limping after only 15 months against hillary now…… after 4 years of gaffes and mistakes and taking this
country down a even worse road that Bush, do you all really think,believe we would be stuck with him for 8 years??

I sure as hell dont! and i dont think the repubs or the pundits think that either

that is what all the talk of hillary running again in 2012
I say, we just don’t let him have the first 4 at all !!! FIGHT and VOTE OBAMA OUT!
Another comment
The GOP is going to destroy Obama, honestly they are going to make him look like he blew up the twin towers himself.
Oh this is nice.
OBAMA reading another telepromoted speech and he was not speaking to whiteys.He was speaking to all AA to begin the fight for the cause of black supremacy with no holds barred.He was talking about Recreate68.and yhe need to get ready should he lose this campaign because of Mo and her wildly racist VIDEO.
Keep tuned in folks it is going to be a rough ride if the CHicago mob starts the race fires burning.

ON TO DENVER HILLARY WE WILL MAKE THE JOURNEY WITH YOU AND STAND BY YOU ALL THE WAY

BY ABM90
posted by delmoi at 9:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Flunkie: "
He lost the popular vote
That is only true if you count the Michigan votes for her, and zero Michigan votes for him.
"

And you have to ignore all the caucus states. That's why Clinton said that she had recieved the most "primary" votes of any candidate. "Primary" meaning "actual, technical primaries and not caucuses" as opposed to "the entire primary process".

Of course, to attain true Clinton form, one must then immediately criticize Obama's team for "continuing to disenfranchise the millions of voters in Florida and Michigan". And then make some half-assed, embarrassingly over-reaching comparison to the Civil Rights movement or Botswana or the Holocaust.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


"The sheriff's a -" [church bells]
"What did he say?"
"He said the sheriff is near!"
posted by quonsar at 9:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [16 favorites]


He's inept, at best.

He's a 46-year-old African-American first-term senator who built a machine that raised 270 million dollars and stole the nomination away from the presumed frontrunner. But whatever.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:45 PM on June 3, 2008 [140 favorites]


Amen stavrosthewonderchicken!
posted by Flex1970 at 9:45 PM on June 3, 2008


This thread has been considerably more civil than I expected so far.
posted by iamabot at 9:45 PM on June 3, 2008


Actually, I realized a cogent Hillary Clinton strategy upon noting that the latest blog post has a CONTRIBUTE button, that a number of blog comments read "I JUST GAVE ANOTHER $100 LET'S EVERYONE DO THE SAME," and the website is still plastered with CONTRIBUTE even in the context of tonight: she doesn't want to handle the debt. But I feel real fucking bad reading posts that are like "I GAVE $25 IT'S ALL I COULD AFFORD."

There's something telling in the fact that I feel like the best way to make a summarizing quote of these blog posts involves all caps.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:47 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


And then make some half-assed, embarrassingly over-reaching comparison to the Civil Rights movement or Botswana or the Holocaust.

You forgot Zimbabwe!
posted by delmoi at 9:48 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


"Hillary Clinton is a Liar. Her metrics don't include several caucus states, including my own."
posted by delmoi at 12:37 AM on June 4

What a lame point. Because if Obama had actually won, massively, by, say, mid-April, there wouldn't be any argument about this, period. The fact that there are, still, arguments about it just prove he's without real political mandate.

He didn't win his party's nomination, decisively. He couldn't. He's proven he's not powerful enough to win in a way that forms consensus. His people were still out in the halls at the DNC a couple days ago, arguing that Michigan and Florida delegates shouldn't be seated at the convention. And he's scared enough, still, about the eventual result in his own party, to have rented a hall in St. Paul tonight, to "claim" victory.

Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss. I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?
posted by paulsc at 9:55 PM on June 3, 2008


But I feel real fucking bad reading posts that are like "I GAVE $25 IT'S ALL I COULD AFFORD."

Yes, and the kid who sold his Bicycle and video games to support her. She mentioned him in her speech tonight, and I read about that anecdote on Matt Yglesias's blog a while ago. The Clintons are worth over a hundred million dollars.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months
posted by homunculus at 9:58 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Looking beyond the spin, has anyone recently read the literature promoted by each candidate on their campaign sites? Remember a year ago there wasn't as an enormous gap between the candidates as there is now perceived, granted that there *are* gaps from a policy perspective but there is a recognition across all the candidates that there are significant problems an that huge areas of our domestic and foreign policy need changing.

From a practical lifecycle of the political process angle we're locked in the middle of the demonizing of the opposition phase, as the political trebuchets line up there are going to be positions and fodder lobbed at the opposition that the candidates may not have expressly endorsed or agree with outside of the whirlwind and the filtering of data they see day to day.

The net of this is that media, in all of it's incarnations, thrives as their function to amplify and emphasize these differences. Paying too much attention to them is like entering a dimly lit room and lifting the lamp shade and staring at the lightbub. Your perspective on the actual room itself is significantly altered and will take several minutes to return to normal, finding what you came in to the room to get becomes challenging.
posted by iamabot at 9:58 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


No, the Republican party is going to spend the next 5 months tearing this country apart at the seams to keep Obama out of office.

they can try that - i don't think it will work, but if it does, it'll be the worst thing for them that could ever happen

mccain has a small chance of winning - he has NO chance of governing if those kind of tactics are used
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 PM on June 3, 2008


Did anyone else notice the disturbing racial undertones in Clinton's speech? Claiming she was fighting pundits who were proclaiming that her (white) race was over: "Even when the pundits and the naysayers proclaimed week after week that this race was over, you kept on voting." Yeah, you're a martyr for the white race. Nice one, Hillary.

Just as bad was McCain's promise to "run this race" like some sort of racial overlord: "But I’m ready for the challenge, and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask to lead."

Sick stuff.
posted by punishinglemur at 9:59 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


paulsc: About his "renting a hall in St. Paul" - he packed that building with 17000 supporters and over 15000 who waited outside because it was full.

Mcains speech tonight was to a crowd of 600.

I would be absolutely stunned if the Republican National Convention manges to attract a crowd even remotely close to the one Obama did tonight.
posted by Riemann at 10:01 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


He didn't win his party's nomination, decisively. He couldn't. He's proven he's not powerful enough to win in a way that forms consensus.

Yeah, that turned out to be true of all the Democratic candidates, grandpa. So vote for the dead guy whose party base loathes him instead.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:01 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


I have such high hopes for this man. If he even lives up to even half of them he will be a great president. Of course, first he must vanquish that doddering old maverick with memory issues.
posted by caddis at 10:01 PM on June 3, 2008


Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss. I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept.

He's going to outraise McCain by between 300% and 500%. Just throwing that out there.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:01 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hey.. someone please tell the person who keeps calling Barack inept to just be quiet. He's wayyyyy stronger than you are, I bet. He's just giving appearance of being weak, this is what a true warrior does LOOK AT HIM WHEN HE'S STRONG. See, soft on the outside, hard on the inside. Haha..lighten up, this is real!
posted by Flex1970 at 10:02 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Okay... this picture of McCain... does he just look like a steretypical pirate (yarrrrr) or does the picture look like some specific cartoon character?

This somewhat piratical photo has made me feel the most sympathetic towards McCain since any realistic possibility of seriously considering him a "maverick" or whatever was destroyed a long long time ago, but the white hair, etc., irrespective of any considerations of the appropriateness of elderly presidential candidates, reminded me of the fact that, according to Jimmy Buffett, a sensible pirate should consider settling down when he's looking at 40. And Jimmy Buffett is sort of cool but sort of a sellout, so you should sort of aspire to do better than him.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:02 PM on June 3, 2008


It boggles my mind that McCain is older than Dole when he ran back in '96. Dole seemed like a dinosaur back then, but that may have had more to do with me being 16 rather than his age.

Either way, I'm ecstatic. My nominee of choice won, and I'm going to donate as much of my shitty pay as I can afford to help ensure he makes it all the way to the top. And if money won't do it, I'll go berserk in a Russian office.
posted by bjork24 at 10:03 PM on June 3, 2008


I have such high hopes for this man. If he even lives up to even half of them he will be a great president. Of course, first he must vanquish that doddering old maverick with memory issues.

Not to mention then beating Mcain in the general....
posted by Riemann at 10:03 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sometimes commenting on the blue, particularly in posts about US politics feels like pissing in the wind.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:03 PM on June 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


What a lame point. Because if Obama had actually won, massively, by, say, mid-April, there wouldn't be any argument about this, period.

Well, I don't want to ruin this thread with too much vitriol, really, so I'll just point out that its kind of weird for to someone to say it's a "lame point" that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote when her whole argument (and yours) is that she actually won.

And you expect me not to get a little annoyed about the fact that she is literally trying to disenfranchise me personally? I don't mean claiming that my vote doesn't count but literally, in fact throwing away my actual personal vote?

Barack Obama won the democratic primary. More people voted for him then for Hillary with all contests considered (including MI and FL). Whether the win is "Decisive" or not is a matter of opinion.

Obama will have a mandate when he crushes McCain in the General.

(By the way, did anyone else notice that Obama was wearing a flag pin today? I can't belive I'm going to type this, but God Bless America. LOL)
posted by delmoi at 10:04 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Uh, just ignore paulsc, he's trolling.

Anyway. Hillary didn't need to CONCEDE in the wake of her thorough spanking in February. What she needed to do was display a little class and not run the vicious, hateful campaign that she ran. If she had, there wouldn't even be a debate about her being VP. To me, she closed that door when she ran the '3am' ad.
posted by empath at 10:04 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


also, it was time for hillary to concede tonight - it's what she needed to do and it's what she failed to do

i'm not thrilled with the idea of her becoming vp, either - but it would not cost obama my vote
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


ha ha, more like yo mama won.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:04 PM on June 3, 2008


That particular flag pin was given him by a disabled veteran after all that unwarranted shit Hillary and Mcain threw his way for not being patriotic enough.
posted by Riemann at 10:05 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why are people still arguing that Obama isn't a strong enough candidate? He's obviously the strongest one in the running, since he defeated the rest. Surely they're not suggesting that Hillary was a stronger candidate? If she was stronger, she wouldn't have lost.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:07 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Uh, just ignore paulsc, he's trolling.

Nah, he's not trolling. If he was trolling, he would have said that Hillary lost because she's not a man and that Obama supporters hate women. And praise be to Jesus that we don't have those trolls in this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:07 PM on June 3, 2008


I also don't think Hillary needed to concede tonight. She's certainly earned the right to negotiate before she releases her pledged delegates. She has enough to control the platform, etc..
posted by empath at 10:07 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


he's just a GOOD troll.
posted by empath at 10:08 PM on June 3, 2008


Btw -- I broke the wright story a few days after he announced his bid. How come I didn't get any credit for it?
posted by empath


Because it is a stupid non-story that no one cares about?
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:09 PM on June 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


Maybe this fine person as a VP? Would it be too much change?
posted by Flex1970 at 10:11 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Btw, to me, this is really the fulfillment of what a lot of us thought would happen with the Dean campaign. Except this time the movement wasn't let down by a flawed candidate.
posted by empath at 10:12 PM on June 3, 2008


Politically, he's weak

Bzzt. He won. Doesn't matter how close. When Bush won in 2004 he had "political capital" to burn, although he barely won. Once you win, that's everything, it's not like he only partly won.
posted by stbalbach at 10:13 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


w00tness! I'm going to file for citizenship just so that I can vote for Obama in November!
posted by ooga_booga at 10:14 PM on June 3, 2008


I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?

Obama's politics don't play in Peoria well. Before I Grew Up™, I just assumed that there were sufficient numbers of well-educated, well-adjusted, smart, people like those in my high school and college, that were part of a Gen X progressive wave that would liberalize politics.

2004 disabused me of that, and now I know this is a nation of retards. Not entirely, but enough are running around to make any sensible policy movement damn near impossible, given their abject ignorance and general bedazzlement courtesy of the snow-job the corporate-owned media have been generating lo these past 20-odd years.

Obama's core is the Gen X, Y, and Z true-believers like me. That's enough to get him a shedload of donations and support of the middle-class, knowledge-worker segment.

Hillary's core was the less-educated, more-fundamentalist, retard bloc (which of course share commonality with your dear Republican Party's base) mentioned above.

As has been quipped before, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this nation's had since . . . Teddy Roosevelt. Politics have become shifted so much that Hillary is running essentially as a pre-Nixon Republican (ie. DLC-blessed), while Obama is ever so slightly more progressive.

I don't particularly like Obama's chances in November, but I'm fine with the contest. We The People have a choice to make for the Executive, but your Republican pals have so shat the bed that they'll be out of the legislative picture for the foreseeable future.
posted by tachikaze at 10:14 PM on June 3, 2008 [11 favorites]


I also don't think Hillary needed to concede tonight. She's certainly earned the right to negotiate before she releases her pledged delegates.

the only thing she's got left to negotiate is whether she's a team player or a divider - if she wanted to negotiate something, she had plenty of time before to do something like that - the longer she draws it out, the less clout she's going to have

her political capital is starting to dwindle - if she wants something from it, she needs to spend it on the only winning bet - conceding to obama and using her delegates to negotiate the platform planks
posted by pyramid termite at 10:14 PM on June 3, 2008


I think Hillary should be promised a Supreme Court nomination just to get her and bill out of the way.

Whoa, in what world is the Supreme Court a place for putting politicans out to pasture? Good God man, the primary election nightmare is over, don't invent new nightmares.
posted by naju at 10:16 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Let's look at the advantages Obama has -- He's an electrifying speaker, he's probably going to bankrupt John McCain -- he'll out raise him 3-1 or 4-1. He's got the unions, he's just spent the last 6 months building the largest campaign organization in history. He has an army of people with cell phones that he can text to get volunteers on a moments notice, he's got a huge email list, he has Move On behind him. The media is totally in the tank for him, he has an energized electorate on the Democratic side.

What does McCain have? He's got anemic support from his own base, a complete inability to fundraise and a party in total dissarray. The only way he can win this thing is if he can run a dirty campaign and completely demonize Obama. I don't think he has it in him, but I could be surprised.
posted by empath at 10:17 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


OBAMA reading another telepromoted speech and he was not speaking to whiteys.He was speaking to all AA to begin the fight for the cause of black supremacy with no holds barred.He was talking about Recreate68.and yhe need to get ready should he lose this campaign because of Mo and her wildly racist VIDEO.
Keep tuned in folks it is going to be a rough ride if the CHicago mob starts the race fires burning.

ON TO DENVER HILLARY WE WILL MAKE THE JOURNEY WITH YOU AND STAND BY YOU ALL THE WAY


There are some really classy people out there.

I'm really pleased, and am hoping that Clinton can take a deep breath and find a gracious path from here onwards. She got a lot of support in this primary (hardly all of it from cross-over fake voters) and can bring a lot of support to the table if she chooses. Or she can get nasty and take her toys and go home, and I would be really sorry to see that. I think she's way too smart for that, but people are funny sometimes.
posted by Forktine at 10:17 PM on June 3, 2008


Actually I think Hillary would have been a bad choice for VP even if she ran the nicest campaign in history. Do you really want Hillary AND Bill living across the street, with Cheney-era powers, second guessing everything you do? Plus it ruins the theme of moving forward.

Some kind of pick that pulls in Hillary's voters would be wise, of course. Bill Richardson? Jeen Shaheen?
posted by msalt at 10:18 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama's politics don't play in Peoria well.

bush's play even worse and mccain hasn't been able to separate himself - where i live and work aren't that much different from peoria (or that far) - and in my neck of the woods people are looking at the job situation and the gas situation and they are getting scared - and johhny ain't got anything going on that's going to reassure them

middle america has changed - they don't feel that the government's doing anything right and that things are going to hell - and the first instinct a lot of people have in that case is "to hell with them, let's get the other guys in there"
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 PM on June 3, 2008


I like Edwards. He's was fairly competent in the Kerry campaign, and he seems comfortable being second fiddle, and he genuinely seems to like Barack.
posted by empath at 10:20 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


Alas, poor Hillary. Four years too late. She is proving herself, over and over again, to have been the absolute ideal Democratic candidate of 2004. Enthusiastically negative, running against a horrendously dumb, corrupt candidate, empty of real policy or consistent values, she could and would have whipped up a firestorm of pain for Bush. Unlike John Kerry, who tried to run as a healing hero, when all the US voter wanted was someone to blame and make suffer, she could have run on a theme of punishing the Republicans, making them pay, and I think she'd have won with that theme.

This time, Obama's the right choice.

paulsc Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss. I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?
Lies from right-wingers, and white-anting from Clinton's operatives. Which are you?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:21 PM on June 3, 2008 [10 favorites]


Think happy thoughts people. He wouldn't be running if he didn't think he was going to win. He gets better by the minute. He's surrounded by the brightest people in the USA since Microsoft in the late 90's(my opinion). They know what to do, let a leader lead. I personally am using this opportunity to learn how to be a follower. This is something I think is missing in America. I think, no matter what( and I mean that in EVERY way it can be meant ), I am in awe of his whole machinery. He's knows who's out there, and HE DON'T GIVE NO FUCK! HA.
posted by Flex1970 at 10:22 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


naju: Whoa, in what world is the Supreme Court a place for putting politicans out to pasture?

*cough cough*
posted by Kattullus at 10:25 PM on June 3, 2008


looking at blog.hillaryclinton.com, all i've got to say is that there's a hell of a lot of republican trolls there
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 PM on June 3, 2008


It's comforting to know that she is open to being Senator Obama's running mate, should he ask. I am open to being Salma Hayek's husband, should she ask. And I am also open to having my chief job duties changed to tasting ice cream and taking naps and driving a race car, should my boss ask.
posted by milkrate at 10:26 PM on June 3, 2008 [52 favorites]


And I am also open to having my chief job duties changed to tasting ice cream and taking naps and driving a race car, should my boss ask.

And naming paint colors!
posted by iamabot at 10:27 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


I was just going to say. The people on the pro-hillary blogs seem not to understand what democracy is. It's great that she got 18 million votes, but if Barack got 18 million and 1, that means he's a winner. You can't share the presidency.
posted by empath at 10:27 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


He didn't win his party's nomination, decisively. He couldn't. Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss. I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?

This is what happens when you have two strong candidates.

This has been tonight's edition of Simple Answers to Pompous Questions.
posted by furiousthought at 10:29 PM on June 3, 2008 [34 favorites]


Politically, he's weak.

Totally. So lame. Nothing to worry about. McCain will cream him. Take a vacation. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.



I cried tonight.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:29 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Haven't made it through all the comments yet, but I thought this was (sadly) right on target:

"Over the next 5 months, we are going to see the Republicans rip open every half-way healed racial wound this country has. They're going to run TV ads in Ohio and Florida of Obama with quotes from Pastor Wright set to hip-hop music in the background. You're going to hear AM radio hosts strongly hinting (never explicitly saying, of course, just hinting) that there are pictures of Obama smoking crack with prostitutes, or reading the Quran, or having an affair with a white woman. The pictures will never appear, of course, but thats ok. You don't need pictures -- just rumors.

You're going to hear ominous reports from right-wing blogs..."


>snip<>"Republicans now have a single, unified goal: whip America into a furious racial frenzy by November 5th. As a strategy, it's horrifying -- but probably effective. If they can convince even 40% of white Americans that Obama represents an existential threat to their unquestioned dominance of American life, then it's over. The Repubs will win by a landslide".
-- -Avenger

This is already being done in distressingly insidious ways, beyond the parody-ripe "Secret Afrocentist/Islamist" rumormongering. During their programming cycles today, CNN ran a panel that included a commentator affiliated with the McCain campaign. The presenter asked the commentator about Obama's transition towards campaigning against McCain rather than Clinton and the increasingly forceful language Obama is employing in doing so. The question seemed to be about whether or not the general election campaign was getting underway in earnest, but the commentator took it in a different direction--he mustered a big, plastic grin and said:

"Well, I think he's really starting to get up in his grill a little. But that's OK, we can handle some attitude. "

This was not an individual who typically employs phrasing such as "get up in his grill," and it called attention to itself. Yoked to 'attitude' I couldn't help but think I was hearing was in fact a subtle attempt to send exactly the kind of message Avenger is talking about, through a somewhat subtle linguistic-ideological channel that most people readily receive and parse without being aware of doing so.

Maybe George Lakoff (and here, and here) should be Obama's running mate.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:31 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


More white presidents have been shot than black. hehe
posted by Flex1970 at 10:32 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


VP: Fox Fallon, if Obama can get him. Wesley Clark, otherwise. Same reasons, except that Clark will bring in more Clinton supporters, and Fallon will bring in more military votes while simultaneously being able to convert voters neutral on the Iraq war, or mildly in favor of it, to the anti-war postion.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:33 PM on June 3, 2008


I think Hillary should be promised a Supreme Court nomination just to get her and bill out of the way.

Close. Better to offer her a Supreme Court nomination for Bill if she goes away. He's more qualified, and the one who's more useful to keep occupied in the middle of your term. Plus, it would be hilarious watching Republicans sputter in anger as they vainly fight his nomination. And she might want to get rid of him, too.
posted by msalt at 10:34 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Either of those white, conservative, respectable military men would pull the teeth out of the racial hate-mongering, too.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:35 PM on June 3, 2008


He got disbarred, though.
posted by naju at 10:35 PM on June 3, 2008


Maybe George Lakoff (and here, and here) should be Obama's running mate.
He's far better used as a campaign advisor.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:36 PM on June 3, 2008


Clinton for Supreme Court? That's as Brilliant as Al Gore for VP! Jesus, this is a smart blog!!
posted by Flex1970 at 10:37 PM on June 3, 2008


If they're going to throw around stuff like 'up in your grill' and think that's going to scare people, I think they're off base. Black culture is mainstream culture. It may scare senior citizens, but it's not going to bother anybody under 50.
posted by empath at 10:37 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


"Well, I don't want to ruin this thread with too much vitriol, really, so I'll just point out that its kind of weird for to someone to say it's a "lame point" that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote when her whole argument (and yours) is that she actually won. "
posted by delmoi at 1:04 AM on June 4

delmoi, you frequently make no sense. Where did I mention Hillary, by name, in this thread (up until now), much less defend her vote total math? So, please go grind your anti-Hillary axe with someone who cares.

I've said Obama is weak, because he is. What votes he gets here in Florida in the general election will be yellow-dog votes, because nobody in the state Dem party is soon forgetting his whiny Chicago pol shenanigans at the DNC. He got kicked in the teeth in South Dakota tonight, and I doubt anybody there fears his wrath. His "politics of change" look increasingly like Washington super delegate deals, and DNC rulebook garbage where he thinks some votes should be 1/2 votes, and not like ballot box wins. So please go take your moral outrage at Clinton's efforts to Chicago, where dead men vote Democratic, early and often.
posted by paulsc at 10:37 PM on June 3, 2008


woot? pity about hillary. talk about bad sportsmanship.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 10:39 PM on June 3, 2008


This is just starting to sink in, especially after seeing McCain's terrible speech. No more Republicans. No more Republicans. No more Republicans! Halle-fucking-lujah. I'm gonna enjoy watching this.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


right, paulsc's not a troll. He's trying to make sincere arguments. Continue to engage with him, please.
posted by empath at 10:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


McCain is something of a sacrificial lamb for the Republicans. He has always wanted to get the chance to run in the big race, and this is hardly the first time he's tried. They gave it to him when the party is at its lowest point since Watergate, when he arrives as the oldest candidate for a first term, ever, and when the Democrats have been fundraising and turning out voters in record numbers. The base of the party is lukewarm to McCain, and Limbaugh and his crowd even threatened to boycott. The RNC knows that, if they give McCain the chance just one time then maybe that will satiate him, and at the same time they can run a nasty, reactionary campaign, because he's proven that he will say anything the Bush wing of the GOP tells him to say, if they give him the reins for a while. He's pretty much abandoned the pretense of being a Republican outsider (except for his speech tonight, and those parts weren't received well by his party). But they now see some genuine hope in the idea that white people in the US are scared of black people, particularly after Clinton's success with it. Even so, this is still a weak party and retirement-gift nominee with a lot less money and support than their opponent. For the first time in quite a long time I think maybe people's desire for something better will outweigh their irrational fears. But we'll see.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't it be cool if Obama and Clinton got married and ran the country as husband and wife?!?

That would be cool.
posted by mazola at 10:40 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


I'm excited about this, but I'm also a bit frightened: this is going to be the most dirty, vitriolic and racist campaign since the 1960's. The Republicans are under no illusions that Obama has an enormous, singular weakness: his skin color.

I'd be more worried about them attacking on the "he's a Muslim", "Obama = Osama", and "unpatriotic / unamerican" fronts. The people who voted for Bush will fall for that shit easy.
posted by Potsy at 10:40 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Happy Obamaday, everybody! Cheers! It's gonna be a wonderful 4+ years!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:42 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


See, this is the scary part of being in a country on the edge of tyranny. We US Americans have suspect leadership passing edicts for martial law in the moment of emergency. We have an apparent huge market of para-military companies at the will of the US executive branch. We have an economy sputtering and a currency on some sort of water-slide slope.

And now we have a glimmering, charismatic leader surfing a swell of popular support.

I may not have read this exact story before. But I can't ever remember a story like this one ending well.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 10:42 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


empath: "If they're going to throw around stuff like 'up in your grill' and think that's going to scare people, I think they're off base. Black culture is mainstream culture. It may scare senior citizens, but it's not going to bother anybody under 50."

Just pray the youth vote turns out in spades this time.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:43 PM on June 3, 2008


What's nice about this is being able to choose between two good candidates. I disagree with McCain's policies, and I think he's horribly compromised as a candidate, but I don't think he's a bad person, and he'd probably be a decent foil against democratic excess as long as we actually had a democratic legislature. It would be a genuinely hard choice to make between him and Clinton.

Thankfully, I don't have to make that choice and I get to vote for someone I believe in without reservation. It's kind of calming really.
posted by empath at 10:43 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've said Obama is weak, because he is.

He's raised more money than any candidate in the history of American electoral politics. He will outspend McCain in the general by a factor of at least three.

But money doesn't matter in the American political system, right?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:43 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hell, MSNBC just spent 5 minutes debating weather or not Obama can convince Americans that he's "one of them". What exactly is that supposed to mean, aside from a racial context?

"It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots."

And nevermind about his great-uncle fighting in WWII, because that has been dismissed by a totaly reliable source.
posted by homunculus at 10:43 PM on June 3, 2008


paulsc: What votes he gets here in Florida [...] please go take your moral outrage at Clinton's efforts to Chicago, where dead men vote Democratic, early and often.

The term for that sentiment is, I believe, dramatic irony.
posted by Kattullus at 10:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


in spades this time.

race card!
posted by empath at 10:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


You know who else won the nomination of his party?
posted by blue_beetle at 10:45 PM on June 3, 2008 [7 favorites]


Democracy is so exciting. I can't wait for the next episode. What is Hillary going to do? How is the DNC going to play out? Is there going to be a twist ending? Who is the mole this season? What new scandal is going to erupt around who? Are white people still afraid that black people are going to steal their wives? Is Solid Snake really going to kill himself?

In my opinion the 'decisiveness' of each episode is what really keeps me tuning back in. Each primary night is going to be massive and important and crucial etc, but both candidates keep hanging on. Really, both have a decent shot and even though technically Obama won, there is still the possibility that Clinton can win though some other technicality. It's so tight that every time I fall for the 'decisiveness'. I really thought that tonight would decide it but it doesn't seem to be totally resolved. What fun!

My favorite part today is when the AP reported that Clinton was going to concede, then an hour later they retracted it and said she wasn't going to. Now that's entertainment!

Hopefully the season finale will feature Recreate '68, Kennedy battling brain cancer, and a steamy Obama family sex video. Tune in next time, same democracy time, same democracy channel.
posted by fuq at 10:46 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


OMG! We all know there's a good chance of it ending bad. He knows it too. Why discuss it. Just make love to some Barry White music tonight! It's all good.
posted by Flex1970 at 10:46 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Congratulations, America!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:47 PM on June 3, 2008


Oh man. I can't wait for the special edition box set!
posted by katillathehun at 10:48 PM on June 3, 2008


I just want to know what the fucking smoke monster is.
posted by empath at 10:49 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


right, paulsc's not a troll. He's trying to make sincere arguments. Continue to engage with him, please.

Oh yes, speaking as someone who disapproves of a lot of paulsc's viewpoints, especially regarding planes. I would highly encourage everyone on this website to carefully consider the distinctions between troll, someone I disagree with, and crapflooder, because the various conflations of these three are harmful to the discourse.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:50 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


blue_beetle: You know who else won the nomination of his party?

Mr. Hilter?
posted by Kattullus at 10:50 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


mazola writes "Wouldn't it be cool if Obama and Clinton got married and ran the country as husband and wife?!?"

And then she could cheat on him, because she's got testicular fortitude.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:51 PM on June 3, 2008


"... But money doesn't matter in the American political system, right?"
posted by mr_roboto at 1:43 AM on June 4

It will let you rent a hall in St. Paul from which you can proclaim, vaingloriously, that you're king of the Democratic hill, while others demure.
posted by paulsc at 10:52 PM on June 3, 2008


While I am very happy that Barack has finally won and will go on to trounce McCain in the GE, I too have some mixed feelings about the way HRC has been pilloried by so many here and elsewhere. I feel the same as a poster above - I love Obama, but a lot of his supporters are some of the nastiest motherfuckers around. I'm talking republican, freeper-style nasty. It's really sort of sickening.

It was an extremely close race, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the margin had been the reverse, and Obama was coming up on the short end, you would see a bunch of the same Obama supporters destroying Hillary in the comments above, who would be leading the chant to "Take it to Denver!!!" They would be the ones trying to get the Michigan and Florida delegates counted. They would be the ones trying to sway the superdelegates to Obama even if it meant subverting the will of the voters. They would never accept him leaving the race if it was this close and the positions were reversed. I have absolutely no doubt about this.

I don't know what it is going to take to heal the Democratic Party. Fortunately, Obama is a very classy man and I think he is just the man to do it.
posted by Arch_Stanton at 10:53 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


I just thought of another boon from this all... we won't need to discuss US elections for another SIX MONTHS!
posted by pompomtom at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2008


I would highly encourage everyone on this website to carefully consider the distinctions between troll, someone I disagree with, and crapflooder, because the various conflations of these three are harmful to the discourse.

The best trolls are never crapflooders.
posted by null terminated at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Crap. It's June now, isn't it?
posted by pompomtom at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2008


@paulsc:
And he's scared enough, still, about the eventual result in his own party, to have rented a hall in St. Paul tonight, to "claim" victory.
You don't get it. That wasn't any rented room in St. Paul- that was the same arena the GOP is using for their convention, and Obama just turned it into a historic event as a matter of fact. He just took over the news coverage of the GOP happy family party (featuring special guests Ron Paul supporters and whichever evangelist McCain can stand near).

The fact that he also did it to double-dare Clinton to keep going after his superdelegates just stings, and it should, because sometimes if you play outside the rules you're going to get elbowed in the eye. But that doesn't mean you take it off the field.
posted by paul_smatatoes at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


toct: Trolling is about context. If he were to drop that same statement over at RedState, that's not trolling, because he can be sure that no one is going to argue with him. But it's just a collection of worn talking points and cliches without an iota of original thought behind them that Obama supporters have heard and argued about time and again that he absolutely knows is going to get angry/frustrated responses.

Everyone here knows the accusations, knows the rote responses to them, there's no point in trotting them out again for the nth time.
posted by empath at 10:56 PM on June 3, 2008


delmoi, you frequently make no sense.

That's certainly true, but what's important is that you make no sense more frequently then I do. For example:

Where did I mention Hillary, by name, in this thread (up until now), much less defend her vote total math? ... I've said Obama is weak, because he is

If Obama is weak, he must be weaker then someone. But who is it? It sure as hell isn't McCain.

This is just starting to sink in, especially after seeing McCain's terrible speech. No more Republicans. No more Republicans. No more Republicans! Halle-fucking-lujah. I'm gonna enjoy watching this.

Bwahaha. No kidding. But the Democratic party is going to need to really police itself well and avoid the corruption that comes with power. Otherwise the republicans can come back, just like the Dems just came back after losing congress in 1994.

Wouldn't it be cool if Obama and Clinton got married and ran the country as husband and wife?!?

I don't think Michelle and Bill would get along to well.
posted by delmoi at 10:57 PM on June 3, 2008


I was for Hillary for the first month and a half. Then I switched cuz I just want what's best in life. I'm taking my ass to bed now. This was very positive thread. Thank you all for being cool as hell. Except paulsc.
posted by Flex1970 at 10:58 PM on June 3, 2008


(on Lakoff:)

He's far better used as a campaign advisor.

...

VP: Fox Fallon, if Obama can get him. Wesley Clark, otherwise. Same reasons, except that Clark will bring in more Clinton supporters, and Fallon will bring in more military votes while simultaneously being able to convert voters neutral on the Iraq war, or mildly in favor of it, to the anti-war postion.

-- aeschenkarnos


Yeah, I wasn't being serious about Lakoff. Putting a prominent liberal professor on the ballot would be near-suicidal, given the equation of intellectuality and elitism in our politics (as sad and frustrating as it is.) I would, however, like to see Lakoff or someone like him (i.e. not a political operative/surrogate) spending as much time as possible showing Americans precisely how the Republicans are attempting to condition and manipulate them through linguistic ideology. It seems to me the best way to counter those tactics is to spotlight them and generate blowback. Many of our voters may be easily led, but they react poorly when they realize they've been had. And anyone who ever voted for Bush has been had. Real meta-level critical engagement is probably (way) too much to hope for, but fostering a seething resentment of blatant Rovian tactics should be within reach.

As to Clark, I liked him a lot better before he actually ran himself. His first book (on Serbia and Kosovo) was so much better than his second (campaign) book, that I was left wondering about his judgment in allowing his campaign to put the second one out. He's a little wooden to share a stage with Obama. In terms of domestic politics, there's not much of a there there. Still, he's a decent choice and might help to offset McCain nicely.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:01 PM on June 3, 2008


It was an extremely close race, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the margin had been the reverse, and Obama was coming up on the short end, you would see a bunch of the same Obama supporters destroying Hillary in the comments above, who would be leading the chant to "Take it to Denver!!!"

I dunno. I've kind of kept the mindset that his whole candidacy was a noble cause doomed to failure from day 1 and every day that he does well, I'm pleasantly surprised. I'd rather lose the right way with Obama than win with any other candidate.
posted by empath at 11:02 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Arch_Stanton writes "I love Obama, but a lot of his supporters are some of the nastiest motherfuckers around. I'm talking republican, freeper-style nasty. It's really sort of sickening."

You do realize, of course, that a lot of people on each side see the other that way right now.

For my part, I was fairly shocked at a lot of Clinton's supporters, not to mention her own slippery comments. But, you know, it's been a very long, seriously heated campaign with a 24/7 news cycle. It's over, at least this part, and these sorts of things tend to work themselves out before the race really gears up. It sure as hell was nasty. But if Clinton doesn't exit with some grace and a strong message of support for Obama, she could kinda screw things up for the party, and, well, all of us. I really hope she doesn't take that road.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:03 PM on June 3, 2008


I love America. As an Australian, that's an extremely unpopular point of view because for most people the general impression of the US is a country of overly patriotic cowboy morons too busy congratulating themselves on being the best to see their own faults.

So thank you. Honestly. Now there's a nice easy thing to point to when I want to tell people that there's still a chance for intelligence and reason there.

(And if I can be even more demanding, can you please elect him president? That'd do wonders for my case. And for your country too, which is a nice side effect.)
posted by twirlypen at 11:04 PM on June 3, 2008


... just because I won't vote for Obama does NOT mean that I am a racist cracker. It means that I disagree with his proposed policies, such as pulling troops from Iraq and promises of universal healthcare.

Spoken by someone who has guaranteed government health care for life.
posted by JackFlash at 11:05 PM on June 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


I hadn't realized you were a loon, paulsc.

How very amusing.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:06 PM on June 3, 2008


It was an extremely close race, and I guaran-fucking-tee you that if the margin had been the reverse, and Obama was coming up on the short end, you would see a bunch of the same Obama supporters destroying Hillary in the comments above, who would be leading the chant to "Take it to Denver!!!" They would be the ones trying to get the Michigan and Florida delegates counted.

Actually that would require two things, one: a close margin, and two: that Obama be as delusional and divisive as Hillary had been. In actuality, Obama would almost certainly have dropped out and endorsed Hillary after Ohio and Texas.
posted by delmoi at 11:06 PM on June 3, 2008


heh. in case nobody has commented on this yet, it's amusing to have this news posted by an australian, using mostly australian & british news sources.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:07 PM on June 3, 2008


paulsc is not a pure-bred troll in that he believes what he writes, but he is trollish in that he ignores people who point out the flaws in his arguments. Before you take him seriously please recall his history as the most determinedly wrong person ever on Metafilter.

I bet Obama knows the plane takes off.
posted by nicwolff at 11:07 PM on June 3, 2008 [9 favorites]


Flex1970: Except paulsc.

Okay, admittedly I took a little potshot at him, but in comparison to ParisParamus (who graced us with his presence recently) and other such trolls paulsc is the very model of civility. I may be looking at things with rose-tinted glasses after having been reacquainted with PP, but paulsc doesn't seem malignant. I disagree with the guy, but he's not making outlandish claims or taking contrary positions just to rile people up. He's got opinions which go against what I think is the true picture of reality, but then my opinions aren't all that likely to be rock-solid either.
posted by Kattullus at 11:09 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


"If Obama is weak, he must be weaker then someone. ..."
posted by delmoi at 1:57 AM on June 4

See, it's when you get stuck in logical fallacies of your own creation, and then attribute them to someone else's point of view, that you go badly wrong. It's not necessary for Obama to be weaker than anyone else, for him to just be weak. He can even, paradoxically, be stronger than some others, and still be weak, politically. I'm not comparing him to any one. I'm saying, on his own, he's not strong enough to have won big, and it's not clear he's not got enough political muscle to form consensus, even in his own party.

That's one interpretation of the message from South Dakota tonight.
posted by paulsc at 11:10 PM on June 3, 2008


Hmm, looks like paulsc owes asavage $1,000.
posted by delmoi at 11:10 PM on June 3, 2008 [10 favorites]


My 2c: The threads dealing with the democratic primary race have been the most depressing I've ever observed on mefi. I doubt even so many as 10 members in total in the last 6 months voiced any level of opposition or questioning or skepticism with regards Obama and every one of them has been vilified. And the amount of vitriol foisted on Clinton is just insane. I mean, it's not just mefi of course. I've been following events closely online but I gave up reading any comments anywhere a couple of months ago (except for here) because of the outrageously nasty tone from both sides. There's no nuance, no real debate, no concessions at all. I know you are all elated and whatever but nearly half the voting dems (yes, less than half) didn't vote for your guy. He squeaked in after 57 voting events. I really think you will be doing your candidate a favour if you back off criticising HRC. I can't imagine the enormous pressures she's under at the moment and it was completely understandable that she wants some days to process the whole shebang.
posted by peacay at 11:11 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


After reading this, I'm willing to believe pretty well any bad thing you tell me about Hillary's supporters.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:17 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


I can't imagine the enormous pressures she's under at the moment

If you choose to run, you have to open yourself to the possibility that you may not win. Any pressure she is under to continue running, having lost, is of her own invention.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:18 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]



VP: Fox Fallon, if Obama can get him. Wesley Clark, otherwise...
-- aeschenkarnos


Also, while we're playing this game, does anyone know what Eric Shinseki's political inclinations are? He was an eminence grise in military circles (well liked by both career officers and enlisted troops IIRC) and had the respect of both Democrats and Republicans. He was involved in the successful parts of transformation going back to Nunn-Bush and the "jointness" reforms, and is a respected authority on urban warfare among other areas of interest. Mirroring Obama's accomplishments, he was the first (only) Japanese-American to reach the Army's highest position. All of this, before he was very publicly forced to retire for disagreeing with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld regarding the war plan and force levels for the invasion of Iraq.

Sounds just about perfect, except I have no clue what his political views are or where his loyalties lie.

Anyone?
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:18 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Awesome.

Today is about celebrating a pretty awesome moment in American history. Congrats all, we just nominated a black man for president, a man who's shown he's committed to communities, to cultivating civic engagement, local deliberation, and youth participation in politics. Did I mention he taught constitutional law? Well done.

I think the Obama team would still rather fight Clinton than McCain, frankly, and I'm not kidding when I say this: beating up on McCain is gonna make Obama look like a bully. It's like Gore and Bush: Gore couldn't really beat up on Bush without looking like a conceited nerd. Obama's gonna be beating up on the old guy next to your grandma at the nursing home, and it won't be pretty. I just feel so bad for this old, well-meaning war vet who was literally tortured trying to protect our country's last sick imperialist adventure. McCain's taken a lot of pain for this country, and he's about to take some more. I say, the longer Obama can keep the contest between him and Clinton, the better off we all are. A floor vote in Denver? Sure, no problem... who cares? Obama will still win it, that's the whole point of the RBC's decision: Obama has the votes, he has the procedures, bylaws, and loopholes, and most of all he has the money and the talent to keep from tripping over himself and opening the possibility of a brokered convention. I doubt it's in Clinton's best interest, but I do trust she'll see that in time and find a way to exit gracefully.

Also, Kathleen Sebelius is the VP, I betcha. After centuries of no blacks or women at this level, they're gonna blow the white male lid off the White House. Unless there's a bumpersticker issue or she fails the background check, Obama/Sebelius is the ticket and it's gonna be grand.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:20 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Just throwing in my opinion but I don't think that Hilary should get the nod for VP. By not conceding tonight shes snubbing Obama and giving out the message that shes going to fight till the end, but oh hey she still wants to be VP. If she seriously wanted to help the country she would concede and not say anything more about the campaign weather she gets the VP nomination or not. I think right now shes to proud to admit that its basically over, which for me I wouldn't want as a leader of this country.
posted by lilkeith07 at 11:24 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


OK! This article would seem to suggest that Shinseki would be a Democrat were he to enter politics--and implies that he's already been considering a political career. Giggity giggity!

(Also, note that both Obama and Shinseki were born in Hawaii. Shinseki is from Lihue, Kauai.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:25 PM on June 3, 2008


In fact, as I post that and gloss over that nightmare AskMe thread, it occurs to me now much paulsc must admire Hillary's determination never to admit that she has lost her case: just like him, no matter how clear it is made that she hasn't a leg to stand on, she always just changes the question until her answer - while still mendacious and wrong - can't quite be proven wrong in the real world.

And just to prove it, watch him duck this one: paulsc, Obama's half of the Democratic primary votes is about twice the votes McCain got in the Republican primaries.
posted by nicwolff at 11:28 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


peacay: Unfortunately, Clinton voted for and consistently supported the Iraq war. And she's talked specifically about nuking Iran.

No nuance is needed. She voted for one huge war crime and talks about committing others. By that token alone, she is completely unsuitable for any higher office.

Obama isn't fantastic but he's at least not incriminated in the war. With a million dead, all other issues pale.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:29 PM on June 3, 2008 [9 favorites]


I want James Webb for VP, but I doubt I'll get I what I want.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:31 PM on June 3, 2008


I really think you will be doing your candidate a favour if you back off criticising HRC.

You know, even when we're talking about politics, where we've been trained by the media and by the politicians themselves in this debased internet moronocracy we're living in that it's perfectly OK to say whatever the fuck you want about people as long as you say it in service of some political agenda, even in that world we've made for ourselves, there are also reasons sometimes that people dislike politicians, dislike their style or their content or their message or their record or the falsehoods they try to get away with.

Assuming that people are speaking out against a candidate merely because they are playing the vilification game rather than articulating considered opinions on that candidate means getting sucked into the vortex of stupidity.

People's words can tell us as much about the person who is speaking as they do about the person they are talking about. Let people say what they wish; we shall know them by their words, and that's as it should be.

Also, and I won't apologize for saying it, HRC makes my skin crawl, in the same way other compromised political pondscum like any branch of the family Bush, or Joe Lieberman, or Dick Cheney, or Howard Dean, or her husband (or any of the thousands of others that litter the landscape) do. That's just the plain and simple of it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:32 PM on June 3, 2008 [6 favorites]


I can't imagine the enormous pressures she's under at the moment and it was completely understandable that she wants some days to process the whole shebang.

What, like she didn't see this coming? I think there's much to admire about HRC, especially her tenacity, and I wouldn't mind seeing her as VP. But surely she's not reeling from some unexpected loss here. She's making a calculated choice to continue the fight, though for what reason I don't know.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:34 PM on June 3, 2008


I don't like the idea of a Webb/Clark/Shinseki VP. I don't think Obama needs to boost his cred by putting someone from the military on his ticket. Those people would make great SecDefs, but I don't think we need more militarism in our politics. It's the same kind of thinking that got everyone to nominate Kerry, and got Kerry to try to run on his war record, which the Swift-boaters turned into a net-negative.

I think having a woman as VP would be nice, (although I've seen some hardcore Hillary supporters saying they'd be livid if he picked a different woman, if you can believe that). Barbara Boxer has always impressed me.

If it were up to me I'd probably put Richardson on the ticket. I liked him in the Primary, and he's been an enthusiastic Obama supporter. He would also help shore up the Latino vote, which Obama has had some trouble with and McCain is one of the few republicans that didn't pander (so much) to the hardcore anti-latino bullshit that bubbled up in the past few years.

I think it's a bit of a non-starter, though. Too many people will say that two non-whites are way too many for a presidential ticket. I don't agree with that, but it's definitely out there.

Edwards would probably help a lot with poor working class whites, much more then Hillary would.
posted by delmoi at 11:35 PM on June 3, 2008


peacay: The threads dealing with the democratic primary race have been the most depressing I've ever observed on mefi.

Really? I mean... seriously? Worse than religion threads? Worse than cop threads? Worse than white privilege threads? Worse than... you get the idea.
posted by Kattullus at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I went out to a Obama primary watching event at a bar in a purple swing state tonight.

Just at this one small event, say thirty people at most, there were at least [I'm purposely omitting part of this comment -- ask me after November].

There were also three guys, at the bar but not at the Obama function. White, working class, weathered, mid-thirties to forties, smoking outside the bar, wearing baseball caps and t-shirts, one with a full beard, truckers I think. You'd probably describe them as redneck, and they'd likely take pride in being called that.

One of the three, seeing my Obama sticker, asked rather dismissively if I was really going to vote for "that Obama", isn't he just another politician who was going to screw us? I responded that sure, I was voting for Obama, because I'd rather take the chance of getting screwed than vote for the certainty of it, and asked him if he was paying $4.00 a gallon for gas like I am. To my surprise, his two friends chimed in that they likesd Obama too, that Bush had screwed up everything he'd touched and screwed them too, and that McCain was more of the same (and personally profiting from high oil prices).

If two out of three good old boys, "bitter working class whites" in a red-trending-purple state are already clued in that McCain is going to keep wages stagnant (at best) while helping the moneyed classes rip them off, and are willing to take a chance on Obama -- and that's what I saw tonight -- then we've got this won. Yes we can.

And just a personal addendum: anyone who has read my comments here knows I'm a cynical bastard, but I had tears in my eyes listening to Obama's speech. Sue, it was the most hackneyed part, designed to move anyone who believes in America, but it worked. It will work on voters too. People are fed up, and they don't want to have more of the McSame shoved down their throats.

Barack Obama, unlike McCain or Clinton, offers a new direction. Americans hunger for change, and will take Obama's offer in November. Yes we can!
posted by orthogonality at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


"Hmm, looks like paulsc owes asavage $1,000."
posted by delmoi at 2:10 AM on June 4

Heh. Actually, I never got a single dollar bet against me. Zippo. Zero. Not a single MeFi mail. No takers. Not one. Not one Barcalounger pilot in that thread took me up, straight or side bet, at any odds.
posted by paulsc at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2008


paulsc writes "Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss."

You're arguing in bad faith. Why you're arguing in bad faith, we can discuss. Now hurry back to the bridge, the three billy goats gruff are coming.
posted by mullingitover at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Happy Obamaday, everybody! Cheers! It's gonna be a wonderful 4+ years!

Now we sit back and wait for the backlash...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:40 PM on June 3, 2008


VP: Fox Fallon, if Obama can get him. Wesley Clark, otherwise...

Fallon might be able to help Obama fix the mess if Bush does something completely insane in the Persian Gulf before he leaves office.

... on second thought, if that happens, no one will be able to fix it.
posted by homunculus at 11:41 PM on June 3, 2008


I am inordinately pleased by this, despite the fact that I am not American.

As another non-American, I can but only agree with this sentiment.
posted by bwg at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2008


i-promise-i'm-not-a-crackhead-filter: a few comments back, I said Nunn Bush when I meant Goldwater-Nichols (which Sam Nunn was involved with, and which I had thought was passed at the very beginning of Bush Sr.'s presidency but in fact happened towards the end of Reagan's.) Too much excitement (or cable news) for me when I confuse footwear with defense legislation.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2008


And now we have a glimmering, charismatic leader surfing a swell of popular support.

I may not have read this exact story before. But I can't ever remember a story like this one ending well.


Are you seriously comparing Obama to Jesus? Because that is way out of line.
posted by cmonkey at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Obama's gonna be beating up on the old guy next to your grandma at the nursing home, and it won't be pretty.

I really don't think Obama is going to need to do much beating up at all. McCain has shown himself to be a perfectly lousy speaker who flip-flops like a 555 timer. The Republican party itself is in self-destruct mode. And not a soul on earth is going to believe Diebold if it says McCain has won.

My distinct impression is that the majority of US citizens are sick and tired of corrupt, lying governments. The Republicans burnt their bridges by screwing the economy so badly that the nation is on the verge of collapse, by alienating every foreign nation that used to be friendly, and by perjurying itself with blatant, transparent lies.

Electing McCain is to basically elect a Bush-style government for another four years. Doing that is simply suicide. I should hope to high hell that a majority of voters understand that. on the other hand, the nation was daft enough to elect a criminal administration a second time...


peacay, do you really not see how Hillary's behaviour this past few months has been unacceptable? She's been all about the negative campaigning, lying, and all the rest of the traditional bad politicking, plus an absurd sense of self-entitlement. It was very disappointing to see her stoop to such tactics. Quite honestly, she shat in her bed and now she gets to sleep in it.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss.

He's satan. Just putting that out there. He's the devil. Why he went against God and fell from grace, we can chat about, but my basic comment stands and must not be challenged.

Also, he has gills and farts a lot.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:44 PM on June 3, 2008 [8 favorites]


"Are you seriously comparing Obama to Jesus? Because that is way out of line."
posted by cmonkey at 5:42 PM on June 4

I think the comparison was to JFK but yeah, y'know, now that I read it again, you're right! Comparing Obama to Jesus is way out of line! Obama is way cooler than that guy!
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:46 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Comparing Obama to Jesus is way out of line! Obama is way cooler than that guy!

And he's black! Depending on who you ask, anyways. ;)
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:47 PM on June 3, 2008


"And just to prove it, watch him duck this one: paulsc, Obama's half of the Democratic primary votes is about twice the votes McCain got in the Republican primaries."
posted by nicwolff at 2:28 AM on June 4

What's to "duck?" I can't see that McCain getting to his party's nomination months ahead of Obama limping lamely across the final date in the Democratic primary calendar is much of a basis for comparing the two. Maybe 1/2 of the "support" you claim for Obama is actually, as others in this thread have suggested, just crossover Republicans voting against Hillary. Who knows? Who can know, in the Democratic primary debacle?
posted by paulsc at 11:48 PM on June 3, 2008


How about a McCain/Hillary ticket?

Figure this way: Dude obviously needs all the help he can get. The spittle-flecked "Guns, God and Gays" Republican base is pretty much a lost cause anyway. Picking Hillary would combine McCain's more moderate Republicans and supposed "independents" with her working class white base. These are people who largely respect McCain and mostly still buy the old "he says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may" picture of the man. Similarly, McCain's wing of the Republican party are the ones who could best swallow the idea of Hillary as VP. At least we can work with her. She knows how the game's played. Etc. etc. In fact, they're the same Republicans that have seemed to be talking up Hillary over Obama all along.

It would actually give McCain some legitimate claim to being a "not the same old Republican" candidate of change who's trying to forge a centrist coalition across party lines. If the hard right stays home anyway (or runs some third party loon), they could be a pretty formidable combination.

And you know she'd do it. That "one heartbeat from the presidency" would be a lot closer with McCain in front of her than with Obama.
posted by Naberius at 11:49 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I just want to know what the fucking smoke monster is.

This has been explained.

Congratulations America, now on to November! And don't fuck this one up!
posted by crossoverman at 11:50 PM on June 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Heh. Actually, I never got a single dollar bet against me. Zippo. Zero. Not a single MeFi mail. No takers. Not one. Not one Barcalounger pilot in that thread took me up, straight or side bet, at any odds.

Gosh, I guess that means you're still right about the airplane-conveyor belt question.

In your own mind.

has anyone told you flat-out that you're batshitinsane? 'cause, dude, you are.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:50 PM on June 3, 2008


Obama, Harrison Ford '08!

Obama, Dennis Haysbert '08!
posted by bwg at 11:53 PM on June 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


"Gosh, I guess that means you're still right about the airplane-conveyor belt question. ..."
posted by five fresh fish at 2:50 AM on June 4

It's just what actually happened, in another instance of a lot of opinion being thrown around.
posted by paulsc at 11:54 PM on June 3, 2008


It's interesting to note that McCain was only able to wrap things up so early because of the GOP's anti-democratic "Winner Take All" delegates. These are designed to throw the whole thing to an early front runner, rather than let the party decide over the course of a long campaign. If the GOP primaries were run like the Democrat ones, then it's all but certain Huckabee would have given him one hell of a run for his money well past April.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:58 PM on June 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Obama's gonna be beating up on the old guy next to your grandma at the nursing home, and it won't be pretty.

Age is the least of it, although a month before Election Day you can bet that Democrats will be all over TV wishing McCain a happy 72nd birthday. We're running a guy who plays basketball every day against a guy who can't lift his arms. A dedicated reformer against a member of the Keating Five. A constutional-law lecturer against a man who isn't sure how much of the Constitution applies to the President. The (second?) most charismatic candidate in American history against a taciturn grumpy coot who has to stay out of the sun. And McCain is running as an iconic warrior hero - who (the Republican base won't like this) lives in his rich narcotic-thief wife's houses and flies around in her planes.

This campaign "won't be pretty" like Amy Winehouse. It's gonna be delicate work indeed for Obama to stay out of the mud. But he has credibility to spare; remember when McCain's own advertising manager quit the campaign because he isn't willing to defame Obama?
posted by nicwolff at 11:59 PM on June 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


I count myself among those underwhelmed by Obama. I keep hearing people fawn over his "electrifying" speeches, but when I read them I can't find much substance. I keep having Dukakis flashbacks. (NOTE TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN: If a GOP General offers you a ride in a tank, make sure the lens caps are off the binoculars). I see a man who let himself be hounded out of his church and is suddenly sporting a flag-pin for reasons of political expediency. Mostly, I dislike the 2008 warmed-over version of "I'm a uniter -- not a divider!" spiel. Frankly, I don't want to sing campfire songs. I want to see orange jumpsuits and subpoenas. If the GOP are not made to pay for their extra-legal excesses, I'm not sure why I should even care.

A lot depends on his choice of VP. He'd better pick someone with some military credibility -- cuz that's how the GOP is going to attack him. He needs a recognizable name (Clark, Webb, etc.) so that we don't waste valuable time introducing a new face and vetting them during the campaign itself. Someone comfortable with staying in the background (I'd say Clark is probably the best bet here) so that the emphasis can be put on Obama. If he fritters away the spot to some relative unknown in order to make a point about race or gender, I will brace myself for another Mondale moment in November.

In short, I'll still support him, but I reserve the right to hold his feet to the fire. I'm not hypnotized by his charisma and his Jedi mind tricks fall flat on me.
posted by RavinDave at 12:00 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


No, paulsc. What you threw around in that thread was opinion. What others threw around in that thread is what we commonly call science.

The reason no one bet against you is the same as the reason no one in this thread is taking you seriously: you're an obvious loon. We know you wouldn't pay up, because you're too thick to even know you're wrong, much less admit it.

Pray tell, what on earth do you think you're accomplishing by posting your embarassingly stupid statements in this thread? Surely it is plainly obvious even to you that no one, not one single person, finds your opinion the least bit credible. Are you trying to pick up pity points? Make us laugh at you? Trying to inflate your post count? Pissing into the wind?

Seriously, the biggest favour you could ever do for yourself is to just stay silent. It seems you're too daft to realize it, but your posts don't actually reflect well on you.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:02 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Jet Engine/Conveyor Belt '08: Together, The Sky's The Limit!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:03 AM on June 4, 2008 [15 favorites]


"If the GOP primaries were run like the Democrat ones, then it's all but certain Huckabee would have given him one hell of a run for his money well past April."
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:58 PM on June 3 [+] [!]


If it keeps the snake-handlers out of the national spotlight, the GOP can keep it's antidemocratic policies. The news cycles' erstwhile infatuation with Huckabee's especially earnest line of bullshit gave me the serious heebie-jeebies. "But he's such a funny and nice theocratic luddite crypto-fascist!"
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:03 AM on June 4, 2008


How about Fitzgerald as VP? Oh, imagine the fun to be had as the Bush Administration is frog-marched off to jail!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:06 AM on June 4, 2008


stav, I know there are people we just don't like. But for BO to get over the top, there are a lot of HRC supporters who need to come on board. Just simple pragmatism. If you support someone for 18months and the opposition supporters keep kicking your choice after the vote, are you going to be more or less inclined to join their team?

kattallus, yes.

lupus_yonderboy you have defined events on your own terms. That's fine but, for the sake of argument, if I was to say: She changed her mind over Iraq and that one (really really stupid and reactive) response about nuking Iran is not the whole person. Nuance would be to try to understand how the background tweaking was to make HRC "strong" to overcome any "weak" perceptions attached to her gender. Yes it has not been completely pretty and it has to be said that HRC is a bit of an automaton and doesn't have her husband's innate (usually - gimme a break) political skills and folksy charm but that's not the whole of the story. Vote on a single issue if you want, but there are larger stories in between the bullet points with often complex and conflicting messages writ small.

But this is where I leave it. When I mentioned the pressure, I was not specifically talking about 'concede or not' as the single feature. HRC is being bombarded by advice from everywhere on many different topics from VP to the supers to Denver to......well, you all know what I mean. And she has this energised army and a year and a half of campaign history and the vote was incredibly close. Read motives into everything as you will. But jeezus I would want to take a breath before blurting something out immediately.
posted by peacay at 12:06 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Frankly, I don't want to sing campfire songs. I want to see orange jumpsuits and subpoenas.

I agree, but unfortunately nobody in the race was going to do that, so I made my peace with it months and months ago.
posted by furiousthought at 12:12 AM on June 4, 2008


I really don't think Obama is going to need to do much beating up at all. McCain has shown himself to be a perfectly lousy speaker who flip-flops like a 555 timer.

Well, maybe. But there's five months until the election and the media is going to need a story ever single day from now until then. Now that Obama is the nominee, he's going to have to make news that'll sell or else the media will turn on him, call him inept, weak, boring, etc. There's no more August vacation, because if he leaves that space empty, there'll be some crazy Swift Boat attack that'll drag him down.

Just think: a new story, a new development, a new quote, every day, from now until 11/4. And any day that the Obama campaign tries to talk about something boring-but-important and McCain goes negative, McCain will get the headline. Just look at the coverage of this primary: when was the last time anybody talked about the details of either candidate's health care plan? (Presumably McCain has one, too?)
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:14 AM on June 4, 2008


Oh...five fresh fish: you're asking me whether or not I see things the way you see them. No, I do not see things the way you describe them. A lot of people see "contemptible behaviour" and I see politics. Very mild politics at that. HRC was behind. They have the same policies and voting records (approx.). Even BO said in early April that attacks politics is the name of the game when you are behind (or words to that effect - he wasn't saying he would do it, he wasn't condoning it necessarily but he did acknowledge that it was a political tactic when a candidate was behind). But this was all small potatoes. I'm an interested observer from overseas and I am not a full-on supporter of HRC (although I admit, for a variety of reasons, that I have been inclined towards her, but not, you know, to the death or whatever - I'm not that invested and besides, I like BO) but the so called nastiness of the campaign didn't really resonate with me. I thought it was all fairly soft and the media played up everything to the absolute nth degree.
posted by peacay at 12:21 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


One of Obama's biggest liabilities -- and I can start to see the beginnings of it here -- is going to be controlling his base and his supporters so they don't alienate the swing voters that he needs to secure in order to win.

Really, I think that alienating a large section of the population is about the only thing he can do to lose. But it's not like we've never seen Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before, so it's not a trivial risk.

He's running on a "change" platform in a country that is, by and large, pretty conservative. You don't see a lot of successful radical politics in the U.S.; the electorate just doesn't tolerate much boat-rocking, in either party. So he has to be fairly careful: people want change, that's very clear, but he has to deliver that change without being divisive and polarizing.

While I think he's probably up to the task, if he's not careful in choosing the people he surrounds himself with, and in sending the right messages to his most vociferous supporters, they could do all the damage for him.

In particular, there are a few things I've started to see hints of in the Obama fanzone, that I think would be disastrous in a general election. The biggest one is a tendency to accuse non-supporters of Obama of being racists -- closet, crypto-, or otherwise. This is going to be difficult because there are going to be people, and potentially a lot of people, who are going to refuse to support Obama because of his skin color. But I think there are an even larger number of people who really aren't that interested in his skin tone, but will be thoroughly put off if they feel like they're being played or backed into a corner. If you start putting people on the defensive, indirectly or even subtlety telling them that they're racists because of their political beliefs, you've probably lost their support, forever and ever, come hell or high water.

Americans really hate and resent being told they have to vote for someone. If Obama's supporters position him as "the only candidate for non-racists", even subliminally, you're not making people want to vote for him, you're telling people they have to vote for him, or else they're a racist. That's dangerous, because in the privacy of the voting booth people may lash out at the perceived box they're being put in.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:22 AM on June 4, 2008 [7 favorites]


Normally I'd think Five Fresh Fish is a little out of line, but, honestly, paulsc, if you're going to link to fallacies of argument, you should cast an eye backward at your own arguments. You've stated a few things, and supported them very poorly, and, when others have responded with honest rebuttles, have either ignored them them or ducked the question.

When you're not going to engage in good faith conversation, you leave people little recourse but ad hominem. You can't attack an argument when no real argument exists.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:28 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Hearty congratulations, Sen. Obama - now please win in November!
posted by Space Kitty at 12:28 AM on June 4, 2008


"... Americans really hate and resent being told they have to vote for someone. If Obama's supporters position him as "the only candidate for non-racists", even subliminally, you're not making people want to vote for him, you're telling people they have to vote for him, or else they're a racist. That's dangerous, because in the privacy of the voting booth people may lash out at the perceived box they're being put in. "
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:22 AM on June 4

Astute, Kadin2048.
posted by paulsc at 12:40 AM on June 4, 2008


What others threw around in that thread is what we commonly call science.

Ahem. You misspelled "SCIENCE!". Hope this helps.
posted by dersins at 12:42 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Before the poison in the Flavr-Aid (not Kool-Aid) takes us all out, let me say that paulsc is semi-right in that Obama is not in as strong a position as many of us think, and hopefully, he is not too full of himself that he would forget that he is fighting an uphill battle against the odds EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

I'm not happy at how strong Hillary has shown in the polls in the weeks after her cause lost statistical credibility; most candidates' support withers when the odds of success drop below a certain point. And that support does show divisions within the party - the DLC/Clinton wing wields power and will not go away quietly.

Everything else considered, the Big Story of this nomination campaign was that Barack Obama vastly outperformed the expectations for him, while Hillary Clinton underperformed. Without a clear margin of victory, that makes Obama's success seem bigger than it is. But there is a boxing cliche that's applied to many other walks of life: if you're going against The Champ, don't expect to win by a decision, you might not get it even if you land more blows; you have to knock The Champ out.

I think Obama, like Bill Clinton, has worked himself to where he is by being 'The Smartest Person in the Room' in Every Room, but is vulnerable to bringing himself down by hubris. Of course, every person who has ever seriously run for President has to have an incredible amount of ego. Barack came to Chicago as a black man with an atypical background and joined a Black Church partly to learn about being black in America - and frankly, it was the wrong church. Yet his own beliefs and judgment never really aligned themselves with the people around him... which is in one way, a sign of personal integrity and in another way a sign of - yes, I'm going to use the word - an elitist attitude. I suspect, in an unguarded moment, that he has referred to the people in the pew beside him who yelled "Hallelujah" when his preacher shouted "America is wrong" as 'bitter' people too.

Frankly, he is not "one of us", no matter which group of "us" you belong to. He is a unique character on the American political landscape, and if he wins in November, there are so many ways things that could go wrong. But there are also so many ways that things can get better, and you cannot say that about Hillary Clinton or John McCain. The prospect is exciting to me - and it must be sold to an aging, tradition-bound, 30-year-mortgage-holding America that it is more exciting than scary. Or simply that "the safe route" is the most direct route off the cliff and into the abyss, and you get better odds by tossing the dice.

I don't care if it's not really an ancient Chinese curse, it's going to be interesting times. And I, for one, welcome our new Obama overlord.
posted by wendell at 12:46 AM on June 4, 2008 [12 favorites]


What votes he gets here in Florida in the general election will be yellow-dog votes, because nobody in the state Dem party is soon forgetting his whiny Chicago pol shenanigans at the DNC.

I have trouble believing there are really lots of people who can sincerely play the Whiner part in the following play:
FL Deg: We want to hold our primary before everybody elses!

DNC: We don't think that's best. And if you try it, your delegation won't be part of the nomination process.

FL Deg: Well, we're going to do it anyway!

DNC: Okay. No votes for you. A

FL Deg: Well, we'll vote anyway.

DNC: Fine. Still doesn't count.

HRC: I won in Florida. I want those delegates seated.

BO: I didn't win. Obviously I don't want them seated. And we agreed a few months ago they wouldn't be.

Whiners: OMG Obama Shenanigans! It's HIS fault Florida's votes doesn't count!

BO: OK, how about a compromise where they're seated at half strength?

Whiners: Look how he disenfranchises us!
He got kicked in the teeth in South Dakota tonight

He won 5 delegates to Clinton's 8.

His "politics of change" look increasingly like Washington super delegate deals

Well, perhaps the DNC could persuade him to give up this whole superdelegate system he imposed on the primary process.

DNC rulebook garbage where he thinks some votes should be 1/2 votes, and not like ballot box wins.

The 1/2 votes aren't rulebook at all, of course. Rulebook would be zero, nothing, nada for the entire state of Florida.

McCain can run a national primary campaign, and exit with the gracious endorsement of his defeated competitor.

How likely is it do you think that Romney's exit would have been as forthcoming or timely if he'd been able to keep within 200 delegates of McCain?

And you do remember that the Republican primaries were winner-take-all, right?

I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?

The obvious one is that Clinton's been a strong and stubborn candidate relative to Obama, but you can only speculate what it says about Obama's absolute strength. Personally, I think it's pretty impressive that he went up against somebody who was extremely well-connected, had national name recognition, significant funds, etc etc -- someone who pretty much had every conventional conceivable advantage at the start -- and ran a campaign that delivered him more delegates. He is certainly a relatively weaker candidate than if he'd won a completely decisive victory, but to say that means he's absolutely weak is nothing but personal extrapolation.

Especially if all you've got to back it up is the other crap you've put forward so far.
posted by namespan at 12:50 AM on June 4, 2008 [12 favorites]


"... You've stated a few things, and supported them very poorly, and, when others have responded with honest rebuttles, have either ignored them them or ducked the question. ..."
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:28 AM on June 4

I think it's OK to let someone's comment or rebuttal stand as a clear statement of their opinion of a matter, and sometimes, indeed, no better indictment of a point can be made, than what someone makes, himself. I don't think I've failed to respond to anyone's question, in this thread. And I think in a thread crammed full of opinion, I'm entitled to mine, as you are to yours. But if there's something factual you think I should amplify, or something I've obviously missed, please point it out. It's not usually my intention to be rude or dismissive.
posted by paulsc at 12:53 AM on June 4, 2008


I think it's a shame how endemic, simmering and in some cases blatant sexism was evident in the campaign *against* Clinton.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama, and hopeful that my niggling doubts are unfounded. But I'm sure that Clinton would have made a great POTUS. Let's hope he does too!
posted by Mephisto at 12:59 AM on June 4, 2008


I remember when the news talked about the actual president.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:05 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


One other thing, though -- just you don't buy nonsense like paulsc's assertion that Obama is weak doesn't mean you should also buy wishful nonsense like this:

McCain is something of a sacrificial lamb for the Republicans.

Yes, McCain is not well beloved in the party. You know it and I know it, but so far, there's no sign that the Republicans are in a hurry to lose or that when it really comes down to it, party discipline won't prevail. So unless there's a big surprise and some people in the Republican camp are willing to risk their political careers and personal blowback to stand up and tell everybody that really, we can't let McCain run the country, I'm not seeing the sacrificial lamb thing playing out.

And meanwhile, McCain is quite capable of turning that not-well-beloved thing into a perceived asset.

McCain's speech was the sorriest sight I've ever seen. His smile-and-blink routine barely passes the Turing test.

We've just had eight years of a presidency headed by someone who's public speaking ability is a well-known if pitiful punchline. Don't tell me McCain's presentational problems are automatically a campaign sinking liability.

No Democrat should get any delusions about how easy it's going to be to beat McCain. God willing, he'll lose, but there's evidence to suggest it may be a close fight, so show a little respect.
posted by namespan at 1:16 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


paulsc said He didn't win his party's nomination, decisively. He couldn't. He's proven he's not powerful enough to win in a way that forms consensus.

I believe that a Senator Kennedy didn't win his country's election, decisively either. He couldn't because he was, uh, a Catholic. He wasn't powerful enough to win in a way that formed a consensus either. He needed the help of some Chicago politician.... In the end he had more votes than his opponent. Just like Obama has more votes and delegates than his opponent. Move on, build a bridge, get over it.

We rejoice.
posted by vac2003 at 1:23 AM on June 4, 2008


As for HRC's concession, I believe that it will come in the next few days. Tonight was Obama's night, if she conceded, her speech would have been tacked on to the news and chopped up for soundbites. She has 18 million votes and she needs to make sure that those who voted for her are able to hear the message when she throws her support to Obama. If she made the speech tonight, it would merely be mentioned by the anchors as they moved on to clips of Obama. Remember that a very high percentage of HRC's supporters claimed that they wouldn't vote for Obama in a general election, those people need to be convinced to stick with the Democrats, or there's a real risk that Obama could lose millions of votes.

If this isn't the case, then I'll happily accept being wrong. Right now, I think that this is the best thing for the party.
posted by paperzach at 1:35 AM on June 4, 2008


because nobody in the state Dem party is soon forgetting his whiny Chicago pol shenanigans at the DNC.

You mean the shenanigans where his supporters on the committee agreed to count the votes as half-votes, even though they controlled the committee and could have forced them to count for nothing?

You mean the shenanigans where they voted to increase the value of the votes from zero to one-half?

I hope Florida and Michgan don't forget that.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:39 AM on June 4, 2008


"...the Republican party is going to spend the next 5 months tearing this country apart at the seams to keep Obama out of office. Worst of all, they might actually succeed."

Nah, it'll be fine, honest.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 1:42 AM on June 4, 2008


"McCain can run a national primary campaign, and exit with the gracious endorsement of his defeated competitor."

How likely is it do you think that Romney's exit would have been as forthcoming or timely if he'd been able to keep within 200 delegates of McCain?

And you do remember that the Republican primaries were winner-take-all, right?"

posted by namespan at 3:50 AM on June 4

If you intended to suggest that winner-take-all primaries are somehow a negative, being less democratic, or less effective in deciding a national party candidate, I'll respectfully disagree on all those points. Not the least on the example of tonight's Democratic lack of celebration. The Presidential election has always been an amalgam of state's politics, culminating in a national debate, and the electoral college mechanism. Winner-take-all, state by state is one way of doing primaries, and the system that buried Romney could have as easily squelched McCain.

"Personally, I think it's pretty impressive that he went up against somebody who was extremely well-connected, had national name recognition, significant funds, etc etc -- someone who pretty much had every conventional conceivable advantage at the start -- and ran a campaign that delivered him more delegates."

As close to the start of the primary season as mid-January of this year, Dan Balz of the WaPo was counting up HRC's considerable negatives, and looking at the relative strengths of the two candidates. You look at the final results of the primary process, and what you see, or at least what I see, is that the putative "winner" of the process failed to distinguish himself markedly. It was a horse race before the primaries, and it ended up, 57 contests and several hundred million dollars of campaign spending later, still a horse race. That's political ineptitude, in my book.

But, moreover, when you position yourself as the candidate of "change," as Obama has, you take on a bigger burden, politically, as Kadin2048 observed, above
"He's running on a "change" platform in a country that is, by and large, pretty conservative. You don't see a lot of successful radical politics in the U.S.; the electorate just doesn't tolerate much boat-rocking, in either party. So he has to be fairly careful: people want change, that's very clear, but he has to deliver that change without being divisive and polarizing."
As a guy pushing "change," you owe your party, if not the nation, some sweeping demonstration, early on, that your idea of change is warranted, necessary, and in line with the nation's ideas and goals.

In all sincerity, I don't think a razor thin margin of victory in the primaries is enough, for somebody sincerely committed to "change." That he goes on from here is more a statement that what he is committed to is getting elected, by any means possible, than to some program of principle. Which is just politics, as usual. Nothing wrong with that. Pardon me if I fail to see that, however, as significant "change."
posted by paulsc at 1:54 AM on June 4, 2008


Item: The rules stated that Florida and Michigan were not allowed to hold their primaries when they did. The rules stated that states could be penalized for breaking the rules. This makes sense: rules are pointless if there's no penalty for breaking them.

Item: Harold Ickes, a Clinton staffer, voted last year to strip Michigan and Florida of delegates as a penalty for breaking party rules regarding the timing of primaries.

Item: At the recent Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, Ickes voted in support of cutting Florida's delegate strength in half, and the Clinton campaign praised the committee's unanimous decision on Florida.

Item: The 69-59 delegate split for Michigan was recommend by the Michigan Democratic Party, and received votes of approval from Clinton supporters on the committee.

Michigan and Florida knew the rules. Michigan and Florida knew they were breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida knew there were consequences to breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Michigan and Florida suffered the consequences.

If these are "whiny Chicago pol shenanigans," I think it's a testament to Barack Obama's persuasive power that he was able to get Harold Ickes to join in on almost all of the shenanigans.
posted by punishinglemur at 2:12 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


"... You mean the shenanigans where they voted to increase the value of the votes from zero to one-half?

I hope Florida and Michgan don't forget that."

posted by ten pounds of inedita at 4:39 AM on June 4

In one diner in North Florida, at breakfast Monday, I heard some disgruntled Floridians wondering why they were 1/2, and not 3/5 of a vote. I don't want to tell 'em it was because of Obama.
posted by paulsc at 2:17 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


paulsc:
Heh. Actually, I never got a single dollar bet against me. Zippo. Zero. Not a single MeFi mail. No takers. Not one. Not one Barcalounger pilot in that thread took me up, straight or side bet, at any odds.
"

That might be because you're right, or that might be because you set the terms of the bet such that anyone who bet against you would have to build a 1200-foot-long, runway-width, 60mph conveyor belt capable of supporting an airplane. In one month.
posted by alexei at 2:26 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


"The rules stated that states could be penalized for breaking the rules. This makes sense: rules are pointless if there's no penalty for breaking them. ..."
posted by punishinglemur at 5:12 AM on June 4

Considering that Florida's Republican controlled legislature actually set the date for the Democratic primary, more than 7 months in advance, one would think practical considerations might have come to bear much earlier, and in a less messy way than they have.
posted by paulsc at 2:30 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


: I think it's a shame how endemic, simmering and in some cases blatant sexism was evident in the campaign *against* Clinton.

I've seen this claim before but I must be missing it. Could you provide examples of blatant sexism please? Not trying to snark, I'm honestly curious.
posted by waraw at 2:37 AM on June 4, 2008


paulsc writes "In all sincerity, I don't think a razor thin margin of victory in the primaries is enough, for somebody sincerely committed to 'change.' That he goes on from here is more a statement that what he is committed to is getting elected, by any means possible, than to some program of principle. Which is just politics, as usual. "

You're suggesting that if he were a "real" candidate of chnage, he'd not "go on" from here? That having won the nomination, he'd, what, concede? To someone who has won fewer states, fewer pledged delegates, and fewer super-delegates -- and fewer votes, unless you adopt a tortured definition of "vote" that excludes caucuses.

"Candidate of change" I don't think means (or should mean) "chump".

What, exactly, do you claim a real candidate of change would do, in Obama's situation today?

It's pointless to argue what he might have done in the past -- I see a superbly executed race against a candidate who plausibly billed herself as inevitable, who had the backing of her husband, the immediate past Democratic president, and all the connections, staff, favors, and organization that comes with that. You say he could have done better.

But what are you suggesting Obama do now, given that he has secured a majority of delegates?
posted by orthogonality at 2:37 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hillary's core was the less-educated, more-fundamentalist, retard bloc (which of course share commonality with your dear Republican Party's base) mentioned above.

It actually wasn't. That's what it became after she started losing and went negative. She started out thinking that she'd automatically inherit everyone that voted for Gore and Kerry, and pick up some disgruntled R's along the way. It was only when she had already lost the nomination (12 straight losses) that she started pandering directly to racists and dead-enders, really, at the expense of everyone else.

Not to say that McCain isn't going to go negative from the start, but I think he's just so lame as a candidate, I think that once the cases start to be made against him, his candidacy will end up looking more like Bob Dole's than George W. Bush's.
posted by psmealey at 2:40 AM on June 4, 2008


Yeeeeaaaaah booooiiii!
posted by nasreddin at 3:04 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


... just because I won't vote for Obama does NOT mean that I am a racist cracker. It means that I disagree with his proposed policies, such as pulling troops from Iraq and promises of universal healthcare.

You're probably a racist cracker for other reasons, but I agree that it doesn't make you one.

As far as it goes, I have never heard anyone use the logic that if you don't agree with him you're a racist (though ALL candidates have incorrigible dimwits in their base). That's completely contrary to his message.
posted by psmealey at 3:09 AM on June 4, 2008


wendell Frankly, he is not "one of us", no matter which group of "us" you belong to.

That is balanced out by him not being one of "them".
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:29 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


Not to say that McCain isn't going to go negative from the start, but I think he's just so lame as a candidate, I think that once the cases start to be made against him, his candidacy will end up looking more like Bob Dole's than George W. Bush's.

While it might look that way to you or me, I fear that there's a large part of the electorate who actually respond to the made up information fed to them by the republican apparatus put into place by the same folks who brought us eight years of Bush. They will make it about anything but the issues. Browse over to most any small to medium market newspaper that has a website accepting comments this morning and you'll see what I mean. Stories that shouldn't stick, like Obama is a Muslim or Obama has a communist living in his guest bedroom, tend to still get traction.

And that's not to say the situation would have been any different if Clinton had won the nomination.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:39 AM on June 4, 2008


NOM NOM NOM

He's something like an Obamanom.
posted by Eideteker at 3:42 AM on June 4, 2008


"... But what are you suggesting Obama do now, given that he has secured a majority of delegates?"
posted by orthogonality at 5:37 AM on June 4

I think he should run for President, as the Chicago ward pol he is. What is so darned shameful about being a politician, that you'd position yourself as being committed to fundamental "change," above all else? Politicians craft consensus, and get compromise for action. Obama doesn't appear to be too good at crafting consensus within his own party, or getting compromise, which makes many pretty suspicious of his motivations and goals.

Tip O'Neil was my Congressman, for a while, and while I rarely agreed with his ideas, or knew how he was going to operate on any number of issues, I never doubted he'd do as much as humanly possible to listen and consider the opinions of all of his constituents. Tip made politics respectable, not by being above the fray, but by being its best champion. He wasn't always effective in creating consensus, either, but his career batting average was pretty good. Tip wasn't much on "change" as a strategy, saying that if it worked at all, it only worked until you were the incumbent.

"What, exactly, do you claim a real candidate of change would do, in Obama's situation today?"

I'm not really a political change expert, and I haven't been able to make heads or tails of what Obama wants to change, beyond quickly stopping military support in Iraq, without much regard for the risks of that. Maybe he could change his own mind about the means of doing that, considering that the messages he telegraphs through the fall can materially affect the military on the ground in the meantime, and for months to come, and considering that news coverage of the war is declining as the situation in Iraq may be improving, and other concerns engage the American public. But, as I say, I'm no "change" strategist.
posted by paulsc at 3:42 AM on June 4, 2008


paulsc: "Considering that Florida's Republican controlled legislature actually set the date for the Democratic primary, more than 7 months in advance, one would think practical considerations might have come to bear much earlier, and in a less messy way than they have."

Unfortunately for your point, Democrats in the legislature voted for that date. And by "Democrats," I don't mean one or two. I mean all but one or two. Better yet, they did so in the Spring of 2007, several months after rules regarding the timing of primaries were set by the Democratic Party.
posted by punishinglemur at 3:42 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


a black man has become a nominee for the President of the United States.

It's strange that the fact Obama is biracial gets left out of formulations like the above. It's like his white mother never existed, or the one-drop rule is still in effect.
posted by mediareport at 3:43 AM on June 4, 2008 [6 favorites]


Now let's have Jessie and Al take advantage of him and push their own agenda. I'm so sick of the 'first black president' issue. Shut up already. We're all human and unless you're some rich dude, we're pretty much all in the same boat--screwed. How about getting the economy back on track? How about finding better environmental solutions and rewarding business to comply (like if your corporate office converts to solar energy = tax break). What I don't want to hear is every black person jump up and down and go 'now it's my turn'.

Sorry but glad Hillary didn't win. Her pushy ways to prove a point was very Bush-esque. We don't need that anymore.

And McCain is just one foot in the grave. Fuck Republicans.
posted by dasheekeejones at 3:52 AM on June 4, 2008


"... Unfortunately for your point, Democrats in the legislature voted for that date. And by "Democrats," I don't mean one or two. I mean all but one or two. Better yet, they did so in the Spring of 2007, several months after rules regarding the timing of primaries were set by the Democratic Party."
posted by punishinglemur at 6:42 AM on June 4

Which may be just what Charlie Crist had in mind...
posted by paulsc at 4:05 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


As some of you who read the political threads here may know, I have been a Clinton supporter during the primary process. Well, she lost. I am now, naturally, an Obama supporter. I will be sending him a chunk of my "economic stimulus" check as soon as I get it.

I have never been one to insult Obama, and I think he is a fine candidate. I'll be happy to vote for him. I do, of course, have some reservations about him -- I also had some reservations about Clinton. But I agree with far, far more of Obama's policies than I do McCain's. I lived in Arizona for many years, and I do not want McCain anywhere near the Oval Office.

Some people have been impatient with Clinton supporters, wondering when we were going to admit the inevitable, that our candidate could not win. I've known that for some time, of course, but I was waiting patiently for the final shoe to drop. It has. Whether or not she concedes, whatever she does now, as far as I'm concerned, from this point on it's a race between Obama and McCain. Some may be frustrated with my slowness, but I never saw any harm in waiting until my candidate actually lost. Others may still cling to her "last-ditch chances", but I think that's just silly. But then, I was never a fanatical devotee of hers, just a voter.

Still, I would like to take my moment to bid my personal farewell to a candidate I thought would make a good president:

.

Moment over. Moving on. Obama in '08.
posted by kyrademon at 4:08 AM on June 4, 2008 [26 favorites]


Ok so the paulsc v. whoever contest aside, where is the link to Obama's remarks video? The one linked on his site is hosed. *eye roll*
posted by yoga at 4:12 AM on June 4, 2008


I agree with Peacay 1000%. Thanks, Peacay, for your balanced insights, which are much needed in this thread.

I can't believe people get up in arms about conservative websites for being one-sided and nasty. Some of the stuff posted here and in other US electionfilter threads is just as shameful as stuff I've read on any right-wing site. Haven't you learned from the past eight years that questioning is healthy, and that giving one person ultimate power is dangerous? I would think that people would be skeptical and thoughtful more than ever but that does not seem to be the case. The worship of Obama -- I understand you're clinging to hope beyond your current administration, but it simply gives me the chills. Being worshipful of your president is not the way to a healthy democracy.

At least soon the sexism against Hilary Clinton will be heard no more. I'm definitely tired of that shit.
posted by loiseau at 4:25 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Fuck yeah

That is all
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:32 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


"It's strange that the fact Obama is biracial gets left out of formulations like the above. It's like his white mother never existed, or the one-drop rule is still in effect."

You don't say.

It's okay. Those of us of mixed race have long been used to not actually qualifying as a category of our own (though they do now allow us to "Check all that apply"). But as the official spokesperson for Halfrican-Americans everywhere, I would like to announce that we're acutely aware that we've got a nominee, and we're v. proud.

Really, though, it's not some kind of contest. It's not a race... race or something. And most multiracial folks are really pretty savvy about the whole thing. It's kinda like... let the uniracial people have their field days, with their cute little categories and pigeonholes and the like. We afford them the respect you should afford the dying, because really; they're the dying race.

Still working on that treatment for The Miscegenation Squad: making peace one baby at a time. Lucy Liu, Beyonce, Jessica Alba... who else?
posted by Eideteker at 4:48 AM on June 4, 2008 [8 favorites]


paulsc: Not one Barcalounger pilot in that thread took me up, straight or side bet, at any odds.

Of course not, because your bet terms were entirely unreasonable. "You assholes have to spend $100k to prove me wrong, or I'm right! And if you do spend $100k, I'll give you ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF MY OWN POCKET.

"NO takers! NO takers! You people are a bunch of wusses. Obviously, I'm right by default. So there!"

And then you harp, over and over and over again, that nobody was willing to spend a hundred grand to take your thousand dollars.

*eyeroll*
posted by Malor at 4:52 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Oh man, how desperately does Hillary want the phone to ring at 3 AM now?

And I mean besides those 3 AM heavy-breathing calls. Those are usually for Bill.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:14 AM on June 4, 2008


where is the link to Obama's remarks video? The one linked on his site is hosed.

Is this what you're looking for?
posted by aihal at 5:17 AM on June 4, 2008


That's the one, aihal, thanks.
posted by yoga at 5:22 AM on June 4, 2008


Let me quote a post by my favorite blogger, publius of Obsidian Wings and formerly of Legal Fiction:
I pride myself on being fairly cynical. Like any good child of the 90s, I’ve watched more than my share of Larry David. And I understand the frustrations that Clinton supporters and more hardened, cynical Obama supporters feel when they hear all the naive gushing praise for him — particularly from young people.

But they need to understand that many of us have never had a moment like this. We’ve never really been inspired — we’ve never “looked up” at candidates in a Paul Fussell “Romantic” sense. Candidates have never been bigger than us — we look down on them, we criticize, we tell dry jokes, we watch the Daily Show. We’re just not that inspired.

But for the first time, a lot of people are inspired. I don’t really remember 1992, and I didn’t exist in 1960. So I don’t know what this feels like. But I’m excited — I’m not in cult-like worship mode, but for the first time in my political life, I’m genuinely excited about the opportunities ahead. Maybe that will prove silly — maybe the proverbial 1968 lies just ahead. For now, though, I’m excited.

But even if 1968 lies ahead, who cares. When you see your teenage children experiencing crushes for the first time, you hopefully don’t call them over and say “these emotions you’re feeling now, they will soon be crushed.” You pat them on the back and wish their doomed enterprise well, and maybe savor a few youthful memories of your own.

And who knows, maybe this time, the good guys will win. Maybe in this version, there is no Nixon -- no 1968. Maybe Mercutio survives. It’s a historic and exciting time — progressivism appears to be in an intellectual revival. The Democrats — having shed its Dixiecrat wing — are poised to command the most progressive majority in American history. And there’s a very real chance that Barack Obama could be leading that majority come next year.
I've been around this site (in lurkform or active) for 2002, 2004, 2006 and now 2008 and from my perspective this year has been the most civil and substantive. This may be the distortions of memory but 2004 was the pits of ElectionFilter. I'm perfectly fine with political threads and have always been but 2004 was just hideous. 2008 doesn't compare by any means. Well... I suppose we still have five months to catch up, though it'll be that much harder now that ParisParamus has been banished again.
posted by Kattullus at 5:30 AM on June 4, 2008 [15 favorites]


You look at the final results of the primary process, and what you see, or at least what I see, is that the putative "winner" of the process failed to distinguish himself markedly.

Well, a young senator came from nowhere to beat the established candidate. I think that distinguishes himself pretty markedly. That alone puts a serious dent in Hillary's qualifications to be President. She has behaved as terrible leader of political race, which is sad commentary for someone who's been around for so long and solidifies in my mind that she would not make a very good President.

or the one-drop rule is still in effect.

Oh, it totally is, no question. But I mentioned that he was black because that seems to be what Obama identifies himself as.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:38 AM on June 4, 2008


What worries me is that if Hillary Clinton doesn't get the VP nod she'll decide to run as an independent.
posted by substrate at 5:38 AM on June 4, 2008


I've been disastrously wrong in my predictions before but I can't see Obama losing this. The Republicans tried the "OMG he's a secret San Francisco radical black Muslim Christian librul" crap in some special congressional elections in the south recently and lost big time. They're scared to even let Bush be photographed with their candidate and their candidate has nothing to say. I'll bet anything that Obama is up there on the stand taking the oath of office on 1-20-2009.

Well, when I say "anything" I really mean 20 bucks but I'm still pretty certain about this.
posted by octothorpe at 5:39 AM on June 4, 2008


I want to find a "Bob Dole for President" bumper sticker but given that I live in Utah it might be taken seriously by far too many people.
posted by mecran01 at 5:39 AM on June 4, 2008


What I don't want to hear is every black person jump up and down and go 'now it's my turn'.

I think it would be pretty cool if every black person did jump up and say "Hey, I can run for office too and if I do it smart, could even win."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:44 AM on June 4, 2008 [11 favorites]


I want to find a "Bob Dole for President" bumper sticker but given that I live in Utah it might be taken seriously by far too many people.

I wear a button occasionally that says, "Nixon: Now More Than Ever"
posted by Pollomacho at 5:48 AM on June 4, 2008


What I don't want to hear is every black person jump up and down and go 'now it's my turn'.

I think it would be pretty cool if every black person did jump up and say "Hey, I can run for office too and if I do it smart, could even win."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:44 AM on June 4


Yes, yes, yes, Brandon! This is a fantastic thing. Now there is no "no I can't" attitude anymore. A black man can rise up and , as you said, if he does it intelligently, even win!
posted by Pollomacho at 5:54 AM on June 4, 2008


It was a horse race before the primaries, and it ended up, 57 contests and several hundred million dollars of campaign spending later, still a horse race. That's political ineptitude, in my book.

By your definition, if there are two candidates who are both so strong that they both keep winning elections right until the end, the candidate that ultimately wins more elections is inept and weak.

It makes no sense, and repeating it over and over and over as you've done doesn't make it any more sensible.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:06 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


We've seen [Democrats/Republicans/the Phillies/Your Grandma] snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before

Can we please, please banish this phrase to the eponysterical bin? It's a cliche, it's fucking lazy writing, and what small wisps of wit it once had have long since been fully beaten out of it.

(Kadin2048 -- this is not a direct call-out, btw; I just feel like someone needs to toss this phrase into every bleedin' political thread these days, and it's getting tiresome. MeFi is inhabited by smart people, and I really believe this kind of tripe isn't worth the effort it takes to type it.)
posted by shiu mai baby at 6:07 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


shiu mai baby: Yes, lets throw that phrase under the bus.
posted by delmoi at 6:22 AM on June 4, 2008 [9 favorites]


What worries me is that if Hillary Clinton doesn't get the VP nod she'll decide to run as an independent.

She could be McKinney's veep.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:28 AM on June 4, 2008


I think a big challenge for Obama and his supporters is to not insinuate or imply that one is racist if you don't vote for him. Earlier this year where I live there was a campaign to rename an old, important street after Martin Luther King. I was against this, and for renaming a new, important public street or building after Dr. King. This became quite an issue in my liberal city, and I was by told by many fervent supporters of the name change that I was racist scum for opposing it. The bile directed at those who didn't want any change at all was even worse.

If Obama or large numbers of his fervent supporters start accusing people of racism for not voting for or even lightly criticizing Obama there will be quite the backlash.

I say all of this as a centrist and an Obama supporter.

A great strength is his ability to inspire enthusiasm from unlikely sources. A couple of older, quite conservative relatives of mine are enthusiastic Obama backers. I thought I'd never see the day where they'd support a liberal, pro-choice candidate.
posted by aerotive at 6:30 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


What worries me is that if Hillary Clinton doesn't get the VP nod she'll decide to run as an independent.

My ability to sleep at night just decreased considerably. Fortunately Hillary is $20 million in debt and in the process of shaking down Obama for some of that money.
posted by mecran01 at 6:35 AM on June 4, 2008


There will always be some supporters of anybody, doing pretty much anything. The vast majority of Obama supporters that I've seen haven't done anything of the sort.

I think you saw the actions of a few. I haven't seen any substantive evidence or trend that this is some challenge to face. The challenge is to get people to vote for him, not to not vote against him. He's said that numerous times - that people want somebody to vote For.

This is not even an issue, to me. The real challenge is getting the word out. We are the lucky ones with the internet and probably college degrees. A whole lot of people aren't as lucky, and are woefully uninformed or underinformed.

That's the challenge - educating enough people that they can educate enough people so that people can make their choice informed. Choose McCain or choose Obama - but at least choose based on truth and issues. That is the true challenge, to me.
posted by cashman at 6:40 AM on June 4, 2008


Too bad the America of 2008 still can't get past skin colour.

Since that's the case, the question now is: does the US really need another old white guy as President?
posted by bwg at 6:49 AM on June 4, 2008


I am happy Mr. Obama won, or at least will win, or however it works. Its a good sign for the future.

On the other hand, I remain extremely skeptical that this means change for the better. The last few years have really done a number on my ability to trust in politicians and the political process. Even up here in the land of milk & honey (aka free healthcare).

I hope Mr. Obama is who you need him to be.
posted by sandraregina at 6:51 AM on June 4, 2008


I was here.
posted by sciurus at 6:56 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


It was a horse race before the primaries, and it ended up, 57 contests and several hundred million dollars of campaign spending later, still a horse race. That's political ineptitude, in my book.

you could make a similar case for abraham lincoln, fdr, and up to 1976, ronald reagan - primary elections are not general elections - and general elections are not governing

He's running on a "change" platform in a country that is, by and large, pretty conservative.

we're going to get change whether we want it or not, no matter who we elect - no candidate will dare say this, but our country will be forced to live and function differently than it has been and it's not going to be pleasant, fair or pretty

my basic reason for voting for obama is that i believe he's the only candidate who may sense this and may actually recognize the necessity of facing the problems as they are - it's my belief that clinton would lie and pander to the people and pretend that things can go on as usual - frankly, her more radical followers' suggestions that she run as an independent or take the fight all the way to denver is a sign of the unwillingness to face reality - they're the same kind of people who write letters to the local newspapers saying that we just ought to stop buying foreign oil and use our own, or think that saddam did 9/11 - they're a strong force to be reckoned with, they will vote for anyone, republican or democrat, who is willing to tell them what they want to hear, and they are tens of millions strong - i think mccain, after awhile, would realize that something was wrong, but i don't believe that realization would be fast enough, nor do i think he would be able to rally his party or the country to understanding it

a couple of people have said that they're not 100% sure about obama - i can understand that, but all we can do is to vote for the candidate who seems best equipped to deal with the upcoming mess and hope we're right about his abilities, knowing that the others aren't going to deal with the future well

it could be that everyone in this race is running for the privilege of being the second herbert hoover - obama's the only one of the three who has a chance of cheating that destiny
posted by pyramid termite at 7:01 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


a couple of people have said that they're not 100% sure about Obama

Tangent: being 100% sure about something is usually a bad sign. People that walk around being Certain all the time are generally the ones that are the most dangerously wrong.
posted by aramaic at 7:07 AM on June 4, 2008 [6 favorites]


Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Michigan and Florida suffered the consequences.

no, michigan and florida broke the rules and the party suffered the consequences - and there still might be consequences to come

next time the party works out the rules, they had better remember this and work to reform this broken system
posted by pyramid termite at 7:11 AM on June 4, 2008


I think it's interesting to note the spectrum of words used to described Obama's historic victory, ranging from Obama "saying" he will be the nominee, to Obama "claims or "declares" victory, to Obama "clinches" (shockingly, fox news has the most inspirational picture and headline) and, finally, "wins" the nomination.

The cover of the Washington Times proclaims "Obama grabs nomination," so in case you were wondering who should get the prize for journalistic objectivity...well, you know where not to look.
posted by kittyprecious at 7:11 AM on June 4, 2008


Over the next 5 months, we are going to see the Republicans rip open every half-way healed racial wound this country has. They're going to run TV ads in Ohio and Florida of Obama with quotes from Pastor Wright set to hip-hop music in the background. You're going to hear AM radio hosts strongly hinting (never explicitly saying, of course, just hinting) that there are pictures of Obama smoking crack with prostitutes, or reading the Quran, or having an affair with a white woman. The pictures will never appear, of course, but thats ok. You don't need pictures -- just rumors.

It's already happening, and it has been for awhile now. But you're right, we haven't seen anything yet. My dad, who hasn't voted Republican in about 30 years, would vote for McCain if the election was today. He believes a lot of the "Obama is a Muslim and was sworn in using the Quran" bs out there-- and there's a lot of it. There's going to be a lot more now. A lot of people I know in my parents' generation and the one before them, who usually vote Democrat, are not so net savvy and find those emails persuasive. I'm watching that working class split in my own family. The GOP will take aim and fire at every fear, preconception, and prejudice people have. They did it with gay rights in 2004, and they're going to do it with racism now.

For a preview of what it will be like, I suggest reading the mainstream media coverage of Harold Ford, Jr.'s 2006 Senate campaign and take a look at the ads his Republican competitor used. Corker won, by quite a lot. Part of that has to do with running as a Republican in Tennessee, but part of it is due to his campaign strategy. He portrayed Ford as a pretty playboy who likes white women, and it worked. He's actually a rising star in the House, but those ads paint an entirely different picture of his character. And his family's scandalous activities were used against him, too-- but that goes without saying in TN. He's the only politician in an entire family of them who as of yet has not shown any clear signs of being a professional crook.

More recently, there's this conversation where Ford defends Obama against some absurd insults. I like Ford, even though he's voted on some things I strongly disagree with, and I like him even more after reading that. Young, black, smart, politically talented, seems very decent, thinks outside the usual partisan box, and with a family past that makes people wary. There's a real echo of his campaign in Obama's. Except Obama is also a powerhouse, so I hope he can raise the level of the debate and win. If he can't, no one can.
posted by Tehanu at 7:13 AM on June 4, 2008


Is there a link to a full round-up of Obama's policy stances on the major issues - the war, abortion, education, welfare, healthcare, the financial climate - all the big stuff? I ask as a (lazy) London based Guardianista who was not concerned at who got the nomination but who will cheer on anyone who has the best chance of beating the republicans. I figure I should at least check out where the dude's coming from.....
posted by Mintyblonde at 7:14 AM on June 4, 2008


Since that's the case, the question now is: does the US really need another old white guy as President?
posted by bwg at 9:49 AM on June 4


Do you really think that attitude is going to help Obama get white voters? The country was founded by old white guys. Old white guys gave the world special relativity, the polio vaccine, and walked on the moon. But don't let that get in the way of your sloppy thinking.

Just to show you where this line of thinking leads: "Does the U.S. really need an unqualified black guy as President?" or how about simply "Insert Affirmative Action jokes here."
posted by Pastabagel at 7:15 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


My two cents on the veepstakes chatter about Clark, above:

Nonononononono!

He's great on paper and looks damn good, but proved himself a hopeless campaign naif in 2004. His own staff called him nuts.
He lost me this year forever when he obediently trotted out on Hillary's command to trash Obama aide Samantha Power - who had campaigned for him in 04. What a snake.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:16 AM on June 4, 2008


The cover of the Washington Times proclaims "Obama grabs nomination," so in case you were wondering who should get the prize for journalistic objectivity...well, you know where not to look.

The Washington Times has a distinct conservative bias. I read their headlines at the bus stop for a peek into how people unlike me interpret the world, not actual information. That actually seems like a rather gentle spin from them, from what I recall of their Clinton headlines in the recent past.
posted by Tehanu at 7:18 AM on June 4, 2008


Also:

NBC’s Tim Russert said shortly before he signed off MSNBC’s coverage last night: “I would LOVE to teach American history in an inner-city American school tomorrow morning. How GREAT would that be? Just to look in those faces and listen to those kids – what they witnessed and saw tonight.”
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I haven't been paying much attention to Hillary, as she was not my candidate of choice. What sexism was heaped on her? And was it coming from the Obama camp?

I think there was a lot of smoke, and at first I thought no fire, but then I heard some comments on places like NPR that convinced me that there was some fire indeed. One NPR commentator noted just a few nights ago that her complaints about her treatment by the media were just "unbecoming." I don't think his irony detector was switched on. So now I think lot of smoke, some fire, but the way she handled it more or less just fanned the flames. I like her less now than I did going into this election, and I was always rather ambivalent about her running. But I do feel some sympathy for how she was portrayed. Her own campaign still sucked at its job and mostly pissed me off, but she did get some crappy treatment, too. There was another NPR segment (I= NPR asshat) where she said "we" in an interview, meaning her campaign, and the interviewer cut off her policy statement to drag the discussion down into "how involved will Bill be? Tell us tell us tell us" crap. And if NPR did that, I imagine the tv reporters did much worse. I think most of the responsibility for what happened rests with her and her campaign staff, but I don't think the media are blameless either. I did think so at first.
posted by Tehanu at 7:28 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm an Obama supporter and not much of a Clinton fan but I've got to say, as a woman watching this election, it was extremely disheartening to see the sexism heaped on Clinton

I think it's a shame how endemic, simmering and in some cases blatant sexism was evident in the campaign *against* Clinton.

At least soon the sexism against Hilary Clinton will be heard no more. I'm definitely tired of that shit.

Can someone point me to some examples of this blatant and endemic sexism? I've been following this race pretty closely, and would like to think I'm not so blinkered by my support of Obama that I'd ignore or deny such a thing if it was happening (and I will readily acknowledge that Hillary has been treated unfairly in many other ways), but I really can't say I've seen anything beyond isolated incidents (e.g. "iron my shirt"). Does it have anything to do with the fact that I rarely watch television news? I'm honestly curious.
posted by aqhong at 7:32 AM on June 4, 2008


The Clintons are like the Detroit Pistons of the 80s.

Speaking of the Pistons:
Some in the media are declaring the series over because the Boston Celtics have won four of the six games played so far. But I don’t understand why, with a series this close and hotly contested, anyone would want to shut it down before we play a seventh game and have all the results in. As anybody who follows the NBA knows, a seven-game series would be good for the league, and the added competition would make the eventual victor, whomever it might be, a stronger opponent against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals.
...
Yes, Boston has won four games and Detroit only two. But it's hard to imagine a more arbitrary and undemocratic way to determine this series’s outcome than "games won." It is, after all, a bedrock value of the game of basketball that all points must be counted. But how can that be the case when every point beyond the winning point is ignored? There are literally dozens of layups, jumpers, free throws, and (yes, even) dunks that our opponents want to say don't count for anything at all. We call on the NBA to do the right thing and fully count all of the baskets that were made throughout the course of this series.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:33 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Obama, Harrison Ford '08!

YES!
posted by Liquidwolf at 7:34 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


she said "we" in an interview, meaning her campaign, and the interviewer cut off her policy statement to drag the discussion down into "how involved will Bill be? Tell us tell us tell us" crap.

Huh? He's a huge part of her campaign, by her own want, is he not? Of the last 15 years or so, he was president half the time. I guess I just don't see it yet (in this example).

I wish she would have left him on the sidelines altogether. But there were days and stretches where he was making more stops than she was. Which was annoying.

Obama-wise, I think his winning the nomination gives the opportunity for a lot of educating of the public. I know there are a lot of things I need to be educated on in regard to issues, the political structure, history and the truth.

This should be an opportunity for teachers to literally hold classes in the streets, educating people. Not necessarily strictly on Obama, but on the truth of the matters being bandied about.

The teaching needs to start.
posted by cashman at 7:39 AM on June 4, 2008


i'm so psyched! naysayers be damned.

our next president is going to be a real-world, middle-class american with a firm grasp of civil rights and constitutional law. that's what really scares the political elites--although some will no doubt try to make this about race (and you can definitely expect the attempts to push voter's islamophobia buttons to go on, but i don't really think they'll pan out. the opposition fired their wad too early on those charges. repetition at this point will inevitably just work against them, leading to attention fatigue.).

obama! obama! go!
posted by saulgoodman at 7:42 AM on June 4, 2008


I think the key meme needs to be "Does the U.S. really need another four years of Bush?"

Seriously, it's not like the country really has a viable alternative to Obama.

If any of you believe the retard block is so large that Bush McCain could become President, then it is pretty much your duty as a citizen to make sure everyone you know gets off the couch and into the voting booth.

It's sink or swim time, folks. Your country can't survive another four years of unmitigated disasters.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:47 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


mintyblonde,

Here's a Wikipedia article about Obama's positions.
posted by lukemeister at 7:55 AM on June 4, 2008


The teaching is starting. This is REALLY REALLY REALLY BIG! It's about race, gender, class, values. This is it. Another MAJOR TURNING POINT for the USA(for good or bad). The idiocy taking place in Iraq was put in place with Regan, and since then the country has been TOTALLY controlled by insiders. Obama is making soo many people nervous in soo many different areas, HRC did to, by the way(but she was playing the old game.. and that game sucks.) Will GenX be recognized, or will we have to tear shit up? Cuz we really don't care. We want the honesty we had in our youth..At least I do. But if you tell us we just cant have it our way, we will wreck shit and make the naysayers listen. I'm not speaking for a generation. I am speaking for the people I know. No ones going to live forever. Why would anyone in their right mind let some rich people keep fucking them in the ass. It will be to the point where no one cares if shit goes sour. And we're programmed, here in the states for sure, but a lot of us are free thinkers, for good, and will give our lives to prove there is such a thing as a real democracy. Either way this goes, I will be ready. I'm going to bake a cake now. Get my Chocolate on.
posted by Flex1970 at 7:57 AM on June 4, 2008


One NPR commentator noted just a few nights ago that her complaints about her treatment by the media were just "unbecoming." I don't think his irony detector was switched on.

Wait, what? When did "unbecoming" take on gendered connotations? I ask this out of genuine, snark-free curiosity, because while I can definitely point to a whole host of misogynistic BS that Senator Clinton has had to endure, I never once would have thought to include anyone calling her behavior "unbecoming" on that list.

I guess I could see it if you take the straight-up definition of unbecoming as "unattractive," and therefore a sort of underhanded comment on her appearance, but I think the most common association with the term is in the military sense, as in "conduct unbecoming of an officer."

Could you clarify, Tehanu?
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:00 AM on June 4, 2008


Clinton started off with all the advantages (including a huge lead in super delegates), and ran a bad campaign. Like our invasion of Iraq, she tried to shock and awe her way to victory on Super Tuesday, had no Plan B when that didn't work, and her campaign descending into an increasingly bizarre series of rationales.

Obama ran a smart campaign, playing by the rules and getting delegates in caucus states that Clinton ignored. He beat her by double digits in South Carolina (by 28 points), Alabama (by 13 points), Delaware (by 11 points), Georgia (by 35 points), Illinois (by 32 points), Utah (by 17 points), Louisiana (by 22 points), Democrats Abroad (by 33 points), the District of Columbia (by 52 points), Maryland (by 25 points), Virginia (by 18 points), Wisconsin (by 18 points), Vermont (by 21 points), Mississippi (by 25 points), North Carolina (by 15 points), Oregon (by 18 points), and Montana (by 15 points).

After eight years of the Bush administration, I'm tired of people claiming the rules don't apply to them. Senator Clinton, along with the other Democratic candidates, signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Florida and Michigan primaries. She herself said those primaries wouldn't count.

She's been saying she'lll convince the super delegates to support her when she has been actively and dramatically losing that argument since late March/early April. Now she's stringing her supporters along to get them to pay off her campaign debts.

who (the Republican base won't like this) lives in his rich narcotic-thief wife's houses

They only mind stuff like this if it's a Democrat. The hypocrisy of the "family values" party knows no bounds.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:00 AM on June 4, 2008 [9 favorites]


One NPR commentator noted just a few nights ago that her complaints about her treatment by the media were just "unbecoming."

you know, if people continue to rake the english language over the coals for every possible nuance that conceivably might be construed by someone as possibly sexist or racist or whatever, we're going to end up with a literature that's as insipid and bland as dick and jane - i mean richard and jane

The request was denied, and Lieutenant Watada faces charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including one count of missing movements (for not deploying) and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.

The press should only intrude in matters which are in the public interest (that is, where he or other members of the royal family, MPs etc., are involved in conduct unbecoming of their position) but when he is out for a night out with friends, as any other young person his age may be, then he should be left alone.

both lt watada and prince harry are male
posted by pyramid termite at 8:01 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


peacay writes "I really think you will be doing your candidate a favour if you back off criticising HRC. I can't imagine the enormous pressures she's under at the moment and it was completely understandable that she wants some days to process the whole shebang."

I've never known a candidate that was so outwardly tough, and at the same time so delicate that we have to walk on eggshells around her dropping out of the race, like any other candidate would do now (except those times they didn't, and it hurt the party). She blames everyone else for her failings, which doesn't speak very well of her or the end of her campaign. We kept hearing things like, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Now we have to coddle Hillary Clinton, and spare her feelings? I thought politics was a blood sport. She seemed to play that way. She's a poor loser, is all it comes down to, and because of that she's dragged her supporters along, and now we have to work really hard to get them back. It's her own damn fault, you know, and she left the rest of us with a hell of a lot of work, a bruised candidate and very little team spirit. Come on, time to grow up, and let's move past this and elect someone decent for office.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:03 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


Can someone point me to some examples of this blatant and endemic sexism?

aqhong, I think the one that annoyed me the most was the flap about Clinton's crying episodes. The fact that it was even an issue was just obnoxious, and more than a few observers turned it into little more than an OMG SHEZ ON TEH RAG!-type moment. All of the stupid women=emotionally unstable weepers stereotypes came floating to the surface, and it was just gross.

And I say that as someone who has been a staunch Obama supporter from the get-go.
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:05 AM on June 4, 2008


Obama scores the coveted "Jedi Master" vote.
posted by ColdChef at 8:05 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


For the first time in my life, I'll get to vote for a candidate that is more than "the lesser of two evils."
posted by drezdn at 8:08 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


peacey: She changed her mind over Iraq

That doesn't bring even one Iraqi back from the dead. You don't get forgiven for serious crimes just because you decide later they were a bad idea.

And when did she change her mind? Not as far as I can see until 2006 at the earliest. Have we seen any support from her in our (the people's) opposition to the war after that? Not a dram, not an iota.

and that one (really really stupid and reactive) response about nuking Iran is not the whole person.

But this is perfectly consistent with her hawkish stance. Didn't she vote to, for example, have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard condemned as a terrorist organization?

Most important, did she ever take it back? "No, I didn't mean it when I said I'd drop an atom bomb on Iran if I felt like it." I heard nothing like that.

"Not the whole person" is ludicrous when we're talking about war crimes.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:10 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


What I don't get is all the Clinton supporters saying they are worried about how weak Obama is because he stumbled across the finish line. So, what? We give the nomination to the candidate who fell down three feet before the finish line? That's an improvement somehow?

What weird thing is going on in your brain when you think that Hillary is the smartest, strongest, bestest candidate, and you also think it's some huge problem with Obama that he didn't sweep the floor with her? She's very very good. He was better.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:11 AM on June 4, 2008 [13 favorites]


aqhong, I think the one that annoyed me the most was the flap about Clinton's crying episodes.

if you think that's bad, you should have seen what the press did to edmund muskie - her candidacy survived her new hampshire moment, his didn't
posted by pyramid termite at 8:11 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


aqhong, I think the one that annoyed me the most was the flap about Clinton's crying episodes.

Okay, I agree with you there; not sure how I'd forgotten about that one. I'm yet to be convinced that such crap reached endemic proportions, but maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.
posted by aqhong at 8:12 AM on June 4, 2008


Now hurry back to the bridge, the three billy goats gruff are coming.

the word troll does not mean what you think it means in this context. go fish.
posted by quonsar at 8:16 AM on June 4, 2008


waraw: I think it's a shame how endemic, simmering and in some cases blatant sexism was evident in the campaign *against* Clinton.

I've seen this claim before but I must be missing it. Could you provide examples of blatant sexism please? Not trying to snark, I'm honestly curious.


Also,

aqhong: Can someone point me to some examples of this blatant and endemic sexism?

You might start here where the Hillary Sexism Watch is up to 103 items and counting.
posted by JackFlash at 8:22 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


The most disappointing aspect of Obama's victory, to me, is that it almost certainly means 8 more years without universal health care in this country. Not only is his policy not universal, it probably won't work. Moreover, it's very unlikely that he'll even be able to get it passed (or will be willing to push that hard). With Clinton, I had confidence both that the policy would work and that she would expend the political capital needed to get it through Congress. Hopefully she can use her position to influence Obama on this point, at the very least.

As for the comments about Clinton, it's really strange to me how so many Democrats today sound like parrots of right-wingers from 15 years ago, with their dire predictions about how the bitch won't stop until she's destroyed everything good. Nevermind that, as far as politicians go, she's pretty tame. I'll grant that she's done a fair number of things that really piss me off, but she hasn't even approached the level of tenacity that even Obama has shown in the past (in Chicago, for example).

Along those lines, I've been bothered for a while that Obama sounds a hell of a lot like George W. Bush did in 2000. Instead of "faith," it's "hope." Instead of "uniter, not a divider," it's "not red states and blue states, but United States." It's meaningless rhetoric. And his incessant use of the phrase "From the [striking feature] of [place] to the [different striking feature] of [other place]," has done little to inspire my confidence in his ability to be creative, let alone lead. Rather, it's mostly made me wary of how much more he might screw the country up.

I also don't understand the complete opposition to a Clinton VP spot. Half the party (or more) prefers her to Obama; regardless of how you count, he certainly doesn't have a mandate. And for all his message of good will and rainbows and bunnies, I don't get how he could claim to be willing to work with both sides of the aisle if he can't make nice with an (extremely popular) opponent from his own side. Furthermore, considering that the other options are mostly establishment white guys, I don't for a second buy into the argument that it would undermine his message of "change." If he's so cocky and ego-driven that he would sacrifice the clear advantage of electability that Clinton brings, then he probably deserves to lose in November.

Obama is a politician, just like Clinton. No vote should be cast for either without one hand on the lever and the other firmly pinching the nose. And for those of you talking about how this is a great symbolic victory for civil rights, keep in mind that Obama's campaign has spent much of its energy running away from anything that could be perceived as making it anything more than symbolic. (The same complaint applies to Clinton, of course). This country is still no special haven for minorities or women.

All that being said, here's hoping he wins in November. He's got my vote. Hopefully, we'll also get a big enough majority in Congress (the Senate, in particular) to actually get some things done.
posted by dsword at 8:26 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


Don't get cocky friends, that's a mistake. Personally I'm psyched, but I've been burnt too many times before. I hope Obama lives up to a tenth of his promise, that would be amazing. If he wins (and God help us if he doesn't) he's basically being handed the reigns of a country that is reeling from eight years of staggeringly amoral, kleptocratic leadership, still stuck in Iraq, still fucked economically, hated around the world, etc, etc, etc... He'll never be progressive enough for me and he's no superhero, he's got a congress full of career crooks to deal with and a military/industrial complex bloated with public dollars to appease/outmaneuver. My main worry at this point is that in four years people will be making the "Of course February is Black History month, it's the shortest month of the year" type jokes about his presidency. His ring of Holy Jesus Fire better be super-potent to get him through the mess he has to deal with.

However, on this day I'm very pleased.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:28 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


For those interested in looking at the pervasive sexism in the campaign against Clinton, Shakesville did a 104-part series on it.
posted by winna at 8:29 AM on June 4, 2008


The Lime Green Monster: McCain's Speech Widely Panned.

McCain Aggressively Tries To Distance Himself From Bush.

"Bill Burton, Obama's chief spokesman, e-mails the campaign's response to McCain's speech:
'While John McCain has a record of occasional independence from his party in the past, last year he chose to embrace 95% of George Bush's agenda, including his failed economic policies and his failed policy in Iraq. No matter how hard he tries to spin it otherwise, that kind of record is simply not the change the American people are looking for or deserve.'"
posted by ericb at 8:29 AM on June 4, 2008


As for the comments about Clinton, it's really strange to me how so many Democrats today sound like parrots of right-wingers from 15 years ago, with their dire predictions about how the bitch won't stop until she's destroyed everything good.


After last night, it's not a prediction. It's post-game analysis. She had a perfect opportunity to concede and start throwing her support to Obama, and the fact that she hasn't yet shows that either: (1) she's hoping to strong-arm him into some kind of concession (VP slot?) rather than just give him her support, or (2) she's actually considering taking this to Denver and actively attempting to wrest the nomination back. What else do we need to know?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:35 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


I like her less now than I did going into this election, and I was always rather ambivalent about her running.

Huh. I had exactly the opposite reaction. I couldn't stand her going into this, but I now have great respect for her. Everybody has been telling her to drop out, but they aren't telling her that for her benefit, it's for the benefit of the guy she's trying to beat. When I saw her refuse to concede last night, my immediate reaction was "good for you".

The democrats hated how Gore ceded the election to Bush on election night, and then pulled it back. That single move establish Bush as the apparent winner of the election, and Gore as the one contesting it, instead of casting the entire result as uncertain and setting both candidates at parity. Likewise, many felt that Kerry conceded the election in 2004 too quickly when there were voting issues still to be addressed in Ohio.

A lot of women, especially younger women, supported Hillary. Any one of those women could relate to you a story of when someone close to them told them they couldn't or shouldn't do something, and the root explanation was because it wasn't something that women could or should be doing. I'm sure Hillary has heard things like this plenty of times in her life. It's a standing joke that because she's so tough and aggressive, that she must be a lesbian. In other words, public opinion is telling her that if she wants to be a tough, she has to sacrifice her sexuality. That's insane.

So women everywhere hear stuff like this. You want to become a doctor? Why not become a nurse, it's easier. Girls don't study engineering/physics/math. Grad school is fine, but you need to find a husband, you're not getting any younger/get married before your looks go. A lot of bullshit social pressure to conform to an outdated standard. I hear people in very respectable positions of authority discourage women from premarital sex with the expression "No man is going to buy the cow if he can get the milk for free." What?!

So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job. I can completely understand her not wanting to conceded anything until the last possible moment.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:38 AM on June 4, 2008 [9 favorites]


You might start here where the Hillary Sexism Watch is up to 103 items and counting.

I dunno, seems a bit shaky, re: #100

"Obama [...] was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different."

Hillary has had to deal with sexism, but I'm not sure it's prevalent as some claim.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:38 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Carter to Obama: Don't pick Clinton for Vice-President
posted by aihal at 8:40 AM on June 4, 2008


Some women claim that it is sexist when Hillary is called a "bitch". Personally, I think that's absurd. Would they be happier if she were referred to as an asshole?

person #1: Hillary? Sheesh, I'd never vote for that bitch!

person #2: That is patently sexist and I can't believe that you said that!

person #1: Okay--I'd never vote for that asshole, Hillary.

person #2: That's better. Thanks for the insightful comment.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:41 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


You might start here where the Hillary Sexism Watch is up to 103 items and counting.

Whatever the criteria for inclusion those items have passed gets, if I used the same thing to chronicle the race-based -isms during the past 16 months, it would be 100 times as long. That person is linking to random blogs, things they say they don't even understand, and comments where gender is mentioned at all.

The ones people know about - iron my shirt, the nutcracker, etc - I agree, those are sexist and suck, but (and not to go against the comparing oppressions thing) really, endemic? No. Lame - yes. Endemic - prevalent is the first term in the definition. Prevalent (widely or commonly occuring)- no.

It doesn't make it any less sucky that it happens at all - and I think sexism is seriously rampant in this society. But the examples that are being pointed out are weak at best, and really pale in comparison to the power she has had and still has, and the narratives in this race, and the mistakes she made.
posted by cashman at 8:42 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Something just struck me.

If I had read a book or seen a movie, five years ago, that posited that in 2008 the son of a goatherd-turned-Kenyan-finance-minister would be the nominee of a major political party in the US, my disbelief would have been awfully hard to suspend, willingly or not.

But now it's reality.
posted by Kattullus at 8:50 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


This debate over exactly-how-much-sexism-was-there is morbid. I'm failing to see what good can possibly come from it.
posted by dsword at 8:52 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Or, hell, that the guy's main primary opponent would be a woman.
posted by Kattullus at 8:53 AM on June 4, 2008


Hi. After 360+ comments, it would be safe to assume that this comment will be lost in the noise. Sorry, I didn't have time to read what everyone else said so forgive me if I'm repeating someone's words, but I just wanted to throw in the perspective of a humble Latin American who reads too many estadounidense newspapers.

Obama finally getting the nod? This is a good thing. This is something that we all knew would happen. And in these regions, we are starting to see the US again in the light that we always have wanted to.

See, we Latin Americans have a love/hate relationship with the US. We see you guys as the cool, old, kinda bullyish kid in the classroom. The kind of kid you like, but also secretly despise. It probably has a lot to do with envy, of course, but there's also the history of CIA interventions in some of our contries. The thing is, we look up to you guys. We really do, no matter what our papers say, no matter what we say when we get together and drink a bit too much, we do look up to you guys.

And what's happening right now, it's renewing our faith in what you've accomplished. Because you've led the way in so many things this past century. And, yes, we're awed by so many things that you guys have done. Not in the recent past, of course. But we also know that you, yourselves, aren't happy with the outcome of the past years. And we can relate, because for the most part we are also unhappy with our governments, and we know all too well how it feels to be governed by fucking morons.

So, America, good on you. We're proud of you guys right now. Our papers may not say it, but hey, they don't speak for all of us. Not even for most of us. And our papers will only show the postures of the people, the proud image people want to project, not what people really feel. And so, without any false sense of pride, I think I can say that many of us are sincerely happy for you. And for us, since what happens up north affects so deeply so many of us down here. I can only hope that this guy will somehow defeat the other guy, particularly since that other guy is the first likable Republican in a long, long time.

OK, rambling. Sorry. To finalize: congratulations, Estados Unidos. We're watching closely, and while you guys have let us down the past few years, we haven't lost faith in you, in what you are and what you can accomplish. Please don't let us down again.
posted by papafrita at 8:54 AM on June 4, 2008 [28 favorites]


Sooooo late to this thread, but I had to contribute this hilarious Swift-Boat spam my Mom forwarded to me:

Obama "explains"

I sure hope this gets around before Nov.!!!

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:48:04 -0400, 'LTG Bill Ginn' USAF ret. forwarded the following:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."

posted by fungible at 8:54 AM on June 4, 2008


For those interested in looking at the pervasive sexism in the campaign against Clinton, Shakesville did a 104-part series on it.

The first ten items in the series are:
1. A Hillary Clinton nutcracker
2. CNN picking an unflattering picture of her
3. "Poll: Clinton trouncing Obama among black women" (boy, those were the days, eh?)
4. "Pile-on" during a Democratic debate
5. Same as 4.
6. A McCain supporter asking "How do we beat the bitch?"
7. Chris Matthews being stupid
8. People saying Hillary has "no accomplishments of her own"
9. Don Imus being stupid
10. Article about women who are not voting for Hillary

I hope the other 94 items are more compelling than this.

On preview, what cashman said.
posted by aqhong at 8:54 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


I’m a little nonplussed by the select items I clicked on in that huge “Sexism Watch” list. Largely, it seems, the offense is directed from some hack journalist using strained metaphor or some classes nobody hawking tchotchkes like the Hillary Clinton nut-cracker. Honestly, what do you expect the Obama campaign to say or do about this? Doesn’t the Obama campaign already have enough defense to run against the racism and xenophobia directed at him? Is he expected to deflect any attack directed at her, or only those with the sexist tone?
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 8:54 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


The ones people know about - iron my shirt, the nutcracker, etc - I agree, those are sexist and suck,

Those are jokes, devoid of any power the moment they are uttered. That's not the kind of sexism people are worried about. They are worried about the latent, encoded sexism in our culture that many people participate in that they aren't aware of. The point isn't about sexism she has suffered (although some people are making that point) the point is about sexism her supporters feel she and they are suffering on an ongoing basis.

For example, consider that stupid flap over Obama calling a reporter, "Sweetie". What makes that case so interesting is that I have personally never heard anyone Obama's age use that term in even a semi-professional context. Furthermore, given that Obama graduated from law school comparatively recently, in 1991, and worked at a law firm in the 90's, he's probably had the same nauseating sensitivity training everyone else who started working in law firms or corporations in the 90's went through.

What is amazing is that the sensitivity training didn't take. So, again, think of Hillary's supporters hearing him utter that, and then making a hasty apology when he discovers (surprise!) that women are offended by it. That single instance is viewed as a unusually public flare-up of the sexism that's endemic in American society and that Hillary's candidacy had to run against.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:55 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is awesome. With Obama as president, us Canadians don't have to worry any longer about our huge oil reserves triggering an invasion from you fuckers.

Um. Right?
posted by illiad at 8:58 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


To everyone saying the Democratic primary process was fractitious or that it was too chaotic, here's an Indian/Asian perspective: save no-confidence motions in Westminister-style democracies, I can't think of a single instance where an intra-party election process was this elaborate, or even, where the "machine" candidate didn't win via the process.

The rule so far has been that, while political parties themselves may compete among themselves democratically, their internal processes have always been dictatorial; consider how Ken Livingstone was booted out of the Labour party when he was about to be elected London's Mayor. Or consider how easy it is to predict who the leaders will be for India's political parties. Or consider how Singapore's PAP has had exactly three leaders so far in 40 years for its legislative wing.

Fact is, more than Obama, who I'm sure is capable and all that, I think it is the Democratic party has pulled off something fairly unprecedented; it has created an election system that, while complex and presumably chaotic, was inclusive, vibrant, and nevertheless reasonably clear for any candidate. You folks presumably see two candidates "tearing" a party apart; this non-voter saw multiple political enterprises not entirely dissimilar to them Silicon Valley startups, getting investors, create a product ("the candidate"), brand it, and then sell it hard in a certain political marketspace. Think it's unfair and labourious? Trust me, the alternatives - backroom-deals, political inheritance, currying favours etc, are so much more unfair.

Sure, you're exposed to a 24/7 unending news-cycle, but blame the media industry for that, not the process.

(Me, I've learned to turn off my newsfeeds every now and then, when I was travelling in the US; when the headlines got too intense, I just walked in the downtown and ended up chatting with absolute strangers just for the heck of it all. Different tale that.)
posted by the cydonian at 8:59 AM on June 4, 2008 [15 favorites]


You look at the final results of the primary process, and what you see, or at least what I see, is that the putative "winner" of the process failed to distinguish himself markedly.

Except for that little thing where he managed to do what no Republican has been able to do for 16 years... namely, beat the Clintons?
posted by scody at 8:59 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job.

But, but, but...she lost. That was obvious several months, just via the delegate count.

Yet Hillary and many of her female supporters want to make her losing about every other instance when they've been treated terrible, as opposed you party unity. It's not about them or feminism or how hard Hillary worked. It's about beating the Republicans.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:01 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


This is awesome. With Obama as president, us Canadians don't have to worry any longer about our huge oil reserves triggering an invasion from you fuckers.

Um. Right?


This message is for the American MeFites only. Canadians, please turn away from your screens now. Thank you. (others you can stay with us if you'd like, just so long as you don't tell the Canucks)

Awesome work guys, looks like we've got those touque wearing bastards right where we want them!

OK Canadians, come on back.

Sure, yeah, that's exactly what it means. Don't worry about it. Bush is almost gone. Relax. Have a beer.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:05 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


The point isn't about sexism she has suffered (although some people are making that point) the point is about sexism her supporters feel she and they are suffering on an ongoing basis.

If you ask me, that's the problem.
posted by aqhong at 9:06 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Strategy Was Based On Winning Delegates, Not Battlegrounds:
The insurgent strategy the group devised instead was to virtually cede the most important battlegrounds of the Democratic nomination fight to Clinton, using precision targeting to minimize her delegate hauls, while going all out to crush her in states where Democratic candidates rarely ventured.

The result may have lacked the glamour of a sweep, but last night, with the delegates he picked up in Montana and South Dakota and a flood of superdelegate endorsements, Obama sealed one of the biggest upsets in U.S. political history and became the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to wrest his party's nomination from the candidate of the party establishment. The surprise was how well his strategy held up -- and how little resistance it met.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:11 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


Pastabagel writes "Everybody has been telling her to drop out, but they aren't telling her that for her benefit, it's for the benefit of the guy she's trying to beat. When I saw her refuse to concede last night, my immediate reaction was 'good for you'."

It hurts Obama's chances, though. It's not good for the party. It's pretty selfish, actually. If she takes this to the convention, if history is any indication, that will spell doom for any Democrat's chances in the presidential race.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:15 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"The most disappointing aspect of Obama's victory, to me, is that it almost certainly means 8 more years without universal health care in this country."

Bullshit. Quit whining and start working on your Congresspeople. The President is not the be all and end all. Sometimes, something worthwhile takes work to get established. Stop waiting for a magical knight in shiny armor.

Howard Dean has the right idea; building his party from the local level up, not the other way 'round.
posted by Eideteker at 9:17 AM on June 4, 2008 [10 favorites]


Everybody has been telling her to drop out, but they aren't telling her that for her benefit, it's for the benefit of the guy she's trying to beat.

I'll tell her to stop for her own benefit, because she's just embarrassing herself now. No one's claiming Obama did vote fraud.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm linking this for the title alone: In Defeat, Clinton Graciously Pretends to Win
posted by aqhong at 9:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job.

Obama won. He's got the job, whether or not she quits.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:20 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Afroblanco: "Anybody have a link to his full speech? MSNBC only has 3:44, and I know there has to be more than that."

Obama's campaign, being fairly mediasavvy, has their own YouTube channel, and here is the speech.
posted by WCityMike at 9:24 AM on June 4, 2008


Of course it is interesting that among the talk about the sexism Clinton and her supporters feel they've faced, there's no mention of the way female supporters of Obama have been treated.
A collection of links here. Among those that I've personally had to deal with is the implication that I am not a feminist because I choose to support Obama. The presumption that women will and should automatically and blindly support a candidate just because we share simliar genitalia is just as sexist and repressive as the "iron my shirt" type crap. And it's the Clinton campaign and her supporters that are spouting that nonsense the loudest.
Silly me. I thought feminism and equality was about the freedom to support a candidate based on his or her policies, not gender.
posted by teleri025 at 9:30 AM on June 4, 2008 [16 favorites]


Both McCain and Hillary wish!
posted by Flex1970 at 9:30 AM on June 4, 2008


I've never known a candidate that was so outwardly tough, and at the same time so delicate that we have to walk on eggshells ...
posted by krinklyfig at 8:03 AM on June 4 [1 favorite +] [!]


I've known lots of people -- candidates and not -- like that. They're generally called Republicans. You know, the ones who think America stands astride the world meting out manly two-fisted justice to evildoers everywhere, but would fall tomorrow should someone not salute the flag or should gays be allowed to love each other.

Which (1) underlies much of my distaste for HRC, and (2) makes me confused when conservative friends expect me to agree with their take on the Clintons from the 90s. Okay, fine -- they are ruthless political players who will sacrifice principles to win. That makes them worse than the GOP, how?
posted by bjrubble at 9:36 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


I watched Obama's announcement of his candidacy last year from a hospital bed in the ICU, and remember telling one of my nurses at the time "I'd love to see him be the nominee, but Hillary is running and she's going to to just steamroll him. Unfortunately, I think his skin color is going to affect how people vote."

I've never been so happy to be wrong. I probably despise Hillary more than is reasonable, but acting like you deserve a political position just because you were First Lady for a few years is not sane.

Time to put my Obama sign up in the front window of my house!
posted by mrbill at 9:36 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


What is amazing is that the sensitivity training didn't take. So, again, think of Hillary's supporters hearing him utter that, and then making a hasty apology when he discovers (surprise!) that women are offended by it.

This is a ridiculous non-issue, PB, scraping the very bottom of the barrel as issues go. It's just as likely that calling the reporter was an unintended slip of the tongue--as in, a verbal slip brought on by tiredness from the rigors of campaigning--rather than anything more meaningful. I once carelessly called a friend--a straight male friend, I should add--'honey' in a moment of verbal confusion. Luckily, my friend had the decency to just let it slide with a side-ward glance rather than making a federal case out of it.

I suspect we focus so much on these kinds of minutia as a substitute for participating in more substantive considerations of policy matters because (present company excepted) we're all secretly scared to death by our own inadequacy when it comes to engaging with policy on a more meaningful level. For all that's said in the press about how everyone knows the candidates positions by now, there's still precious little in-depth discussion of the specifics of what those positions are (I mean, the real down-in-the-weeds stuff that makes all the difference in the world in how a policy actually plays out), the reasoning behind the positions, the successes and failures of similar proposals in the past, etc., among the voting public at large. As Americans, our overwhelming ignorance of anything even remotely related to how our government actually works makes us defensive and reactionary, clinging to small-minded arguments and controversies in lieu of more substantive discussions.

I've seen this tendency again and again, on a more personal level, when delivering technical specifications to non-technical subject matter experts. They inevitably quibble for days over the placement of commas, the organization of the document, the potential political connotations of particular word choices (I once had a client, for instance, ban the use of the phrase 'parent-child relationship' from a deliverable because of concern that the phrase might evoke unsavory connotations), etc., etc., while hardly even acknowledging the substance of the application design proposed in the specification.

Harping only on those topics we feel most comfortable talking about--a candidate's looks, the subtleties of social etiquette, personal appeal, electability--makes us feel less insecure about how ill-equipped we are to talk about all those other far more complex and difficult topics that arguably should be more pertinent to our democratic decision-making process.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:39 AM on June 4, 2008 [7 favorites]


You might start here where the Hillary Sexism Watch is up to 103 items and counting.

Wow, that's such a bad defense for the sexism argument. And sad.

Can the Hillary supporters crying sexism please defend their claims with something — anything — more substantive than this?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:43 AM on June 4, 2008


Pastabagel: The democrats hated how Gore ceded the election to Bush on election night, and then pulled it back. That single move establish Bush as the apparent winner of the election, and Gore as the one contesting it, instead of casting the entire result as uncertain and setting both candidates at parity. Likewise, many felt that Kerry conceded the election in 2004 too quickly when there were voting issues still to be addressed in Ohio.

Yeah, but both Gore and Kerry were conceding to a Republican. The REAL enemy. Not one of their own allies.

What makes a lot of people like me wish she'd hurry up and concede is that she has no reasonable path to the nomination at this point, but she's continuing to campaign anyway. And her campaign consists, as it has for months now, of this "kitchen sink" approach of throwing whatever she can at Obama to sow doubt among the superdelegates that he's a feasible candidate. Except the superdelegates haven't been receptive to it for a while now; they were going for Obama at a rate of 3.5:1 for weeks and weeks and there was a deluge yesterday, as the primaries were finally drawing to a close.

But she's making her arguments in public speeches, and they're being picked up and repeated on television news and being debated among the telepundits endlessly, and it appears that there's a demographic of the PUBLIC that her rhetoric is working on. So even though that Pew/Harvard study found that she's received far less negative media coverage than either McCain or Obama, there's still this grizzled core you can read commenting everywhere from HillaryIs44.org to the ABC News website of people screaming about how they'll never vote for Obama because he co-opted the media to run a hateful, sexist campaign to shove her out of the way. Or you see the Republican party starting to run ads using video footage of Hillary saying that McCain has passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold and Obama has not.

When the process of continuing to campaign continues to wear down the chances of the inevitable nominee, past the point of the primary finish line, I think it's reasonable to hope for her to bring her campaign to a close, the sooner the better.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:46 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


That single instance is viewed as a unusually public flare-up of the sexism that's endemic in American society and that Hillary's candidacy had to run against.

I suppose Hillary's candidacy did run against some form of sexism, but it also ran against the fact that Hillary is nothing more than Blind Ruthless Ambition in human form and that the only dream she actually has for America is that she should run it. Of all the things that troubled her campaign over the past year, sexism is far lower on the list than the fact that she's a terrible candidate and nobody likes her.
posted by shmegegge at 9:50 AM on June 4, 2008


Pastabagel, it's probably a minor quibble, but I think your point that Hillary Clinton found much of her support with younger women is wrong. Most articles I've read suggest it's been among 40-year-old+ women that her support has been the strongest.

I didn't find any numbers to back it up yet but here's some support.
posted by drezdn at 9:51 AM on June 4, 2008


I hope now that the general election has started or is about to start, more issues can be focused on. Like Net Neutrality. Like McCain & Obama's detailed positions on various issues.

I wish there was a webpage that just had a menu of issues, and you could click to see the candidates own words & positions on an issue.

Of course, there are the multitudes of people who would never see it. Not to say it again, but education is going to be the key.

People will have to be given access to information, then left to make decisions. People need a trustable source. A backpack's worth of information needs to be generated. I'm in the educatin' mood.
posted by cashman at 9:52 AM on June 4, 2008


The thing is about her and the Clinton machine as a whole is that they are never, ever going to give up, even if it means giving everything to the Republicans again as they did in '00 and '04 without concessions for their cronies. Right now, in some room, a Clinton cronie is arguing for Hillary's bills paid, some hand picked appointments and Hillary as committee chair of Ted Kennedy's senate committees.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:55 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Personally, I think Hillary Clinton has been handled with kid-gloves through this entire process. The media has continually failed to ask her tough questions or take her fully to task for her complete misinterpretation of the electoral math to suit her ends.

Some questions that should have regularly been directed at Hillary that, as far as I know, never were:

1) Senator Clinton, were you not made aware of the rules of this process before it began?

2) Did you or did you not agree, along with all the other candidates, that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count?

3) Did you or did you not agree, along with all the other candidates, not to campaign in Michigan or Florida?

4) If you agreed to those things, Senator, is it not at best disingenuous, at worst flagrantly duplicitous to be calling for the reinstatement of those votes now?

Why hasn't she been made to sit down and explain that in terms of actual facts? Why has she been allowed to continue spreading around her ridiculous, fabulist talking points about how she's winning the popular vote and if this was the Republican system she'd be the nominee?

If reporters had really taken her to task over these issues and not just given her a pass, would that have been OK with Clinton's supporters, or would they have been accused of sexism?
posted by wabbittwax at 9:55 AM on June 4, 2008 [16 favorites]


Blazecock, I'm not a Hillary supporter, nor will I ever be, but again, the ridiculousness surrounding Hillary tearing up just before Super Tuesday leaps to mind. As does the endless parade of remarks about what she's wearing -- e.g. She wears pantsuits! She should dress more feminine! etc., etc., ad nauseum. Who gives a flying eff what a candidate wears? Why does that even matter? No one comments about McCain's suits, or whether that particular tie made him look cadaverous, or what have you.

fungible, you know you can point your mom here to debunk that codswallop, right?
posted by shiu mai baby at 9:55 AM on June 4, 2008


crony, a Clinton crony. Singular noun is crony.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:55 AM on June 4, 2008


He's something like an Obamanom.

Doot doo, doo doo doo!
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:58 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


If the McCain people figure that they already have the Republican voters locked up, it would be interesting if he would make someone like Condi Rice his running mate.
posted by drezdn at 10:01 AM on June 4, 2008


I couldn't be happier that Obama is our candidate. But as a woman, I have been exceedingly discouraged and deflated by the level of sexism that has been in evidence in media coverage.

Media coverage has been blatantly sexist against Clinton right from the get-go. We've had to endure pervasive media memes like the Hillary cackle, Miss Frigidaire, Hillary's cleavage, having a voice like "my wife saying take out the garbage" and unending discussion of her "meltdown." In mainstream media, she has been called shrill, catty, screechy, she-devil, castrating, angry, witchy, overbearing, bitchy, abrasive, aggressive, irritating, a strip-teaser, queen Hillary, Nurse Ratched, teary, emotional, a victim. Her male supporters have been called "castratos in the eunuch chorus." She has been described as everyone's ex wife standing outside court. She has been pilloried for staying with her husband, for only getting where she is because her husband messed around, for having no record beyond her husband's, for her appearance, for her dress, for her voice. Liberal forums have been no safe haven - she is an attractive woman, but photos that appear on Huffington Post or in DailyKos threads rival the worst of Drudge's excesses. These are just a few of the things I've noticed - hardly a complete listing. It's quite surprising to me to hear people say they are unaware of any sexism. Sexism sells.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:01 AM on June 4, 2008 [14 favorites]


The worship of Obama -- I understand you're clinging to hope beyond your current administration, but it simply gives me the chills. Being worshipful of your president is not the way to a healthy democracy.

What a load of shite. This came frequently and LOUDLY from Clinton supporters who managed to recast their candidate into the combined second comings of Mary Magdalene, Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan and Eleanor Roosevelt.

I know of no Obama supporter over the age of 23 who considers Obama to be the messiah. Just that he's thoughtful, dynamic, somewhat left-of-center, unsullied politician who doesn't speak from talking points where other pols spout bullshit all too frequently.
posted by psmealey at 10:06 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


Clinton's Road to Second Place:
Still, these people say, Sen. Clinton is responsible for what one confidant called "grievous mistakes." Those help explain why Sen. Clinton -- the best brand name in Democratic politics, and an early favorite to be the first female nominee in U.S. history -- lost to a relative newcomer who would be the first African-American major-party nominee.
...
The mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor.
The charts make it pretty clear that the Democratic primary has basically been over since February. Also, Obama essentially started his general election campaign against McCain several weeks ago, and would have done better in the late Democratic primaries if he'd contested them more actively.

Some women claim that it is sexist when Hillary is called a 'bitch'.

"Bitch is the new black."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:10 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


it would be interesting if he would make someone like Condi Rice his running mate.

Not only would it be interesting, it would be awesome. Bush II running with THE worst Secretary of State of all time. I am fully on board with that.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Media coverage has been blatantly sexist against Clinton right from the get-go.

there are always some people one can point to that have said sexist things - the real questions are, did it cost her the nomination and was obama's campaign responsible for it?

the answers are no and no
posted by pyramid termite at 10:12 AM on June 4, 2008


I can't say I've read each and every comment, but I've yet to see someone mention that neither Obama nor McCain were their respective parties anointed heirs. In both cases, those two candidates won in spite of the existing political powers that be, not because of them. There were countless news stories leaving McCain for dead during the early Republican primaries, for example.

Yeah, the general election will likely be truly ugly, but it's fair to characterize this particular moment in time as one where the American electorate simply refused to rubber stamp the people they were "supposed" to vote for. I find that irrationally exciting.

The strategists and thinkers behind both the Bush and Clinton political empires are on the outs, and that's a good thing. What comes next will be unprecedented. Thank goodness.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 10:13 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


In mainstream media, she has been called shrill, catty, screechy, she-devil, castrating, angry, witchy, overbearing, bitchy, abrasive, aggressive, irritating, a strip-teaser, queen Hillary, Nurse Ratched, teary, emotional, a victim.

This conflation is problematic. It is harmful to lump claims that she is overbearing, abrasive, angry, etc. and in general any disapproval of her into the same category as she-devil, strip-teaser, etc.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:17 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


In both cases, those two candidates won in spite of the existing political powers that be, not because of them.

true - and for that reason, we should watch out for huckabee in 2012 - he's offering a republican version of "change" and next time, it might work
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 AM on June 4, 2008


but it's fair to characterize this particular moment in time as one where the American electorate simply refused to rubber stamp the people they were "supposed" to vote for.

The electorate was "supposed" to vote for Obama almost as much as they were "supposed" to vote for Clinton.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:20 AM on June 4, 2008


Did you or did you not agree, along with all the other candidates, not to campaign in Michigan or Florida?

She--along with Obama and all of the Democratic candidates except Kucinich and Gravel--signed a pledge that said "I shall not campaign or participate" [emphasis added] in the Florida and Michigan primaries. Definitions for "participate" include "to take or have a part or share," "to take part in something," and "be involved in."

it would be interesting if he would make someone like Condi Rice his running mate.

"I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:26 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


the real questions are, did it cost her the nomination and was obama's campaign responsible for it?

No, the "real" question was the one I was replying to:
I've seen this claim before but I must be missing it. Could you provide examples of blatant sexism please? Not trying to snark, I'm honestly curious.

You may be able to dismiss it as insignificant. For me, it is quite dispiriting that we have not progressed beyond this in our political discourse.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:27 AM on June 4, 2008


quite dispiriting that we have not progressed beyond this in our political discourse.

I know a guy running for president who has.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:33 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Some women claim that it is sexist when Hillary is called a 'bitch'.

Hope they still think it is sexist if done by other women.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:34 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton's Vice Presidential Campaign

yopu know, with all that Clinton could do to damage Obamas odds at this point, I don't think she could do more damage than by appearing on teh ticket as VP. Ugh.
posted by Artw at 10:36 AM on June 4, 2008


You may be able to dismiss it as insignificant. For me, it is quite dispiriting that we have not progressed beyond this in our political discourse.

Where did pyramid termite dismiss sexism as insignificant? He or she seemed to argue, or at least I would, that it is disingenuous to claim that since Clinton faced cases of sexism, sexist voters are the reason she lost. Or that she therefore faced sexism from Obama's campaign.

It would be equally disingenuous and simple to claim that the racist and anti-Muslim sentiments Obama faced caused him to not win by over-the-top margins.

I'd be very interested in a discussion on sexism in the primary, but it seems that many people talking about it are doing so with the implication or outright message that Clinton lost due to sexism, and in particular sexism on the part of Obama and most of his supporters, and that anyone who says otherwise is "dismissing [sexism against Clinton] as insignificant."
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:37 AM on June 4, 2008


It's not good for the party. It's pretty selfish, actually. If she takes this to the convention, if history is any indication, that will spell doom for any Democrat's chances in the presidential race.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:15 PM on June 4


This "it's not good for the party" is a common criticism. How ironic then, that "the party" itself wanted Hillary to be the nominee. Wouldn't it have been better for the party for him not to contest the election against her in the first place if the party wanted her to be their candidate?

Furthermore, Hillary's supporters aren't supporting the party. Like Obama's supporters, they are supporting their candidate. You are assuming that any supporter of any democratic candidate automatically assumes that every democratic candidate is preferable to any republican, but this is false. For example, in Florida, the same polling service over the same time period shows Clinton beating McCain, but McCain beating Obama. Likewise, polls in Colorado show Obama beating McCain, but McCain beating Clinton. Voter preferences, are not easily ranked.

I think the reason she is has not conceded is because she still needs to raise money to pay off her campaign loans. So maybe the thing for the party to do is to raise $30 million, and pay her off so she goes away?

I suspect we focus so much on these kinds of minutia as a substitute for participating in more substantive considerations of policy matters because (present company excepted) we're all secretly scared to death by our own inadequacy when it comes to engaging with policy on a more meaningful level.

A fair point, saulgoodman, but I for one will be participating more in that kind of debate now that it's clear who the party nominees are. But you can't accuse Hillary supporters of being superficial because they are sensitive to sexism during the campaign, when many Obama supporters are drawn to him for his charisma, oratory, poise, etc., rather than any particular policy issue.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:38 AM on June 4, 2008


I was just listening to News Hour here on my way home... and I have to say that people here are pretty confused. No one can figure out why she hasn't conceded.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2008


So I went to see Obama speak last night. I met some friends right after work, and we drove to St. Paul. We followed the line as it snaked around block after block, and we finally found the end of it around 6:15pm. We waited and waited, and eventually enjoyed quite the walking tour of downtown St. Paul as the line began to move. Finally, at 9:03pm we made it through the security check into the Xcel Energy Center. We could hear the crowd going crazy and knew that Obama was entering the room. We literally ran to a gate, and ducked in just in time to hear him speak.

I missed half of what he said because the cheering was so loud. I had to figure it out 3 seconds later by reading the closed captioning on the jumbo-tron. The place was packed, and it seats over 18,000 people. We were among the last people to get in in time to hear him speak, and the line behind us still stretched further than we could see. It was inspiring.

The thing that really gets me, though, is that we, the audience members, were probably the least-informed about the events and outcomes of the day at that moment. We overheard cellphone conversations while waiting in line, with some reporting that Hillary was conceding, then others disputing that news. I went into the evening hoping to hear a clear announcement that Obama was the official nominee, but it didn't happen. Even when Obama claimed that he would be the democratic nominee, I took it as the usual candidate-sounding-firm-and-confident stuff, not as a statement of fact. Nobody around me knew what the delegate count looked like, and the latest rumor was that Hillary still hadn't conceded. We did hear that she had won South Dakota, which was a surprise to me. So I stood there in confusion, waiting for Obama to really take ownership of the nomination, and it didn't happen. I left feeling uplifted by the experience, but disappointed that the contest hadn't been decided yet.

When I woke up this morning to banner headlines proclaiming Obama's victory, I did a double-take. I didn't feel like I had attended a victory rally. Only after digging around on the news sites did I find that HRC still hadn't conceded, despite the fact that the nation has declared Obama the winner. It's so bizarre to me. I really don't understand what she's up to, but from where I'm standing her unwillingness to admit defeat looks incredibly selfish and detrimental to her party. I can't believe she still thinks she has a chance in this race, so she really should be doing whatever is necessary to help her party - not just paying lip service to that idea. When her lack of graceful concession can lead people who are actually at the winner's political rally to wonder whether he has won, she is doing serious damage. It's time for her to step aside and stop trying to steal Obama's thunder.
posted by vytae at 10:41 AM on June 4, 2008 [12 favorites]


Is it too soon for Untergang remixes?
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


For me, it is quite dispiriting that we have not progressed beyond this in our political discourse.

Not to me. In fact, I'm kinda happy about it, because we can identify it for what it is and stand against it.

We're only four or so generations removed from the 19th Amendment. We're only 43 years removed from the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yes, minorities are still behind, but we now have a black and Hispanic middle class at a size it's never been before (and it's been politically active during this cycle). Yes, women are still behind (especially in politics), but when McCain's team is kicking around the names of four women for the VP slot (two of whom were CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) on top of Hillary's remarkable run, maybe the glass ceiling is just getting that much thinner.

40 years ago, a Hillary-type running for office would roll out tanker trucks full of chauvinism and songs about broads being better for cooking and laying than leading. Now, all we get are these dixie cups of scorn poured out. And we see them, we blog about them, we identify them.

No, we're not perfect, and admittedly as a man I miss a lot of the subtle chauvinism that women see every day. But really, it seems better. The issues we have as a society with womens' roles seem a far cry from what they were 40, 60, 80 years ago. And it'll only continue to improve.

Really, if we didn't see sexism (or racism) during this campaign, I'd be wondering what's wrong.
posted by dw at 10:45 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


My view is that this is all part of the secretly ongoing LOST finale and we are all extras.
posted by y2karl at 10:51 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


You may be able to dismiss it as insignificant.

as an explanation as to why she lost the nomination, it is insignificant - and it is divisive to continue to bring it up in this context
posted by pyramid termite at 10:52 AM on June 4, 2008


Media coverage has been blatantly sexist against Clinton right from the get-go. We've had to endure pervasive media memes like the Hillary cackle, Miss Frigidaire, Hillary's cleavage, having a voice like "my wife saying take out the garbage" and unending discussion of her "meltdown." In mainstream media, she has been called shrill, catty, screechy, she-devil, castrating, angry, witchy, overbearing, bitchy, abrasive, aggressive, irritating, a strip-teaser, queen Hillary, Nurse Ratched, teary, emotional, a victim. Her male supporters have been called "castratos in the eunuch chorus." She has been described as everyone's ex wife standing outside court. She has been pilloried for staying with her husband, for only getting where she is because her husband messed around, for having no record beyond her husband's, for her appearance, for her dress, for her voice. Liberal forums have been no safe haven - she is an attractive woman, but photos that appear on Huffington Post or in DailyKos threads rival the worst of Drudge's excesses. These are just a few of the things I've noticed - hardly a complete listing. It's quite surprising to me to hear people say they are unaware of any sexism.

You know, the sexism really does suck. And a lot of the words you've listed are terrible. I don't know what media sources have used them, but I'll assume you're not talking about backwater blogs or some shit. But you've padded out that list pretty heavily. At first glance, I can point to the following things as not being sexist: shrill, angry, overbearing, abrasive, aggressive, irritating. Additionally, it's not sexist to claim that she has no record beyond her husband's because she'd never held public office before winning her seat as New York Senator in 2000. That photos of her at her worst appear in blogs is less an issue of sexism than it is a natural phenomenon of the internet's involvement in politics, Dean, Kelly, Bush, McCain, Obama and of course Ron Paul have all had poor photos of them appear all over the place. McCain's cheek has been a focus of shitty jokes for years and Kelly's photograph in the spacesuit crawling through a tunnel is infamous for the damage it did to his campaign.

This is not to say there hasn't been sexism. But words like "angry" only sound sexist when they're lumped in with words like "she-devil."
posted by shmegegge at 10:54 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


The thing that really gets me, though, is that we, the audience members, were probably the least-informed about the events and outcomes of the day at that moment. We overheard cellphone conversations while waiting in line, with some reporting that Hillary was conceding, then others disputing that news.
I sincerely doubt that you were the least informed.

For example, the people at Clinton's speech didn't even have cell phones. They were in a venue that had no TV or radio, no cell phone access, no Blackberry access, et cetera.

After Clinton's absurdly misleading "I am now the President"-esque speech, multiple pundits on the coverage show I was watching started openly speculating that this was completely intentional, to avoid having the crowd know that Obama had crossed the threshold.

Another example: The people at McCain's speech were, much like their candidate, zombies.
posted by Flunkie at 10:55 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


That Pistons-as-Clinton spoof kinda pisses me off, since I wrote a Yankees-as-Clinton spoof on Monday.
posted by dw at 10:55 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he has less of a chance of winning the GE than she. In months of head to head polls against McCain, Obama and Clinton have been statistically tied. Obama also happens to have an edge over McCain with White Women under 40.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:58 AM on June 4, 2008


Pollomacho writes "Right now, in some room, a Clinton cronie is arguing for Hillary's bills paid, some hand picked appointments and Hillary as committee chair of Ted Kennedy's senate committees."

Well, it is something of a tradition for the winning nominee to pay any unpaid bills of their opponent's, and Obama has offered.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:58 AM on June 4, 2008


Sexism exists, and sexism sucks, and sexism has been directed toward Hillary, but sexism is not the reason why Hillary did not get the nomination. That Obama is an exceptionally good politician is one reason. That Hillary is an exceptionally bad politician is another.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:01 AM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


Additionally, it's not sexist to claim that she has no record beyond her husband's because she'd never held public office before winning her seat as New York Senator in 2000.

her and her supporters want it both ways - they want to cite her years as first lady as part of her experience, but they cry foul whenever the negatives of the clinton years are brought up

politics doesn't work that way

hell, mccain isn't a member of the bush administration and look at all the ways people are blaming him for the last 8 years

it's part of the ball game and people are just going to have to accept that
posted by pyramid termite at 11:02 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I really want to believe Obama can pull this off. I really do. But I think we're looking at McCain in '08.

I'm also bracing myself for some serious racism in the next few months. This is going to get nasty, and it's going to get painful. I wish I could say I think it would be a good thing to open the dialogue about race in this country, but I'm scared shitless that it'll cause more harm than good.

I just don't believe in Americans anymore. Not after 2004.

Also, to those people arguing that sexism isn't a part of what Clinton experienced, you're wrong. There are plenty of examples on the internet to prove it to you. Asking here is just lazy. Also, if you can't understand that it was and is, then you can't possibly hope to understand why so many women voted for Clinton. Understanding why Clinton supporters voted the way that they did - the sexism in the campaign being a huge part of it for many people I've talked to - is necessary if we hope to include them in the Obama '08 camp. And we can't afford not to.
posted by lunit at 11:04 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


as an explanation as to why she lost the nomination, it is insignificant

This is it. A lot of people talk about racism and sexism or political correctness or whatever as if it is that thing itself that is the problem. Then they go on to say that there is no possible way to stop human beings from being racist/sexist/politically incorrect. And therefore, this whole cause is lost.

But the crux of the issue is any concrete effects. I don't think the sexism mentioned by people in this thread was why she lost, or even factored in more than very very minutely.

It was the numerous, huge mistakes she made in running her campaign. Sexism didn't bring her down, her poor choices and campaign did. Just like racism didn't bring him down - he won because he ran a better campaign, made smarter decisions and had better points and counterpoints to make.

She could have banished Bill to the sidelines. She could have lost the coverture and used her name Rodham. I think she just misjudged a lot of things and ran a campaign of the 90's. She kept trying to throw her website name out there at every opportunity, like that would make her campaign current and relevant.

But what did her in was certainly not a prevalent attitude that she was unqualified because she is a woman.
posted by cashman at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


Do Hillary's fans prefer her as a legislator or an executive? I have a hard time inagining what she would really bring to the office of VP, though I understand why it's a "dream ticket," and I'm all for it.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2008


Well, it is something of a tradition for the winning nominee to pay any unpaid bills of their opponent's, and Obama has offered.

Speaking as someone who contributed to a political campaign for the first time in his life this year, if a single dollar of mine goes towards paying off Clinton's campaign debts, I will be seriously pissed.
posted by aqhong at 11:06 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Top Hillary surrogate Hilary Rosen:
"Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. But she didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been....

I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her 'Al Gore moment'

And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead 'she left her supporters empty', Obama's angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would 'use' her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat."
posted by ericb at 11:07 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


The brouhaha about Clinton tearing up certainly caused less damage to her campaign than this example from a politician in earlier times. Doesn't make it right, though.
posted by SteveInMaine at 11:08 AM on June 4, 2008


At first glance, I can point to the following things as not being sexist: shrill, angry, overbearing, abrasive, aggressive, irritating.

Actually, shmegegge, I'd say about half of those terms have a definitely sexist bent when applied to a woman. Overbearing carries connotations of your pain-in-the-ass mom. Aggressive is also a touchy word, because womenfolk ain't suppost to be aggressive, they's suppost to be all charming and demure. An aggressive man is a go-getter; an aggressive woman is a crime against nature.

Put it another way: when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:11 AM on June 4, 2008


those people arguing that sexism isn't a part of what Clinton experienced

I don't think anybody is arguing that. I think the assertion is that it is rampant, prevalent and ubiquitous to the point that it is a force that had a significant effect, rather than it being a side point. When Obama was behind I don't recall the same arguments being made by his supporters saying "Look at all this racism!". Instead, they went out and organized and won Iowa.
posted by cashman at 11:11 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am a Democrat. I am not a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter. I will vote for whoever is the nominee, probably with the same lack of enthusiasm with which I voted for Bill Clinton and for Kerry and for Gore. I am still waiting for a real passionate progressive/populist/liberal who will really convince people to believe in our power to change our society for the better and who actually has policy proposals to do so. In the meantime, I am a Democrat, and I will vote for our nominee.

The sexism and racism and classism I have heard from my fellow "progressives" over the past 6 months has only made it worse. The "South Park Humor" which is little more than our basest and our worst dressed up as commentary. But, more than that, the lack of knowledge of history concerns me--about the great words and wisdom of Shirley Chisolm, about the fights for suffrage and civil rights, about the labor movement in this country and worldwide, and about what really happened in the 1968 election, and Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter's nomination, Jesse Jackson's to Dukakis's, Jerry Brown's to Bill Clinton's. We have never been united, but we've always been trying to change things for the better.

This election has gotten gotten the young, the disinterested, the disenfranchised, and the newly passionate involved. Welcome to the political process. Now get really engaged and learn about where we came from and understand where we're going and why it matters. Passion is great. Wisdom is better.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:11 AM on June 4, 2008 [6 favorites]


I've heard the democrats described collectively as shrill quite a lot over the last few years.
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on June 4, 2008


So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated,
"Harvard Law School" is "less educated" than "Yale Law School"?
less experienced
"Four years as a Senator, eight years as a state legislator, a decade as a professor of Constitutional Law, and several years as a lawyer" is "less experienced" than "Eight years as a Senator, twenty years as a wife, and several years as a lawyer"?

Yeah, she was involved, for a First Lady. So maybe "as a wife" is a bit of an unfair way to describe her experience. But come on. What did she do? There was her ridiculously failed attempt at health care. I hear (from her) she dodged some sniper fire. Saw the video, too - she sure was calm under that fire. Heard (from her) she singlehandedly brought peace to Northern Ireland. Of course, people who actually were involved in that flat-out called the claim absurd, and that her involvement was basically limited to smiling and waving at the cameras. But who are you going to believe?

Touting her twenty years as a First Lady as "experience" -- especially as some great level of Obama-annihilating experience -- is just silly. Regardless of the fact that she does so tout, at every chance she gets.
man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job.
Completely subjective, and I think you're wrong. So do a lot of people. Obviously.

There is nothing that the right wing wouldn't love more than a chance to take on Hillary. They've spent nearly two decades in a largely successful attempt to make the American public hate this woman. She would flat-out drive voters to the polls, and not to vote for her.
posted by Flunkie at 11:15 AM on June 4, 2008 [10 favorites]


Put it another way: when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?

Uh, here's an American Spectator article that repeatedly characterizes Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas as "Shrill." I'm sure that's just an isolated counter-example though, while the case for the term's inherently sexist connotations is probably much stronger. (Waves hands, kicks the dirt, stares into space, secretly becomes more deeply entrenched in previous position...)
posted by saulgoodman at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


...when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?

Oh, two weeks ago.
"Obama's shrill and angry reaction to a perceived slight and NBC's gross bias in distorting President Bush's message, only serve to highlight Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters and the fact that the media realize this as well. And we right-wing radical forces didn't even need to pervert any language to do it."*
posted by ericb at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


The problem with Hillary as VP is Bill. What will he do as the de-facto #3? I don't think he'd be very happy taking a back seat to both Hillary and Obama.

I have a worry that Hillary will try to wield Cheney-like powers and marginalize Obama, but that is a very minor fear I have far more fear of what a loose cannon Bill could be anywhere near all that power.

Hillary + Bill as veep just doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
posted by dw at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?

Krugman, Olberman. Stewart's got his schtick to keep him cool.
posted by tachikaze at 11:18 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Put it another way: when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?

people here call each other shrill all the time without reference to sex and when conservatives rail on about shrill liberals, i don't believe they're just talking about women

shrill michael moore

i don't suppose i have to do this for " angry, overbearing, abrasive, aggressive, irritating", do i?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:20 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Now get really engaged and learn about where we came from and understand where we're going and why it matters. Passion is great. Wisdom is better.

Teaching. People need to learn. I really agree with this.

the great words and wisdom of Shirley Chisolm, about the fights for suffrage and civil rights, about the labor movement in this country and worldwide, and about what really happened in the 1968 election, and Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter's nomination, Jesse Jackson's to Dukakis's, Jerry Brown's to Bill Clinton's.

I want to build a list or collection of resources to do just this. To educate people. Can you elaborate on precisely the stories and/or links you'd highlight? I'm going to teach somebody. Even if it's just one person. I'm going to educate myself and someone else.
posted by cashman at 11:20 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Using words like "shrill" and "overbearing" to describe a powerful woman conjures up some pretty sexist stereotypes. It's more subtle that the "iron my shirt" kind of crap, but women who are upset by stuff like this aren't just looking for an excuse to be angry. For women in leadership roles, there's always that dance between trying to be assertive and, you know, lead, and trying not be perceived as a bitch. That's just wrong, and every time Hillary gets called to task for sounding "shrill," it reminds me that we still have quite a ways to go in this society before sexism is no longer an issue. I don't think that sexism was the primary thing that sunk her campaign, but to deny that it could have had even the tiniest bit of significance in the outcome of the primary season sounds to me like male privilege rearing it's ugly head.
posted by 912 Greens at 11:20 AM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


I have far more fear of what a loose cannon Bill could be anywhere near all that power.

This is lame. They'll all adults and the Process of Power is very well regimented. People plug into their part of the apparatus and off it goes.
posted by tachikaze at 11:20 AM on June 4, 2008


mccain isn't a member of the bush administration and look at all the ways people are blaming him for the last 8 years

cough
posted by tachikaze at 11:25 AM on June 4, 2008


Ok, fine -- shrill has been used against men. But I'd posit that the feminine subtext of the word is still there. Moreover, calling a dude shrill carries a whiff of emasculation about it, in the same way (albeit to a much lesser extent) that calling him a bitch would.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:28 AM on June 4, 2008


Well, yoiu have a point, and that;s something that nay female politician would face, but have you considered the posibility that people might just not like her in particular becuase of her words and actions?
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on June 4, 2008


Transcript of Obama's prepared remarks


I wish there was a webpage that just had a menu of issues, and you could click to see the candidates own words & positions on an issue.

Here you go.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:34 AM on June 4, 2008


I'm just waiting for him to break my heart.
posted by zzazazz at 11:34 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


But you'd never call a man a "bitch." You'd call him "son of a bitch."
posted by dw at 11:35 AM on June 4, 2008


Is calling her a "dick" out because it would imply she was manish?
posted by Artw at 11:37 AM on June 4, 2008


This is lame. They'll all adults and the Process of Power is very well regimented. People plug into their part of the apparatus and off it goes.

OK then, what's Bill's role in an Obama-Clinton White House? What would have Bill's role been with a Clinton presidency?

I've never had an answer on the latter, so I have no idea what the former looks like.
posted by dw at 11:38 AM on June 4, 2008


Actually, shmegegge, I'd say about half of those terms have a definitely sexist bent when applied to a woman. Overbearing carries connotations of your pain-in-the-ass mom. Aggressive is also a touchy word, because womenfolk ain't suppost to be aggressive, they's suppost to be all charming and demure. An aggressive man is a go-getter; an aggressive woman is a crime against nature.

Put it another way: when was the last time you heard a man described as shrill?


Actually, shiu mai baby, all of those terms have a possibly sexist bent when applied to a woman in very specific circumstances. The same is true for virtually every adjective you can think of. Given the proper circumstances, I can make Beautiful into a sexist insult. The point you're missing is that it's not sexist to call Hillary Clinton shrill, aggressive, overbearing or angry.

Also, I called a man shrill last week, as a further data point to add to the ones already mentioned by others.

Addionally, I will add that while sexism in the campaign is an unfortunate truth, it's a lost cause to insist that discussing HC's faults is sexist. She has many many faults, and they cost her the election. Among these is her naked aggression and overbearing nature. Her being a woman is not why she is so aggressive and overbearing.
posted by shmegegge at 11:39 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Michigan and Florida knew the rules. Michigan and Florida knew they were breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida knew there were consequences to breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Michigan and Florida suffered the consequences.

As a resident of Michigan who voted in the democratic primary, I agree 100%. The assholes in the state party were told and told and told and told in advance that it would not wendell, but noooooooooooo, they embraced their delusions of grandeur and gave a hearty fuck-you to us poor slobs in the voting booths. Michiganders and Floridians ought to be taking it out of their hides and not the candidates'.
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:41 AM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


I wish there was a webpage that just had a menu of issues, and you could click to see the candidates own words & positions on an issue....Here you go.

Also, check out these three previous AskMe threads which have lots of resources:
Teach me to be a better informed voter for the next Presidential election.

What are the major issues for the 2008 presidential race, and what are the best links that support your view of those issues?

I could offer excuses, but I won't. I'm unacceptably uninformed about the presidential hopefuls. Are there any good sites/articles offering summaries, breakdowns and/or analyses of the candidates' views/opinions on key issues? I'm primarily, but not exclusively, interested in the Democratic candidates.
posted by ericb at 11:43 AM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


Ok, fine -- shrill has been used against men. But I'd posit that the feminine subtext of the word is still there. Moreover, calling a dude shrill carries a whiff of emasculation about it, in the same way (albeit to a much lesser extent) that calling him a bitch would.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you see white men described as "well spoken?"
posted by Pollomacho at 11:45 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


My mother never understood the irony of calling me a son of a bitch.

Also, you can call a man a bitch, however in the context of implying his suborbinate, feminine, emasculated status is that of a woman. It demonstrates aspects of our cultural legacy of sexism; it is more insulting to insinuate that a man is a woman, and therefore inferior, than for a man to just be an asshole or full of shit, etc.

And the right is already starting to play the language game, with the "up in our grill" language, to push the same linguistic buttons on race as would be used on sex/gender.

Language is a strange beast, it is community developed and shaped system of abstraction meant to allow the transmission of ideas and concepts. In some ways it can be pinned down, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is a creation of cultural and cultural is a reflection of its language, and the two dance together so queerly it's beautiful.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:45 AM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Harvard Law School" is "less educated" than "Yale Law School"?

He was also elected as the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review when he was a student there.
posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on June 4, 2008


For a preview of what it will be like, I suggest reading the mainstream media coverage of Harold Ford, Jr.'s 2006 Senate campaign and take a look at the ads his Republican competitor used. Corker won, by quite a lot.

Harold ford lost by 49,935 votes out of. 1.8 million cast, running as a black Democrat in a deep red, southern state. Ford barely lost that election. And Tennessee is not all that representative of the U.S. as a whole.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 AM on June 4, 2008


Just out of curiosity, how often do you see white men described as "well spoken?"
John McCain

Mitt Romney

Mike Huckabee

John Edwards

John Kerry

Al Gore

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton describing David Cameron

George W. Bush (!) (you have to "expand all")
posted by Flunkie at 11:59 AM on June 4, 2008


/still has scars from the time he remarked on the blue that Jeremiah Wright was suprisingly well spoken.
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on June 4, 2008


Thanks ericb. Your third link, to this, is borked, but thank you.
posted by cashman at 12:01 PM on June 4, 2008



If you intended to suggest that winner-take-all primaries are somehow a negative, being less democratic, or less effective in deciding a national party candidate, I'll respectfully disagree on all those points.

I brought it up to point out that if the Republican party had a split delegate system rather than a winner-take-all system, then it is quite possible -- even probable -- that the Republican primary would have been more lengthy and less decisive. And that if anyone interested in making comparisons between how it played out and how the Democratic primary played out is already in a pretty significant apples-oranges situation for that reason alone. We haven't even brought up the Huckabee-as-spoiler dynamic.

counting up HRC's considerable negative

Actually, he's indicating her position in the already underway race, not her pre-race advantages and disadvantages. Find me an article that talks about HRC's considerable negatives in the context of the democratic primary from, say, before the Democratic debates last year, and you might have a credible case.

You look at the final results of the primary process, and what you see, or at least what I see, is that the putative "winner" of the process failed to distinguish himself markedly.

All your arguments seem to come back to this rather ridiculous statement: winning by a small amount is really losing.

It was a horse race before the primaries, and it ended up, 57 contests and several hundred million dollars of campaign spending later, still a horse race. That's political ineptitude, in my book.

"Both Clinton and Obama are extraordinary candidates in part because each represents a barrier-shattering constituency."

Know where that quote is from?

when you position yourself as the candidate of "change," as Obama has, you take on a bigger burden

OK. Does that make him a stronger candidate because he won carrying that burden, or a weaker one?

In all sincerity, I don't think a razor thin margin of victory in the primaries is enough, for somebody sincerely committed to "change."

This is basically a way of asserting that the status quo goes conclusively or not at all, and anyone can see the problems with that statement.

That he goes on from here is more a statement that what he is committed to is getting elected, by any means possible, than to some program of principle.

Wait, wait. So, if he were "committed to principle," at this point, he would stop his campaign or something because even though he has won, he didn't win by a big enough margin? I mean, what exactly would be the principled thing to do at this point? Offer to seat all of Hilary Clinton's Florida and Michigan delegates at full strength -- and none of his to boot -- so that even though he still wins it's by a smaller margin that's more amenable to your idea that winning by a small amount is really losing?
posted by namespan at 12:03 PM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


madamjujujive writes "You may be able to dismiss it as insignificant. For me, it is quite dispiriting that we have not progressed beyond this in our political discourse."

Remember how Clinton answered the question, is Obama a Muslim?

"Not as far as I know."

I haven't heard any sexism from Obama. I do think it's unfortunate that it exists among some of his supporters and others who have nothing to do with the campaign on any level, but that's not why she lost. She entered the race with the highest negatives of any candidate, and those numbers never changed, with no help from her campaign, which did nothing to dispell the negatives and only served to reinforce them. Her experience is on the coattails of her husband, sorry to say. There were many things which contributed to her loss, but it was mostly due to the way her campaign was run, which never defined her at the beginning and constantly redefined her image and statements, many times contradicting her previous positions and statements.

But I agree with some others that this campaign had less sexism and racism than past national campaigns involving women and minorities. It's still there, but we're starting to move forward, I think. This is a good sign. Clinton can't really blame her loss on it, though. She made poor choices along the way and picked the wrong people for her team, but if she had played her cards a little differently, she may have won, as she certainly had a huge advantage going in - in fact she pretty much expected to be nominated until Obama came along.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:05 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


shiu mai baby: "Ok, fine -- shrill has been used against men. But I'd posit that the feminine subtext of the word is still there. Moreover, calling a dude shrill carries a whiff of emasculation about it, in the same way (albeit to a much lesser extent) that calling him a bitch would."

I'd agree, the right-wing likes to use the word against the left because they love trying to portray their opponents as girly-men.
posted by octothorpe at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2008


Eideteker: Bullshit. Quit whining and start working on your Congresspeople.

You really have no idea what you're talking about or what I have or haven't been doing on this issue or in this election, so I'd appreciate your not making unjustifiable assumptions. I also find it strange that somebody who supports Obama--whose campaign is largely based on promises of top-down changes to government--would find this particular reason to criticize someone who disagrees with his policy proposals.

I have been working on it, and it would really be extremely helpful if Obama supporters actually encouraged him to take a sensible stand on this issue, rather than just blaming those who have been working towards universal health care for not being able to get the job done without presidential support. I don't know if you have any idea how the American government works, but achieving universal health care in this country is simply not going to happen without the support of the president. Obama has stated outright opposition to universal policies, preferring instead to propose a system that would leave 7, 10, or 20 million (nobody really knows how many) people uninsured while being of uncertain benefit to the rest of us. And in defense of his very flawed policy proposal, he has spewed right-wing talking points about how people shouldn't be "forced" into buying health insurance and aired attack ads that portrayed Hillary Clinton's responsible, truly universal policy as an effort to bankrupt working families. Many of us (perhaps as many as half!) see this as undermining a key goal of the Democratic party. It is not "bullshit" to point out that universal health care is very unlikely to come about when both remaining presidential candidates oppose universal health care. To compound the problem, it seems that whenever anybody criticizes one of his positions, for whatever reason, an Obama supporter is sure to come along and assure everybody that the heretic is a lazy moron who has no idea what he's talking about.
posted by dsword at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


paulsc writes "In all sincerity, I don't think a razor thin margin of victory in the primaries is enough, for somebody sincerely committed to 'change.'"

Well, certainly a candidate who didn't win the nomination isn't enough to carry her through the general election. If anyone has an advantage right now, it's the nominee, not the loser.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I guess my take on it is that I'm sure, at one point, "well-spoken", when applied to an African-American, was almost certainly a backhanded compliment. And I'm sure that there are still some people today that use it that way. But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Barack Obama is well-spoken. He's phenomenally well-spoken. And you know what? He's articulate, too. He's phenomenally articulate.

Frankly, if I were asked to guess "which of these two people is a racist", and the only evidence I had was that one person said Obama is well-spoken, and the other said he's not well-spoken, my money would be on the racist being the guy who is otherwise apparently just blind to the fact that Obama is a great, great speaker.
posted by Flunkie at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2008 [6 favorites]


dsword writes "Obama has stated outright opposition to universal policies, preferring instead to propose a system that would leave 7, 10, or 20 million (nobody really knows how many) people uninsured while being of uncertain benefit to the rest of us. And in defense of his very flawed policy proposal, he has spewed right-wing talking points about how people shouldn't be 'forced' into buying health insurance and aired attack ads that portrayed Hillary Clinton's responsible, truly universal policy as an effort to bankrupt working families."

Except she failed to enact her goals the last time, not in small part due to her own inflexibility. Partway there is better than insisting on all or nothing and getting nothing.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:09 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Politically, he's weak. Why he's weak, we can discuss. I've thrown out that it's because he's politically inept. What's your explanation?
posted by paulsc at 9:55 PM on June 3


As the primary began to spin up in late 2007, Hilary wasn't just the frontrunner, she was damn near Queen, with a huge war chest and name recognition off the charts. Anyone who declared was thought to be trolling for VP spot, or a fool.

Obama stepped into the race as "that guy who gave a good speech" and very little money the bank. Leveraging his own skills and talents in political organization, he built a ground force unlike any seen before in Democratic politics. He out-organized & out-fund raised everyone else, all while presenting a message that resonated deeply with the Democratic Left.

Week after week, he slowly built his lead in both pledged and super-delegates. Week after week he raised more money. Week after week, more and more Democrats voted for him, until, finally, this week, he decisively won the Democratic Nominee.

From Nobody to Nominee in about 6 months. That's a definition of "Weak" with which I am not familiar.
posted by FfejL at 12:10 PM on June 4, 2008 [24 favorites]


"Harvard Law School" is "less educated" than "Yale Law School"?

Depends on whether you're a Yalee or a Harvard Man.

Is an Occidental / Columbia education more or less than a Wellesley one? Depends, right? Who cares?

I don't think Clinton would argue that Obama is less educated than him. Not at all.

I do understand the point that Clinton feels more entitled to the nomination, but I'd rather read a book by a Clinton insider about it 18 months from now when the dust settles so I can get the "real" story; but in the meantime, I'd rather move past it and try to figure out the whole "how can we best get Obama elected" issue, which I don't think is the real topic of this thread.

Clinton / Obama comparisons at this point should be relatively moot - unless you believe that Obama needs to assume some of Clinton's* policies, which is valid.

*Note that Obama cannot assume Clinton's race, ethnicity or gender; and although he can assume her method of politicking, I don't thing that's in the cards.

My reaction to Obama's official nomination is as follows:

Goodness. Gracious. (and a little "Hallelujah")
posted by jabberjaw at 12:15 PM on June 4, 2008


I've been around this site (in lurkform or active) for 2002, 2004, 2006 and now 2008 and from my perspective this year has been the most civil and substantive. This may be the distortions of memory but 2004 was the pits of ElectionFilter. I'm perfectly fine with political threads and have always been but 2004 was just hideous. 2008 doesn't compare by any means.

The reason that things have been so civil is that what seems to be an overwhelming majority of the site's users is strongly in support of one candidate. And when someone tries to disagree with the dominant perspective, he's labeled a troll and forced to defend himself from charges unrelated to his points.

As the base of active users trends towards a monoculture, should one expect spirited dissent?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:18 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Actually, shiu mai baby, all of those terms have a possibly sexist bent when applied to a woman in very specific circumstances.

So calling Hillary Clinton (a woman) those terms during a presidential primary (pretty damned specific circumstances) is 100% sexism-free?

The point you're missing is that it's not sexist to call Hillary Clinton shrill, aggressive, overbearing or angry.

And the point you're missing is that women at all levels of power have to constantly battle the undertones of these kind of descriptive terms, regardless of how applicable they might be to the subject. These adjectives are seen by a pretty wide swath of the population as being completely unredeeming personality traits in women, while in men they generally carry much less of a derogatory flavor.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:19 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I guess my take on it is that I'm sure, at one point, "well-spoken", when applied to an African-American, was almost certainly a backhanded compliment. And I'm sure that there are still some people today that use it that way. But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Barack Obama is well-spoken. He's phenomenally well-spoken. And you know what? He's articulate, too. He's phenomenally articulate.

It's true he is, just as Hillary Clinton is shrill.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:19 PM on June 4, 2008


Flex1970 writes "Clinton for Supreme Court? That's as Brilliant as Al Gore for VP! Jesus, this is a smart blog!!"

We aim to please, but I don't think Jesus has anything to do with it.
posted by Mitheral at 12:19 PM on June 4, 2008


It is not "bullshit" to point out that universal health care is very unlikely to come about when both remaining presidential candidates oppose universal health care

Um, that particular statement, is in fact, "bullshit". Policy is a process, not an end.
posted by tachikaze at 12:20 PM on June 4, 2008


universal health care

dsword: What, precisely, do you mean by this? I'm completely serious and non-sarcastic; I think you're using a different definition than I am, and consequently I think I'm missing your point.

...and, just to reiterate: I am being completely serious and non-sarcastic.
posted by aramaic at 12:21 PM on June 4, 2008


Pastabagel writes "This 'it's not good for the party' is a common criticism. How ironic then, that 'the party' itself wanted Hillary to be the nominee. Wouldn't it have been better for the party for him not to contest the election against her in the first place if the party wanted her to be their candidate?"

Well, shouldn't we at least have the pretense of a democratic process in making this decision? We can't treat it as a foregone conclusion before the race even starts. Hell, why not tell everyone to bow out and let her run the race alone, so she won't lose?

No, this is not the same. A stronger candidate appeared and beat her through well-established rules that she and the other candidates agreed to in writing. If the game isn't fair in her opinion, she shouldn't have agreed to it and signed off on it. The race is over. She lost. There is no reason for her to stay at this point. She cannot win, and continuing on will only serve to damage the party. The game is over. It's time for her to accept that.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:21 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


So here is a woman who is running for President, with a very real chance of becoming the first female president, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job.

Here is a white, relatively privileged, upper middle class, ivy league educated, highly accomplished, woman running for president, with a very real chance of winning, and everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, black American of mixed ancestry, son of a kenyan and former Muslim, raised by a single mother, but also relatively privileged, middle class, ivy league educated, highly accomplished, if less experienced, man, whose name we all know perfectly well by now, who may not get as many votes, but can still win, can have the job, which he also fought hard for, and had all but wrapped up a couple months ago.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 12:30 PM on June 4, 2008


Clinton for Supreme Court? That's as Brilliant as Al Gore for VP! Jesus, this is a smart blog!!

If I may be immature and unrealistic for a moment, I think this would be hilarious payback for the last 7.5 years of the Bush Administration.
posted by DU at 12:30 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, I'm guessing this breaking story about the GOP running attack ads featuring Clinton attacking Obama kind of precludes Obama putting Clinton on the VP ticket.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:31 PM on June 4, 2008


"I also find it strange that somebody who supports Obama"

Who is this somebody? Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be talking about me. But I'm not an Obama supporter. I have never, nor do I ever, plan to vote for Obama. I'm more one of those third-party fringe wackos everyone seems to hate.

I'm sorry, but I was addressing the larger sentiment, not you specifically as a person. I imagine this is why the comment was favorited (when it was one of the few comments I've made without the purpose of getting more plus signs on this site); others have heard the same sentiment and are tired of it. Or maybe they favorited it because they're loyal Obamabots and I stumbled onto one of their "talking points" (dunno what those are; I've never heard a point talk). In that case, I'm just a naive dupe. That's why I don't put too much stock in favorites. They just mean someone out there heard me and liked what I said. Keeps my fragile ego from imploding on itself (does nothing to address my paranoid solipsistic fears, though). But like I said, I think the overriding sentiment is that people need to stop hanging all their hopes on a national election when we all know change begins at home. Now if that means people in general need to be more like you, then you're doing alright by me. Lead by example and all.

I'm interested to know, though, what your idea of universal health care is. That discussion can't be worse than the 200+ comments we've had on "Sexism: Y/N?" in this thread. Are you advocating single-payer? Vouchers? Tax credits? As a healthy young male with no chronic conditions, I have no stake in this debate. I'm just curious. My issues are more the economy (stupid), ending the Drug War, ending War, education, and privacy/individual liberties. Since we didn't have a major party candidate who endorsed both gay marriage and legalization (and taxation thereof), I don't think any of them are getting my vote. The Libs won't, either, since Gravel didn't get their nomination.

But enough about me. You've obviously got some anger to burn through. Why don't you tell me your views on things?
posted by Eideteker at 12:33 PM on June 4, 2008


aramaic: I mean universal as in every single person covered without exception. The long term goal would be universal, single-payer, nationalized health care.

tachikaze: Are you lookuing to argue semantics? I'm confused.
posted by dsword at 12:33 PM on June 4, 2008


"We aim to please, but I don't think Jesus has anything to do with it."

Nonsense. He's the one who holds my peepee when I go so I don't have to touch my dirty no-no places. If that's not aim, I don't know what is.
posted by Eideteker at 12:36 PM on June 4, 2008


gauchodaspampas writes "black American of mixed ancestry, son of a kenyan and former Muslim"

A small but important point: Obama was never a Muslim. His father was, but his father did not raise him. He went to a Muslim school for a couple years. But Obama was never raised a Muslim. He had no religious affiliation until his conversion to Christianity.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:37 PM on June 4, 2008


I don't think anything the GOP can do will block Hillary from the veep slot more than this Vanity Fair story about Bill, and his response.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:38 PM on June 4, 2008


dsword writes "aramaic: I mean universal as in every single person covered without exception. The long term goal would be universal, single-payer, nationalized health care."

Is that what Hillary supports, single-payer? Think you should check her plan again, because you may have misunderstood it.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:38 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


If I may be immature and unrealistic for a moment, I think this would be hilarious payback for the last 7.5 years of the Bush Administration.

For the first few years maybe. But after a while, we'd start to wish JPS's 95 year old butt was still sitting, instead of, you know, a politician.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 12:39 PM on June 4, 2008


NYT: The Upside of Being Knocked Around.
Consider Mr. Dukakis and John Kerry, both serious and sober sons of Massachusetts who enjoyed relatively easy primary races before getting beaten in their respective general elections in 1988 and 2004 by their respective George Bushes. Both could have benefited greatly from tougher early tests. “Tough primaries can give you antibodies,” Mr. Rogers said.

... Mr. Kerry emerged relatively unscathed from his nomination fight, but also largely undefined. “That gave Bush an opening to fill in the blanks,” said Stephanie Cutter, a top communications aide to Mr. Kerry’s campaign. Mr. Bush did just this that spring, Ms. Cutter recalls, by running ads ridiculing Mr. Kerry for his line about supporting a funding provision for Iraq before opposing it. The Kerry campaign had no money to respond, and by the time it did, the damage was done.

By contrast, Mr. Obama is now a better prepared and better defined candidate, and no doubt a stronger one, than he would have been without his rival. He went through 21 debates against a tough opponent, Mrs. Clinton, and improved steadily (with an exception in Philadelphia last month). He has made mistakes, but nothing fatal, and nothing he can’t learn from.
The Economist: Why Not Both?
The trouble with this argument is that it overstates the benefits of an Obama-Clinton partnership and understates the costs. Mrs Clinton certainly has genuine appeal to female voters, particularly the older and less educated women who were moved by her tears in New Hampshire and have since been enthused by her dogged determination. But most of these voters are hard-core Democrats who are unlikely to defect to John McCain in November. The Democrats' biggest problem is not with white women but with white men—particularly with white working-class men—who have been drifting to the Republican Party for decades. No less than 62% of white men voted for George Bush in 2004. John McCain, a war hero and man's man, has an obvious appeal to this group; that appeal might prove irresistible if the Democrats pair a black man with a white woman.
A roundup of Paul Krugman's columns on health care, one area where there's a significant difference between Obama and Clinton.
posted by russilwvong at 12:39 PM on June 4, 2008


I mean universal as in every single person covered without exception.

Obama's plan does explicitly offer that--it just doesn't mandate it. Both Obama's and Clinton's plans required the payment of a low, publicly subsidized premium, but Obama's plan would allow individuals to opt-out (children, however, are mandatory under both plans). In addition to additional subsidies for employer-based plans to bring down employee contributions, Obama's plan also offers a national single-payer plan open to all comers if you'd prefer it over an employer-based plan (no risk exclusions or preexisting condition exemptions--the same plan, in terms of benefits, enjoyed by congress). So how is that not universal?
posted by saulgoodman at 12:41 PM on June 4, 2008


Obama appoints 3-person team to head VP search
"Democrat Barack Obama has asked three people, including Caroline Kennedy, to lead a search for a prospective vice presidential running mate, his campaign said on Wednesday.

Kennedy, daughter of former President John Kennedy, will be joined by former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, who performed the same task for John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984, and former deputy Attorney General Eric Holder."
posted by ericb at 12:41 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, I'm guessing this breaking story about the GOP running attack ads featuring Clinton attacking Obama kind of precludes Obama putting Clinton on the VP ticket.

Of course, there are cynics who might suggest that it's not Obama's VP slot she's interested in at this point.
posted by scody at 12:42 PM on June 4, 2008


krinklyfig, I know that perfectly well. My point is that a lot of people will believe anything they hear, and also, that to some people it doesn't matter if he was never a muslim. Having a Muslim (or black, or non anglo-protestant) ancestor back to the 10th generation is bad enough for some people (ironically, because I'd guess that could be said for a great many of us).
posted by gauchodaspampas at 12:42 PM on June 4, 2008


Barack Obama is well-spoken. He's phenomenally well-spoken. And you know what? He's articulate, too. He's phenomenally articulate.

And he's clean! He's extremely clean.
posted by nicwolff at 12:42 PM on June 4, 2008


These adjectives are seen by a pretty wide swath of the population as being completely unredeeming personality traits in women, while in men they generally carry much less of a derogatory flavor.

I don't see anyone speaking about McCain's anger as a positive thing, or using shrill as a compliment or even a neutral term. Saying that those words "carry much less of a derogatory flavor" when used about men is awfully subjective. I think 'anger' carries much less of a derogatory flavor when used about Clinton than when used about McCain.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:43 PM on June 4, 2008



Speaking as someone who contributed to a political campaign for the first time in his life this year, if a single dollar of mine goes towards paying off Clinton's campaign debts, I will be seriously pissed.


This can not/will not happen.
posted by iamabot at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2008


ah, krinkly, I see what you're saying. I'm referring to his father as a former muslim, not BHS jr.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2008


saulgoodman: Obama's plan would allow individuals to opt-out--

Hence it's not universal. (Although it may well make political sense. Richard Eskew; interview with David Cutler.)
posted by russilwvong at 12:49 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Solon, I agree with you about anger being universally bad; sorry to have muddled the waters by including it. I still maintain, however, that there are a huge number of adjectives associated with power that are either positive or neutral for men, but that are seen as character flaws in women.

And as for shrill, see my earlier comment.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:56 PM on June 4, 2008


Speaking of sexism, Clinton supporters praised her "testicular fortitude" and said "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on June 4, 2008


Hence it's not universal.

Employee: What about health care?
Employer: We cover all employees!
Employee: I don't want it!
Employer: No prob. Took you off the list.
Employee: You don't cover all your employees! You lied!
posted by cashman at 12:58 PM on June 4, 2008 [9 favorites]


Well, russilwvong, I think there's some confusion about how the term "Universal Coverage" is being used in some cases. "Universal coverage" is sometimes meant to indicate universal access to coverage (which we don't currently have in the US, because things like exclusions of preexisting condition, denial of coverage for risk, and other barriers currently make health care coverage not even an option for many Americans).

Obama's plan provides universal access to coverage, and that's a major step in the right direction. The other sense in which the term "universal coverage" is used is in the more literal, "universal membership" sense, where everyone participates in some kind of health plan, whether they like it or not. None of the health plans on the table so far have offered premium-free coverage, so in either "universal" scenario, consumers have to pay something out-of-pocket to participate in the plan. With our current economic woes, running on the platform, "I plan to make each and every one of you pay mandatory premiums of $300--500 a month for universal health-care" doesn't sound like much of a winning proposition to me.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:02 PM on June 4, 2008


Ugh, can you guys back of substantive discussion of the ins and outs of access to health care and get back to identity politics vitriol? This thread has just about beaten down all of my optimism and at this point I'd rather it just finished the job.
posted by nanojath at 1:13 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


This thread has just about beaten down all of my optimism

Optimism is un-american, because it implies things could get better. If things could get better, that would mean that the Past is not Perfect. That would then mean that our constant efforts to turn back the clock might have been in vain!

...and that's just plain godless, wrong & communist. Things were better yesterday! People were happier in Olden Times! People were more god-fearing in Olden Times!

The Past is Perfect. It is timeless, flawless, and all-consuming. We must turn back the clock at all costs. Go back to Russia you forward-looking commie.
posted by aramaic at 1:42 PM on June 4, 2008 [7 favorites]


I'm from a country with universal healthcare. Making it illegal to not have health insurance is not the same thing whatsoever.
posted by Artw at 1:44 PM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


Obama has stated outright opposition to universal policies, preferring instead to propose a system that would leave 7, 10, or 20 million (nobody really knows how many) people uninsured while being of uncertain benefit to the rest of us.

Totally false. Obama's plan does not "leave" anyone out. It allows people to opt-out, and provides subsidies for lower income people such that there would be no economic incentive to opt-out for lower income people. In other words, people below a certain threshold would not save any money by opting out.

His stated position position is that everyone who wants health care coverage should have it. Now you can argue that his stated position and his plan don't match, but you can't say that his stated position is to leave anyone out. Doing so would be a lie.

Yes, there are some downsides to not mandating that everyone have health care, but there are some upsides as well. It won't prevent anyone from getting the care they need, so I don't really see what the big deal is. Plus, I think it's kind of disgusting that we would be forced to pay these health insurance companies even though they've been raping the public for decades. I would prefer Single-payer, but in the absence of that, I think Obama's plan is fine.
posted by delmoi at 1:52 PM on June 4, 2008


(The other problem with mandates is that they still wouldn't create truly universal health care, because some people would ignore the mandates)
posted by delmoi at 1:53 PM on June 4, 2008


Deadenders and Scorched Earthers against Obama
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:55 PM on June 4, 2008


That website is horrible. They should be ashamed of themselves
posted by wabbittwax at 1:59 PM on June 4, 2008


Rangel: Clinton should get on with it
ABC News' Kate Snow Reports: One of Hillary Clinton’s most loyal backers on Capitol Hill is voicing frustration about the position she has put her supporters in.

In an interview with ABC News, Rep. Charles Rangel said he thinks it is time for Clinton to publicly clarify what she is doing and allow her supporters to switch their allegiance to Barack Obama.

‘Unless she has some good reasons-- which I can’t think of-- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements (of Obama) and dealing with what we have to deal with… so we can move forward,’ Rangel said....

Asked why the Senator told supporters Tuesday night that she needed more time to consider her future, Rangel said: ‘I have no clue.’

...‘The NY congressional delegation encouraged her to run for President. So we feel some obligation to stay with her as long as we can’ to give Clinton some time and space he said.

‘We just have to have a better answer as to why it helps her to victory… as to why we’re not endorsing Obama when the only person left to endorse is Obama.’

‘It’s awkward for us who are known to be her strongest supporters in the NY delegation not to be able to answer the question of how long is it going to take before you can endorse?’ he added later.

Rangel also told ABC News that he does not think the path to the vice presidency should involve a negotiation between Clinton supporters and the Obama campaign.

‘Common sense would dictate if you want to get on the ticket you don't do it by leaning heavily on the person who makes the decision. So I don't think pressure is something that should be used,’ he said.”
posted by ericb at 2:01 PM on June 4, 2008


krinklyfig: Nope. As I said, it's a long way off.

Eideteker: Please forgive my assumption. As for health care, single-payer, nationalized health care would be the ideal. In the mean-time, there's this huge health insurance industry that never should have come to exist in the first place. How exactly to deal with that (tax credits, vouchers, etc...), I'd lean towards tax credits. But, as saulgoodman discusses, the crux of the difference between Obama and Clinton is mandates. If somebody were to propose a fire protection plan where you didn't have to sign up and pay taxes for it, but you could still pick up the phone if your house caught fire and then start paying taxes, nobody would take it seriously. Obama's people have looked at this problem, even proposed a penalty for signing up late, but they haven't done the simplest thing necessary to eliminate a potentially fatal flaw from the proposal: simply add the mandates. My big worry is that the failure of his plan would do more to set back the cause for universal healthcare than offering no plan, because in the future Republicans will say, "They already tried it. It failed. Remember?" But I don't think Obama is really serious about even trying to get his plan passed. Hence my original comment.
posted by dsword at 2:02 PM on June 4, 2008


can't help but notice the domain owner and administrator's info is obscured on whois by a domain registration privacy service.

i'm just going to point out how extremely likely i think it is that this is actually just more dirty tricks taken straight from the republicans dog-eared and well-worn divide et impera playbook.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:03 PM on June 4, 2008


sorry--my comment was in reference to this.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:04 PM on June 4, 2008


Okay, so this thread is just annoying now, BUT this will cheerup any Obama fan out there.

To give you a taste:

"While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating."


"Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall"

After this, I'm officially an Obamamaniac!
posted by lattiboy at 2:11 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Obama's people have looked at this problem, even proposed a penalty for signing up late, but they haven't done the simplest thing necessary to eliminate a potentially fatal flaw from the proposal: simply add the mandates.

Simply add the mandates--and enforce them how, exactly? By charging civil penalties? Jail-time? Individual health care mandates create even bigger problems and are much harder to sell to the voting public. Hell, I'm for a universal single-payer system (assuming no out-of-pocket premiums), but I would never support an individual mandate.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:14 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's still obnoxious that the AP, among others, have been jumping on every possible angle and rumor as a reportable article. The flood of contradictory, useless crap that become substanceless "most-emailed" stories on news websites is more to blame for my political fatigue than anything else. Does anyone else get the feeling that headlines and what should be blurb-sized sections of pieces are foisted on to CNN.com and every other news aggregator as full-blown stories, causing a dramatic back-and-forth in the daily drama?

In any case, the nomination for the democratic party takes place at the convention, just as the republican one does. McCain is the expected candidate for the republicans, and it's fairly certain Obama is now the expected candidate for the democrats. It's still something to celebrate and possibly leverage to get Clinton to back down her campaign, but the terminology of claiming that there are nominees at this point is technically incorrect.
posted by mikeh at 2:20 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, it's going to be an interesting five and a half months between now and the election. And by "interesting" I mean "unbearable."

And I don't envy the winner...whoever it is will be presiding over the end of the age of plenty.
posted by you just lost the game at 2:20 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thursday is the last day of work on the Clinton Campaign.
posted by delmoi at 2:24 PM on June 4, 2008


"While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating."

"Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall"



Anyone have any additional info/context on this?
posted by stenseng at 2:26 PM on June 4, 2008


I just don't believe in Americans anymore. Not after 2004.

I know where that sentiment comes from. I was depressed for the last two months of 2004 as a result of that election (even more depressing than Bush's reinstallation was the ridiculously bigoted anti gay marriage measures). But, as down as I was, I still knew that John Kerry was a terrible, terrible candidate. The Dems short-circuited the process, and threw all of their weight behind Kerry, based on the "electability" argument (sorry, Hillary, been down that road before).

Because of Kerry, his long voting record in the Senate an his horrible mealy-mouthed voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it pronouncements, we never did get an honest debate on the war, or healthcare, or poverty or the budget, on pretty much anything, because Kerry could not distinguish himself on any one of those issues enough to sway enough middle Americans to vote for him. Even so, significant gains were made in places like North Carolina and Virginia, so another candidate might have been able to break through.

So, yeah, it was a huge disappointment that Bush won, but even I had to realize that that election was truly was between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Besides, if Kerry had been elected, we'd still be in Iraq, and the whole thing would be hung on him.

Beyond that, I will truly enjoy it when, during the traditional meeting of the once and future Presidents on Inauguration Day, Obama tells Bush, "you were so fucking bad at this job, they elected me, a black guy named Barack."
posted by psmealey at 2:28 PM on June 4, 2008 [19 favorites]


Winner of the Best Quote from the Health Care Derail: "there's this huge health insurance industry that never should have come to exist in the first place." BINGO! Just because everything CAN be turned into a trillion-dollar high-profit private industry doesn't mean it SHOULD.

As for the racist/sexist accusations, can we at least agree that 95% of the -ist slurs and innuendos aimed at both candidate came from OUTSIDE of both campaigns? (and especially those Republican-loyal conflict-of-interested well-paid media pundits) If you have to make a purity test out of it, Clinton and her campaign was somewhat more guilty more often than Obama, but mostly when she fell behind later on. (I was going to say "when she was getting desperate", but realized it would suggest "Desperate Housewives" - oh, how difficult it is to avoid unwanted connotations)

I remember when the campaign started, "Hillary and The Boys" seemed like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And if any one dwarf ended up defeating Snow White (even just barely), I'm happy to see it turned out to be Doc, and not Dopey, Grumpy or Sneezy.
posted by wendell at 2:31 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


The argument about whether or not Hillary faced any sexism is ridiculous. Of course she did, just as Obama has faced and will face more racism (Secret Muslim! Scary black church!), and McCain, for that matter, has faced and will face agism (Senior moment! One foot in the grave!). It would have been much more surprising if she, or they, hadn't.

Off the top of my head, there was the insane media reaction to her not-crying in New Hampshire (which has already been mentioned), people at a rally shouting that she should iron their shirts, McCain's non-reaction to a questioner calling her a bitch, rumors circulating that she is a lesbian or frigid, and accusations that she is too emotional to deal rationally with other heads of state or tense international situations (yeah that happened, in the mainstream media, and I can dig it up for you if you like). Etc., etc., etc.

Yes, all prominent politicians get attacked on something. No, it wasn't "the reason" she lost the nomination (although I don't believe anyone here said that it did - they just said they were tired of it.) But saying it didn't happen, or turning it into a debate over whether "shrill" is a sexist word when the same list included catty, she-devil, castrating, witchy, and Nurse Ratched ... seriously, what's the point of that?

Anyway. Health care.

For those saying the president's position isn't the be-all and end-all, that's true, but I can't help but feel that change here is much more likely to come top-down rather than bottom-up. There needs to be a pretty sweeping reform of the health-care system in the U.S., and I honesty think the president's "bully pulpit" is going to be the place where the overall tone of the debate will come from, even if many of the details are hashed out by the committees of congress.

Although Obama's plan is much better than nothing (that is to say, much better than McCain's plan), I actually would prefer one that had mandates. I worry about the overall funding if the healthy population can essentially opt out of helping to support the sick population monetarily.

I'd prefer a single-payer/tax funded plan, but that seems to be a non-starter this cycle. I've heard it argued that Obama's plan is laying the groundwork for that happening later on, and am open to the possibility if someone has a good argument.
posted by kyrademon at 2:34 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, no. By taxes, with subsidies for those with low incomes, exemptions for those with outside insurance, etc., so that the penalty is the same as for not paying taxes. There are a wide variety of plans and options, any one of which covers many more people at a much lower cost per person than any plan without mandates. That's why I preferred Clinton's plan--she went for what would work rather than the easy sell. Anyhow, as I said somewhere way up there, I'm for Obama. I'd like him to revise his plan so it would have a chance at working and passing Congress, but I don't have much hope for it. I don't think it's realistic to argue that he's really serious about getting the plan he's proposed through. I also wish the media would focus on issues such as these rather than Jeremiah Wright and blah blah blah. And I want a unicorn.
posted by dsword at 2:34 PM on June 4, 2008


If somebody were to propose a fire protection plan where you didn't have to sign up and pay taxes for it, but you could still pick up the phone if your house caught fire and then start paying taxes, nobody would take it seriously.

Sure, but if there were already a massive, competitive firefighting industry, one that many people chose not to buy into it would make sense for a government version to allow people to opt out of government firefighting. But firefighting is only a tiny portion government budget, while Healthcare is already a huge part of our entire GDP.

And anyway, there is nothing "Simple" about mandates. It's not a mandate unless there's a penalty. Social security isn't universal because not everyone works. Not everyone pays taxes.

Hillary's plan also leaves out the 12 million illegal immigrants, many of whom have lived in the country for years. Neither of their plans are Universal.
posted by delmoi at 2:35 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, no. By taxes, with subsidies for those with low incomes, exemptions for those with outside insurance, etc., so that the penalty is the same as for not paying taxes.

Ah but again, only people who work pay taxes. So how do you mandate coverage for people who don't have any income?
posted by delmoi at 2:36 PM on June 4, 2008


He had no religious affiliation until his conversion to Christianity.

?
posted by tachikaze at 2:36 PM on June 4, 2008


saulgoodman: "Universal coverage" is sometimes meant to indicate universal access to coverage (which we don't currently have in the US, because things like exclusions of preexisting condition, denial of coverage for risk, and other barriers currently make health care coverage not even an option for many Americans). Obama's plan provides universal access to coverage, and that's a major step in the right direction.

Thanks for the clarification; I tend to agree.
posted by russilwvong at 2:36 PM on June 4, 2008


He had no religious affiliation until his conversion to Christianity.

?


What's confusing you about that? He was an atheist, now he's a Christian.
posted by delmoi at 2:39 PM on June 4, 2008


Michiganders and Floridians [some other words about something].

Michiganders and Floridians, Delawarians and Delawarites, Connect...icans and Oregonians, Utans? Utes?, and all persons with awkward demonyms, unite!

Okay, Floridian isn't that awkward.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 2:40 PM on June 4, 2008


Utans?

Utahns.

Man I love that word.
posted by dersins at 2:42 PM on June 4, 2008


Carter: Don't pick Clinton

The big sexist.
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on June 4, 2008


"Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall"

Please, please, PLEASE let their be video.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2008


Beyond that, I will truly enjoy it when, during the traditional meeting of the once and future Presidents on Inauguration Day, Obama tells Bush, "you were so fucking bad at this job, they elected me, a black guy named Barack."

I know this was written with levity, but ... is it funny because it's true?
posted by jabberjaw at 2:46 PM on June 4, 2008


dsword, I also worry about the possibility of the bill's passage ... one reason I supported Clinton's was that I thought a lot fewer people would try to kill it.

I'm not sure what the argument is here about social security/taxes/etc. They seem to be exactly parallel to me, i.e.:

Social Security: Younger working people pay in to subsidize older retired people, because they will be subsidized themselves when they retire. Younger working people too poor to pay in are given a special pass.

Health care (with mandates or tax-funded): Healthy people pay in to subsidize sick people, because they will be subsized themselves when they get sick. Healthy people too poor to pay in are given a special pass.

Social security even has additional private packages you can purchase on top of the one everyone gets, although I don't think private or corporate retirement accounts are quite as bloated and evil as the insurance industry currently is.
posted by kyrademon at 2:48 PM on June 4, 2008


I think it's cute how you all have Passionate Opinions yet, statistically speaking, little more than half of you actually voted at the last election. Squee!
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:49 PM on June 4, 2008


Something's a little different about the DNC website today... can't put my finger on it...

"Thank you Hillary" indeed.
posted by anthill at 2:51 PM on June 4, 2008


A Devastating Bombshell on Obama Will Be Dropped Tomorrow

What's on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape?

Does anyone know what this is about?
posted by homunculus at 2:56 PM on June 4, 2008


Simply add the mandates--and enforce them how, exactly? By charging civil penalties?

Mandatory Health Insurance in Massachusetts, Buy It or Pay a Fine.
posted by ericb at 2:56 PM on June 4, 2008


Eideteker meant to write "As a [temporarily] healthy young male with no [current] chronic conditions, I have no stake [don't realize I have a very big] stake in this debate [yet]."

ftfy

Nearly everyone in the United States is one major illness away from bankruptcy.
posted by mullingitover at 3:01 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


I think it's cute how you all have Passionate Opinions yet, statistically speaking, little more than half of you actually voted at the last election. Squee!

I suspect that many/most of the Americans posting in this thread did indeed vote last time around. I also suspect that many/most voted for John Kerry and not George W. Bush. Just a suspicion, ya' know?
posted by ericb at 3:02 PM on June 4, 2008


TPM highlight reel of response to McCain's speech yesterday. The consensus is it sucked.
posted by delmoi at 3:08 PM on June 4, 2008


I suspect that many/most of the Americans posting in this thread did indeed vote last time around.

Agreed. But did their family, their friends, their colleagues? When they all went down to the polling booths did they turned to their loved ones and say "Well, coming?" and did their loved once go "Nah, can't be bothered" and did they just leave it at that?

I admit though, my comment was a little unnecessarily snarky. It just infuriates me that we've got a country that controls the world and is populated by, I would argue, a disproportionately high share of intelligent and passionate individuals (as evinced by this thread), yet these individuals are letting the other half get away with murder.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:08 PM on June 4, 2008


as someone who, literally, didn't have a horse in this race and couldn't care less anyway, I've been entirely fascinated by the fact that a woman and a black man were fighting for the nomination in a race that was that close (yes she should have pulled out earlier, but she did win a shitload of votes, admit it: and that's pretty awesome, regardless of her politics). this, by itself, is truly revolutionary, no matter how much the two sides may loathe the other as of today. believe someone who wasn't rooting for anyone -- you had yourself the most impressive race of modern times already. we've all been witnesses to something historical.

I'm just relieved that the primaries are over, mostly because the "Hillary is a frigid lesbian first-wife-with-a-nasty-lawyer-and-you-have-no-prenup thief murderer with fat thighs bad pantsuits and inappropriate cleavage" media coverage was seriously starting to get old; so hallelujah for the eventual end of an especially nasty spring. Obama is lucky that the press will now beat the drums of the "liberal, out of touch, elitist" thing (I MEAN HE DRINKS ORGANIC TEA CHRIST WHO IS THIS MAN TRUE AMERICANS DRINK BEER STRAIGHT FROM THE KEG); it's lame, what Obama will have to take from the media, but much less nasty that what Hillary had to take (and no matter how much you hate her, she _did_ have to take a lot of misogynistic shit from the media, seriously).


But either way, if Obama loses in November, a lot of people are going to place a lot of the blame directly on her.

Blame whomever you want, we all saw how blaming 2000 on Nader and the mean Supreme Court totally helped Gore get nominated again and win against Bush in 2004. I'd be surprised if Hillary ran again in 2012 anyway, at this point, mostly for financial reasons and especially because after losing an election that was already in the bag for indulging in the woman/black guy fight, you can be pretty sure the party will nominate a white, centrist Southerner unless they really want to give up the White House forever -- unless Obama loses 1-49 like Mondale did, then who knows, maybe Hillary will have a chance in 2012, nobody knows.

I totally see Obama running again in 2012 if he loses in November because his fans won't care that he lost, the way Stevenson's fans didn't care he lost twice and they totally wanted to nominate him for the third time in 1960 (until Kennedy, back then depicted by then Stevenson people as a McCarthyite, decided it'd be a good idea to win an election, for once, and got himself nominated due to some pretty smart maneuvering and his dad's money and connections).

I have no idea how this is going to end and neither do you, no matter how little you think Obama's shit stinks every time he drops rose petals in the toilet bowl. What we do know is that it's possible to lose in November after leading by 17 points in August (just ask poor Dukakis, who was as liberal and out of touch as Obama but at least was white and totally not a Muslim).

We. Just. Don't. Know.

But, again, the fact that a black man got nominated by a major party, and he had to fight tooth and nail against not the usual white dude but against a woman, well, this is by itself cause for celebration. Things do change indeed. More power to Obama, and to Mrs. Clinton for that.

Now brace yourself for a pretty nasty season of Swift Boating against your guy -- and God knows nothing will be off limits, drugs, those schools in Indonesia, his father's background, nothing.
posted by matteo at 3:09 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Loved ones", god-damn it.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:09 PM on June 4, 2008


turgid dahlia writes "I think it's cute how you all have Passionate Opinions yet, statistically speaking, little more than half of you actually voted at the last election. Squee!"

Where are the results of this metafilter survey you speak of?
posted by mullingitover at 3:10 PM on June 4, 2008


Does anyone know what this is about?

I won't bother linking to it, but Larry Johnson at noquarterusa.net has been threatening to TURN THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN!!!!! with this supposed tape for days now. My favorite post from a few days ago, when people got on their case about not delivering the goods:
FYI, for those expecting to SEE the tape, GET REAL. Read Larry Johnson’s description of what is ON the tape. That is the story.
Uh, yeah.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:13 PM on June 4, 2008


a woman and a black man were fighting for the nomination in a race that was that close...this, by itself, is truly revolutionary...

Yes! Indeed it is a moment in history about which we all should be proud. American, non-American, black, white, gay, straight, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, religious, atheist, etc.
posted by ericb at 3:13 PM on June 4, 2008




Deadenders and Scorched Earthers against Obama
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:55 PM on June 4 [+] [!]


On the brighter side:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

all five of them
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:14 PM on June 4, 2008


"Loved ones", god-damn it.

Don't be swearing at my mother! ;-)
posted by ericb at 3:14 PM on June 4, 2008


Hmm, a demonstrably smart candidate that just left his church because it started talking crap, or a demonstrably cunning candidate who sucked up to the right wing version of their church in order to get right wingish policies enabled with a forlorn hint of the left?

Gee. I'm so conflicted
posted by Sparx at 3:15 PM on June 4, 2008


'Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:17 PM on June 4, 2008


The first thing I thought after reflecting on Obama's moving speech last night was "man, this guy is fucked." The story is all revolutionary leaders who eventually assumed power had the same first words - "now the real problems begin."

Apart from the big questions like, how is he going to turn around an economy in the toilet? How is he going to end the war? there are nagging little questions like will they continue to hide the names and images of the soldiers who have given their lives in the war? Will they "not comment on ongoing investigations?" Will they actually go to the trouble of getting rid of such stupid things as the Homeland Security mood ring?

How is he going to repair the damage done by the worst presidency ever? Even the incumbent VP decided he wasn't even going to try to inherit this wretched mess.
posted by minkll at 3:20 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


A Devastating Bombshell on Obama Will Be Dropped Tomorrow

What's on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape?

Does anyone know what this is about?


I've seen the rumor before, and I think there's even been a suggestion before that the tape was about to surface. Searching for information on it leads to some really nasty websites though. And all I can find is opinion and guesses and opinions on the guesses. No real information.
posted by Tehanu at 3:21 PM on June 4, 2008


Nearly everyone in the United States is one major illness away from bankruptcy.

And most of the rest of us are post-bankruptcy but not post-illness.
posted by wendell at 3:23 PM on June 4, 2008


Social Security: Younger working people pay in to subsidize older retired people, because they will be subsidized themselves when they retire. Younger working people too poor to pay in are given a special pass.

Except, as Social Security is not universal, it only applies to people who earn income from work (and not from, say, dividends or capital gains). And many americans are already forced to get health insurance -- by their employer.

The question in my mind is, why should the poor be forced to subsidize the health insurance of the rich? Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize the health insurance of the poor through simple taxation? I believe the answer is yes.

What's on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape?

Does anyone know what this is about?


Michell criticisises bush by asking rhetorical questions like "Why did he do this" "Why did he do do that?" and the crazies hear "Why'd he" as "whitey" (i.e "whitey send us to Iraq!" "Whitey let New Orleans drown!")

That's what I've heard, anyway.
posted by delmoi at 3:23 PM on June 4, 2008


Apart from the big questions like, how is he going to turn around an economy in the toilet? How is he going to end the war?

He doesn't need to end the war, he needs to end our involvement the war. I'm sure the Iraqis will keep fighting for a while, but that's not our problem.

(And if they could, they'd be voting for us to leave anyway. U.S. troop presence is extremely unpopular with the Iraqi people)
posted by delmoi at 3:27 PM on June 4, 2008


I like what Michelle Obama said about living in fear.</a?
posted by Tehanu at 3:29 PM on June 4, 2008


The preceding borked link was brought to you by the Committee For Preview. For a stronger MetaFilter.
posted by Tehanu at 3:30 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


"whitey send us to Iraq!" "Whitey let New Orleans drown!"

Again... like Jeremiah Wright's quotes, somewhat out of context, perhaps, but all based on unimpeachable fact (well, except maybe the AIDS thing), but yet, somehow people are allowed to act offended by it.

Funny, I was listening to the Bill Moyers interview with Wright again yesterday, and it struck my how reasonable, good and well-considered his answers were to the questions about his sermons. Yet, despite all that, people still think that merely mentioning Wright's name disparages Obama. Oh, well. Life in America.
posted by psmealey at 3:32 PM on June 4, 2008


Delmoi --

"Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize the health insurance of the poor through simple taxation?"

Yes, of course. That's also my position.

...

All right then. Onward!
posted by kyrademon at 3:33 PM on June 4, 2008


Deadenders and Scorched Earthers against Obama

I scrolled down a bit on that page and found this lovely little ditty:
OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND WE MUST TAKE THIS TO DENVER FOR JUSTICE TO BE DONE!

WE WILL FIGHT DAY AND NIGHT
WE WILL FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT
WE WILL MARCH UNTIL VICTORY IS IN SIGHT
WE WILL WIN, FOR HILLARY IS OUR GUIDING LIGHT

WITH HILLARY WE ARE ONE VOICE
HILLARY IS THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE

WE THE PEOPLE NOMINATE HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

YES SHE CAN
YES WE WILL
posted by aqhong at 3:35 PM on June 4, 2008


Remember aqhong, it's Obama's supporters that have the messiah complex.
posted by psmealey at 3:37 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


How is he going to repair the damage done by the worst presidency ever?

Um, start with "Do no harm"? Seriously, are you asking your question relative to a McCain Administration or just relative to the possibility if/when Obama wins the nomination that the damage wrought by the W. Administration is just insurmountable? That's not an argument.

The answers that come to my mind:

1. Presidency first, "oh no what if this is too haaaard" later.

2. Even if things get worse or don't turn around in the next 4 years, people will remember that these problems started under Bush and have been going on for a while now. They'll also remember the way things were under Clinton.

3. You could have made this argument in 2004 (or, less convincingly in 2000). I'll take my chances with the risks of failure, thanks.

4. None of this matters. We have to win. It's too late for handwringing over the fear of failure. Even if Obama gets elected and then blamed, that means we survived to blame him. McCain has adopted most of Bush's positions, and if he got elected wouldn't have a mandate for change like Obama, which is singularly important right now.

Even the incumbent VP decided he wasn't even going to try to inherit this wretched mess.

... Are you honestly suggesting that Cheney ever considered running for President this year, or ever?
posted by spiderwire at 3:37 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Who's going to be the first to say - after his election - that he's not really black anyway? Not like those other blacks? And that the first black US president was really just a white guy (like the other white guys before him who became president) with a bit more melanin?

Wondering this from a number of viewpoints. Racists arguing for why the US would never elect a black president; a term in office that does not deliver on the promise of his candidacy; or even those just pissing on the parade should he not make it that far?

Just wondering. Not arguing that any of these eventualities are things I want to see played out, but genuinely curious as to how this will progress. This guy is trailblazing for a whole difference in presidency (not just a different president), one not represented by entrenched old-white-boy club politics. There must be an element in that circle that really really doesn't want Obama in power, because then the floodgates are open and the old guard is facing inevitable decline. Should he win all the way, will they respond by denying his race and accepting the man, or will there be an attempt to undermine him more explicitly?

(or maybe I'm not giving Rice and Powell enough credit)
posted by davemee at 3:38 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


turgid dahlia: you know that in the US, unlike Australia, voting is not compulsory? And that it's held on a week day, in a fairly narrow time window, with little legal protection for taking time off to vote, such that it's likely to disenfranchise a big chunk of the working poor?

US voting stats look terrible, but once I started digging into the mechanics of how presidential polling is actually done I started feeling a lot more sympathetic.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:39 PM on June 4, 2008


Does anyone know what this is about?

This is a rumour that has been circulating for about a month now. Since last weekend or so, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) has jumped on it and suggested the release was imminent, and apparently commentators on Fox News have in multiple instances dropped hints that may be interpreted as referring to the matter.

For the last few days or so, No Quarter and HillBuzz (which homunculus both linked) have been on the web forefront - as far as chatter and linkage go - of extending this rumour.

I must admit I kind of fell for it last Sunday when the chattering on this - relatively old, in Web/politics time - suddenly increased dramatically. I'm not a sensationalist, I think, and I'm skeptical of rumours by nature, but Sunday evening it seemed like virtually everyone was talking about it. No Quarter was overwhelmed with traffic, and a big announcement seemed due for Monday 9 AM ET.

Then, nothing. Lots of nothing. Ever since then, I've learned the following:

-No Quarter's server gets overwhelmed a *lot*, and they really should get better hosting. (At least HillBuzz is at Blogspot.)
-NQ and HillBuzz have been frantically linking to each other's supposed big announcements that have consistently been followed by crickets.
-Larry Johnson doesn't like Barack Obama.
-Johnson believes the Obama campaign has hired 300 bloggers to say only nice things about him.
-First the footage was supposed to be of Mrs. Obama at the pulpit at Trinity. Then it was an 2004 event which the wife of Louis Farrakhan also purportedly attended. Now the footage is alleged to be from a DVD that was allegedly at one time sold from the Trinity website, and we are supposed to believe that there are not already various copies of a commercially available DVD circulating, and that they somehow haven't yet ended up with someone willing to put the offending passages on YouTube.
-Larry Johnson really doesn't like Barack Obama.
-Soon, the web was atwitter with statements from bloggers claiming to be familiar with either the event or the footage that the controversy centers around a simple mishearing of "why'd he" as "whitey".
-NQ's comment form says "E-mail (required - never shown publicly)", but apparently Johnson has no qualms about posting the email addresses of people who appear to be posting under multiple identities (which, in this case, admittedly seems plausible).
-Even Michelle Malkin says Johnson is "not, not, not to be trusted".
-When Bob Beckel said something on Fox News that could be interpreted as a hint about this issue, Fox News blogger Alisyn Camerota reported on it but the posting was swiftly deleted without notice.
-Larry Johnson really, really doesn't like Barack Obama.
-A bit of a grudgy blog drama has developed between NQ and the Booman Tribune.
-If you're into monosyllabic all-caps FUD paranoid schizophrenic realityphobic blog comment trainwrecks, NQ is the place for you. I guess this kind of situation brings out the trolls in a big way - someone expressed some vocal indignation at this Onion article and I thought that was too much missing-the-point-ness even for NQ, but maybe I'm naive - but really, it's a very exquisite and unique kind of commenting idiocy, which the connoisseur will certainly savour.

Also, ABC is reporting that HRC will drop out by Friday.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:44 PM on June 4, 2008 [12 favorites]


Michell criticisises bush by asking rhetorical questions like "Why did he do this" "Why did he do do that?" and the crazies hear "Why'd he" as "whitey" (i.e "whitey send us to Iraq!" "Whitey let New Orleans drown!")

That's what I've heard, anyway.


Theory 1: Larry Johnson heard "whitey" and didn't realize his mistake until he'd touted the tape to the world as OMG WORST THING EVAR, and now doesn't want to look like a complete fool by releasing it -- he's just waiting for it to die down.

Theory 2: This is a bunch of FUD with no basis in reality, just like the "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense.

Either way, it's a bunch of whisper-campaign crap. Some twit just released a news item about a damning Michelle Obama tape, so that the wingnuts who already think she's an America-hating fifth columnist could just let their imaginations run wild.

The singular detail originally discussed was "blaming the white man," which is absurdly vague as well as obviously lifted wholesale from the Rev. Wright nonsense -- since then it's evolved into "whitey" vs. "why'd he" or crap about Farrhakan's wife and blah blah blah

Note that every aspect of the rumors thus far has been a pale reflection of crap that's already circulated -- it's not even original bullshit, it's just what's credible to the people repeating the story. Considering how long it took Obama's "bitter" remarks to a private fundraiser to make it out into the media cycle, or how quickly Clinton's sniper story was compared to the record, there's no fucking way Michelle Obama makes remarks about "whitey" and it doesn't make it onto cable news within 24 hours. Clinton's oppo team wouldn't have missed it. Larry Johnson wouldn't be able to sit on the only copy. It's just a wingnut circle-jerk -- a big game of bigot telephone.

Michelle's said some slightly off-color stuff this campaign, because she's not a politician, but she's also not stupid. And she's not a Manchurian Candidate for black nationalism, despite what a bunch of people who will fervently deny being racists might suspect. She didn't stand up for a public address and go on some unhinged rant. That's fucking absurd. She's a Harvard-educated lawyer, for god's sake. This defies credibility.

We should stop giving this non-story political oxygen by worrying about it. It's bait; it's a sham; get a hold of yourselves.
posted by spiderwire at 3:56 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


US voting stats look terrible, but once I started digging into the mechanics of how presidential polling is actually done I started feeling a lot more sympathetic.

Actually, because of the different voting methods and how people in certain areas value voting, it's not cut-and-dry. Washington allows permanent absentee balloting, part of the reason it saw an 82% turnout in 2004. Oregon is entirely vote-by-mail; turnout for the primary exceeded 50%.

And again, comparing Australia's turnout, where voting is compulsory, to US turnout rates, where it's voluntary, is silly. If the compulsory rules were dropped, you think 95% would still show up?
posted by dw at 3:58 PM on June 4, 2008


Or, what gnfti said.
posted by spiderwire at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2008


nicwolff, I am well aware of Biden's remarks, and as I said, I am sure that there are still people today who use "he's well spoken" as a backhanded racist insult. But to insinuate, as you seem to be doing, that, in general, "Barack Obama is well spoken" is necessarily akin to "Barack Obama is clean"? That frankly strikes me as being offended for the sake of being offended.
posted by Flunkie at 4:00 PM on June 4, 2008


Who's going to be the first to say - after his election

You can call my momma a combat-boot wearing atheist who likes peanut butter on Trix after he gets elected. Cause me and a few million friends are going to be euphoric that week. I already had relatives emailing me about if he gets elected, going to the inauguration. He's a long way from there, but that's once-in-a-lifetime stuff.

In all this madness with Hillary, I think it has tempered enthusiasm enough while allowing slight celebration, to keep things focused on the new task at hand. That's what I liked about his people and his supporters that were on television. They were even-tempered. They were poised and seem focused.

Racism is going to creep out from the shadows and the gutters, for a mighty fight. And I hope it gets beaten back by the lot of us, no matter who wins.
posted by cashman at 4:08 PM on June 4, 2008


According to Larry Johnson, I can get $1,000,000 from an anonymous billionaire Republican for giving him a copy of the damning Michelle Obama tape! That sure beats the beans Obama's campaign have been paying me (and 399 other people) for saying nice things about him in the internet.

And, oh yeah, Obama is really neat.
posted by jabberjaw at 4:10 PM on June 4, 2008


Larry Johnson should take a cold, hard look at the way he is behaving.
posted by Flunkie at 4:16 PM on June 4, 2008



"Harvard Law School" is "less educated" than "Yale Law School"?

Depends on whether you're a Yalee or a Harvard Man.


Heh, reminds me of a joke - how do you tell if a person went to Yale?

They tell you.

I'm here all week, try the veal.
posted by Happy Dave at 4:16 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton Moving to Suspend Campaign and Endorse Obama Friday.
posted by rtha at 4:17 PM on June 4, 2008


Oh, yeah, and wooo! Very glad Obama has the nomination. Now I may just possibly consider moving to the US with my American wife at some point. Maybe. If you replicate the NHS and fire all the thuggish DHS border guard goons.
posted by Happy Dave at 4:18 PM on June 4, 2008


Also, ABC is reporting that HRC will drop out by Friday.

Yeah, definitely looking to me like she's just stretching it a few days and being ambiguous to bilk her supporters for her massive debt. Christ, what an asshole. She could at least be honest about it and there's probably still enough who would line up to give her cash. But from comments on her blog:

Totals to date,I have contributed $460.00 out of my unemployment check, anyone want to match me ?


I just made a $25 contribution - It isn't much to some, but all I could give now.

I made another contribution yesterday. I could only afford $10 (yes the economy has hit me), but that makes my personal contribution over $100...


This is fucking shameless blatant immorality and wrongness even for a politician.

Here's one person who sort of realizes what's up but seems to feel like the debt is shared by all Hillary supporters:

I donated this morning to show Hillary that I'm still there for her. $25 is all I could afford this time, but every bit helps in paying down the debts of OUR campaign, and helping Hillary make her next move.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 4:18 PM on June 4, 2008


Clinton Moving to Suspend Campaign and Endorse Obama Friday.
Good. But, at this point, I cannot help but think that it's going to essentially be "I endorse Barack Obama, even though I got more votes and am the better candidate and am readier-on-day-one and all eighteen quadrillion of you have said so!"
posted by Flunkie at 4:21 PM on June 4, 2008


The argument that Obama is a weak candidate for not finishing off Clinton is rather like saying that the 2004 Red Sox were a weak team for beating the Yankees in seven games.
posted by klangklangston at 4:21 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


The argument that Obama is a weak candidate for not finishing off Clinton is rather like saying that the 2004 Red Sox were a weak team for beating the Yankees in seven games.

Also, any formerly likely Clinton win would be a similar "limp across the finish line."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 4:23 PM on June 4, 2008


Did anybody else secretly hope he'd begin his speech by saying
"My fellow Americans..pardon me while I whip it out!"

(I bet it's occured to him)
posted by jonmc at 4:24 PM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


Worh mentioning: I miss DaShiv in this thread.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:26 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Okay, the tape sounds like a non-issue then. Thanks everyone, especially goodnewsfortheinsane.
posted by homunculus at 4:29 PM on June 4, 2008


As for the comments about Clinton, it's really strange to me how so many Democrats today sound like parrots of right-wingers from 15 years ago, with their dire predictions about how the bitch won't stop until she's destroyed everything good.

For me, watching Clinton is a bit like watching a mountain climber on Everest who isn't going to make the summit but is *so* *close*. I'm only modestly ambitious, but I can definitely relate to the ambition that would make anybody in that position not want to call off the ascent.

And the thing about *any* presidential candidate, surnamed Clinton or otherwise, is that you don't get to the point where you're a viable candidate for a major national party without having having a level of ambition that would the ambitions of a lot of succesful look like a really lazy Sunday morning. This is why it's easy to make many of them look like megalomaniacs unless you're inclined to be charitable.

So, Clinton's close to Everest. *So* close. Invested years and years in this. Can't possibly have another shot for four, maybe eight years, and even that's chancey. She *might* win if just a few things break her way -- if she can just get all the superdelegates who believed in her a year or two ago to come back around, if she can just get Florida and Michigan seated at full strength...

I'd say you don't need to be a monster to want to try *just* those few things -- to want to push yourself just a little bit further after having pushed so far, just in case things might break your way and you can better live with yourself the next couple of years knowing you *really* gave it everything you had. You just need to be human.

The flip side of this? The line between humanity and ambition that outpaces its balancing concerns can be pretty fine. Clinton's continued campaigning really does allow opinions like the ones paulsc has expressed in the thread to get a better hold even if they're hardly rational. It's probable that just shutting her down would be worse, and that's one of the reasons this has been allowed to go on.

I've been bothered for a while that Obama sounds a hell of a lot like George W. Bush did in 2000. Instead of "faith," it's "hope." Instead of "uniter, not a divider," it's "not red states and blue states, but United States." It's meaningless rhetoric.

I think it's totally wrong to call this meaningless rhetoric. It's possible that Obama can't live up to it, I think it's likely that he can't deliver on *all* of it in 1-2 presidential terms, and I think it's even conceivable that he doesn't mean it at all.

But the ideas themselves? Not at all meaningless. If they were meaningless, they wouldn't even upset cynics, and they darn well wouldn't capture people. Maybe he can't make the ideas work, but they're rhetoric with a *lot* of meaning.

If Obama lined up with Bush on alot of other points besides sharing a bit of this in their campaigns, I'd be bothered too. However, they're so transparently different.

I also don't understand the complete opposition to a Clinton VP spot.

It will weaken his message; it will bring the Clinton political baggage to his candidacy as well as her support. Do those weaknesses overcome her support? That's the question. Those who oppose her in the VP spot feel the answer is yes.

Obama is a politician, just like Clinton.

Obama will, like any politician, have to operate in the quintessential universe of compromise, clout, and connection, and it's best to get that revelation out of the way. He will have to do political things. He *has* done political things.

But is every politician *really* alike? Is there really nothing that differentiates Clinton and Obama? I think it's obvious the answer is no.

The most disappointing aspect of Obama's victory, to me, is that it almost certainly means 8 more years without universal health care in this country. Not only is his policy not universal, it probably won't work. Moreover, it's very unlikely that he'll even be able to get it passed

Let's leave aside that the phrase "not universal" is extremely problematic in any comparison between the Clinton and Obama plans (they are almost exactly as universal, unless you assume the mandate will make things that aren't feasible happen for those who can't comply).

If Clinton is really about universal care, why couldn't she use her clout combined with Obama's as President to be equally effective?
posted by weston at 4:35 PM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


So, Clinton's close to Everest.

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that Everest cheated by being 100 feet too high.
posted by scody at 4:38 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yeah, well tell that to Hillary.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:42 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


It would be beyond fantastic if Obama somehow got Senator Chuck Hagel as his VP. It would send an enormously powerful message of change to reach out to a Republican in a display of unity. Hagel is moderate, anti-war, anti-Bush, etc, so he's not exactly the Republican core, but his selection would do a lot to back up Obama's message.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:57 PM on June 3 [3 favorites +] [!]


This is the one and only thing that would make me vote against Obama. Hagel and the other Republicans--and a lot of other Democrats--allowed Bush to go berserk for far too long.

And by the way--not on this site but another of others, some of the Obama people sound absolutely insane--he's perfect, I'll stand by him no matter what, fuck eveyrone else. Today a bunch of them were raving about how great it was that there were no leaks from the Obama campaign. Sounds a lot like the early days of the Bush syndicate. I think Obama's fantastic but he is not God and people who think he is are in for a really serious letdown. Beat McCain, push Hillary out, yes (though she needn't be demonized) but get a grip.
posted by etaoin at 4:46 PM on June 4, 2008


And by the way--not on this site but another of others, some of the Obama people sound absolutely insane--he's perfect, I'll stand by him no matter what, fuck eveyrone else.

Just this once, I'm choosing to suspend my cynicism. Please don't shit on my dreams.
posted by empath at 4:52 PM on June 4, 2008


But that doesn't mean that Everest cheated by being 100 feet too high.

Well, then God cheated.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:56 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hmm, that was kind of obscure, maybe I should have put this in the full stop or something.

Okay, the tape sounds like a non-issue then.

Well, there's certainly the possibility that it's a fabricated FUD campaign from the Republicans, or - paranoia and cynicism permitting - the Clinton camp.

Or even, just to keep even the most naive and theoretical options open, that's it's just a game of Chinese telephone gone all awry.

And then, of course, there are those who admittedly have a point in saying that every discussion of it merely perpetuates an - for now - unsubstantiated rumour.

However, I feel more discussion is warranted. For one, many of us have our misgivings about Fox News - Lord knows I do, and I'm not even American - but one can't help but wonder why, when commentators have allegedly been dropping "hints" on Fox News, they haven't been called out about it on-air, while mention of the matter is apparently conspicuously absent on the channel's regular programming.

More specifically, I'd really like an explanation as to why Alisyn Camerota's blog entry was deleted. This seems like one of those occasions where the Republicans (and hyporealistic hardcore Clintonites) don't want to question the matter, and Obama supporters / Democrats just don't care enough to raise the issue, or are too scared of the video indeed being real and damaging to waste any more words on it.

I don't think I'm paranoid enough to actually be worried about the rumour, but the conundrum described above seems like some sort of punditry and blogging vacuum that I'd really like to see filled.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:58 PM on June 4, 2008


And by the way--not on this site but another of others, some of the Obama people sound absolutely insane--he's perfect, I'll stand by him no matter what, fuck eveyrone else.

Just this once, I'm choosing to suspend my cynicism. Please don't shit on my dreams.
posted by empath at 7:52 PM on June 4 [+] [!]


I'm not, just asking that Obama true believers take a breath and stop shitting on everyone who isn't quite as insanely in love with the guy. And listen to themselves a little. Substitute the name and some of the words sound remarkably like the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party talking about Bush. Take a look at the blogs over at talkingpointsmemo.com
The name calling this week out of control.
posted by etaoin at 4:58 PM on June 4, 2008


No argument from me, scody. Personally, I think she should concede.

But one more point on this. She may not even just be being selfish. She may genuinely believe she is much more qualified to be President than Obama is (or that she's much more qualified to beat McCain than he is) and if he gets the nomination instead of her, the country will really suffer, either by effectively gaining McCain as president (a prospect I have been told by a few people somewhat familiar with the universe of the Senate is truly scary), or by getting a less effective progressive executive in Pres. Obama than they would have in Pres. Clinton.

I bring this up not to support her continued run. I'll say it again: I think she should concede. If she were to somehow secure the nomination at this point, the Democrats will have a nominee who narrowly lost rather than one that narrowly won.

But this "She's a monster" stuff is counterproductive. It's not the most likely explanation, and it's certainly not going to help the Obama or the Democratic party to repeat it.
posted by weston at 5:02 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Yeah, well tell that to Hillary.?

Edmund?
posted by klangklangston at 5:03 PM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


I visited my grandma this weekend, just after her 80th birthday. 9 out of 10 people in her peer group (80-year-old Jewish women) have got to be Hillary supporters. But she easily proclaimed, "I don't see how any man could vote for Hillary, she is such a bitch!" I have never been more proud to be my mom's mom's daughter's son.
posted by MarkO at 5:05 PM on June 4, 2008


Hill's shown remarkable strength throughout the campaign.

She deserved to stay in it until it was over and I appreciate that she did. As do millions of folks who voted for her even after she was declared out of it.
posted by valentinepig at 5:08 PM on June 4, 2008


You know who else won the nomination of his party?

John McCain.
posted by oaf at 5:10 PM on June 4, 2008


Should he win all the way, will they respond by denying his race and accepting the man, or will there be an attempt to undermine him more explicitly?

That's racist.

Obama may be, literally, of African-American ancestry, and has worked from the ground up in the American "African-American" community, but being my usual contrarian iconoclastic self I find one's socio-economic culture to be much, much more important -- let's say a trillion times -- more important than one's DNA heritage.

Note that I know anything of much detail about his upbringing, but I don't think he came out of the Chicago projects or Detroit or Oakland ghettoes.
posted by tachikaze at 5:16 PM on June 4, 2008


Hill's shown remarkable strength throughout the campaign.

This is a great point that bears repeating: she entered this contest a virtual unknown, with no major party backing and the liability of bearing a controversial name and identity only to come within inches of besting the political insider formerly married to ...

... ah, fuck it. Satire's redundant at this point. Cry me a river: the insider lost.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:26 PM on June 4, 2008 [8 favorites]


Sounds a lot like the early days of the Bush syndicate.

You mean when they were winning everything and reshaping the political landscape?
posted by spiderwire at 5:27 PM on June 4, 2008


The name calling this week out of control.

Context called: it wants your brain back.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:29 PM on June 4, 2008


The presidential race will end with obama chasing mccain into a cinema.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:33 PM on June 4, 2008


Note [sic] that I know anything of much detail about his upbringing...

Period.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:34 PM on June 4, 2008


Note that I know anything [sic] of much detail about his upbringing, but I don't think he came out of the Chicago projects or Detroit or Oakland ghettoes.

You can read about his upbringing here, here and here.
posted by ericb at 5:35 PM on June 4, 2008


Second link, sorry.
posted by psyche7 at 5:45 PM on June 4, 2008


Frankly, I don't want to sing campfire songs. I want to see orange jumpsuits and subpoenas. If the GOP are not made to pay for their extra-legal excesses, I'm not sure why I should even care.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I suppose.

just what Charlie Crist had in mind...

I'm pretty sure he didn't mind getting that mandatory property tax reduction passed, either. (The Jacksonville area overwhelmingly rejected it, despite being safe GOP territory.)
posted by oaf at 5:58 PM on June 4, 2008


I don't think he came out of the Chicago projects or Detroit or Oakland ghettoes.

In the world of white racism, this doesn't matter in the least. A Harvard education and a middle-class background doesn't prevent black Americans from being profiled or discriminated against. These achievements have been won in spite of the obstacles posed by institutionalized racism, and have never protected anyone against individualized free-floating racism.

Class issues are hugely important, but the idea that if you're not from a poor, urban, underprivileged background, you're somehow not black is worth examining. It can actually be kind of reductive and offensive. That association doesn't hold for innumerable black Americans -- and other Americans, all of whom have every right to rejoice when they see this particular race barrier broken. Poverty and racism relate complexly, but they are separate things. Obama is a black American. There are all kinds of black Americans. The one thing they all share is a history of instutionalized discrimination within this nation.

It would have taken someone with his credentials, who has the imprimatur of instutions with the highest standards, to achieve the degree of legitimacy his candidacy has. Perhaps in future elections, we'll be supporting Hakeem Jeffries or someone who grew up closer to a poor urban center - but if he were running for this office today, we'd hear questions about his public education, middling law degree, public school classmates now incarcerated, etc. Obama's record and the particulars of his background mean that none of that is an issue. His education and achievements are as good or better than any white majority leader. That is, without a doubt, instrumental in his ability to topple barriers.

Sure class is important - but not this big a barrier. After all, we've already had Presidents from poor, underpriveleged backgrounds who represent the climb to success of someone from the lower classes - the most recent named Bill Clinton.
posted by Miko at 6:00 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


"Too bad the America of 2008 still can't get past skin colour."

"Since that's the case, the question now is: does the US really need another old white guy as President?"

Do you really think that attitude is going to help Obama get white voters? The country was founded by old white guys. Old white guys gave the world special relativity, the polio vaccine, and walked on the moon. But don't let that get in the way of your sloppy thinking.

Lighten up, Pastabagel, it was sarcasm.

The question (intended to ridicule the status quo) was supposed to get people to ponder why America hasn't ever had a non-white President.

It wasn't to "help Obama get white voters" (as though a comment on MeFi could ever do that), only to spotlight the overriding issue of race relations in the US.

In other words, don't vote for Obama because he's (half-black/half-white; take your pick), or for McCain because he's white, but vote for whomever you feel will be the best man for the job.

Oh, and your little diatribe about the accomplishments of old white guys? When I consider the rampant prejudices of those times (eg. Einstein wouldn't have given the world squat had he not gotten free of Nazi Germany), I can only conclude that your thinking is sloppier than mine.
posted by bwg at 6:00 PM on June 4, 2008


Note that I know anything of much detail about his upbringing, but I don't think he came out of the Chicago projects or Detroit or Oakland ghettoes.

Is this a return of the "Obama's not black enough" hobby horse?
posted by psmealey at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2008


The most disappointing aspect of Obama's victory, to me, is that it almost certainly means 8 more years without universal health care in this country.

A Clinton victory would likely mean the same thing. Clinton has shown a willingness to say or do anything in order to get elected. I have massive, massive doubts as to whether she would follow through.

Half the party (or more) prefers her to Obama

Not true for reasons discussed above your comment.
posted by oaf at 6:11 PM on June 4, 2008


She deserved to stay in it until it was over and I appreciate that she did. As do millions of folks who voted for her even after she was declared out of it.

I think everyone agrees with this statement in principle.

The disagreement was where the line was drawn to signify it being over. The way the Demcrat primary system works (as I understand it, not an American) means that even now Clinton could still technically be the nominee.

However it has been a while since she stood any halfway realistic chance of getting the nod. Obama supporters and those without a stricy loyalty to either candidate appear deem that to be the point where it was over.

Clinton supporters seem to disagree and feel that she should keep fighting on after that and that is why the Clinton campaign has caught some heat recently because that attitude appears selfish and damaging to the overall Democratic chances.

I think a lot of people would prefer that the dems save that shit for when their opponent is a republican (for a change), especially in an election which looks like its theirs to lose.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 6:13 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Obama's not black enough" hobby horse?

I find the topic tiresome. He's got my wholehearted vote.

There's something cultural here that we apparently adult enough to talk about, so never mind.
posted by tachikaze at 6:15 PM on June 4, 2008


The disagreement was where the line was drawn to signify it being over.

Worth emphasizing. I think Rangel nailed it today:
"We pledged to support her to the end," Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview "Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is."
posted by spiderwire at 6:19 PM on June 4, 2008


Spiderwire, I think we're on the same side here.

Seriously, are you asking your question relative to a McCain Administration or just relative to the possibility if/when Obama wins the nomination that the damage wrought by the W. Administration is just insurmountable?

Yeah, I'm asking with the assumption that he wins the presidency.

... Are you honestly suggesting that Cheney ever considered running for President this year, or ever?

I think it's quite revealing that he is not, it hasn't happened in quite a while. Next time I'll try to kick up the sarcasm a notch.
posted by minkll at 6:33 PM on June 4, 2008


If the compulsory rules were dropped, you think 95% would still show up?

No, but New Zealand doesn't have them, and can easily manage more than 50%. And we're only 8th in the OECD.
posted by rodgerd at 6:50 PM on June 4, 2008


everyone is telling her to quit so the younger, less educated, less experienced man with less of a chance of winning the general election can have the job

Last I checked, Clinton had one fewer degree from an Ivy League school than Obama did.

Hillary's plan also leaves out the 12 million illegal immigrants, many of whom have lived in the country for years.

Leaving out illegal immigrants does not mean that a plan isn't universal. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by oaf at 6:51 PM on June 4, 2008


The most disappointing aspect of Obama's victory, to me, is that it almost certainly means 8 more years without universal health care in this country.

As opposed to the success enjoyed by Clinton in her first run at implementing healthcare reform while first lady? Or is pointing that out sexist?

Actually, on sexism: perhaps it's because I don't actually live in the States, but I have a hard time taking the idea seriously that an upper-middle-class white woman who went to top private schools has as hard a roe to hoe as a black kid with a white mother[1].

[1] And yes, I know that he might more properly be called multiracial, but, honestly, for the people who have attitude problems about black people are going to see his skin colour and think black, right?
posted by rodgerd at 7:02 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


"'Nearly everyone in the United States is one major illness away from bankruptcy.'

And most of the rest of us are post-bankruptcy but not post-illness."


Thanks, mullingitover, you showed that you are able to read between my lines. This will serve you well once Brobama promotes me to Minister of Snark (I forgot to mention in that link that I'm also Ivy League educated, since I didn't know (or care) that Obama was as well).

And, as wendell intimates, I like to think of myself as one disabling illness away from being the next generation's wendell (love ya, big guy!). I'm hoping he's not going anywhere, but if he does, someone has to be ready to fill the vacuum.
posted by Eideteker at 7:07 PM on June 4, 2008


I think it's quite revealing that he is not, it hasn't happened in quite a while. Next time I'll try to kick up the sarcasm a notch.

Yeah... but remember, that was one of the major justifications for choosing Cheney... when... Cheney headed the committee of himself that chose himself as VP candidate...

Man, the last 8 years have been so unbelievably fucked up.
posted by spiderwire at 7:09 PM on June 4, 2008


Old white guys gave the world special relativity, the polio vaccine, and walked on the moon. But don't let that get in the way of your sloppy thinking.

Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published while he worked at the patent office, when he was 26 years old. He later became and old white man, but he wasn't one when he came up with Special Relativity. The vast majority of mathematical advances are made by people in their late 20s.

Also, while he was white, he was certainly a member of persecuted Minority, the guy was a German jew ferchrissakes.

And Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were both 39 when they landed on the moon, by the way.
posted by delmoi at 7:20 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Leaving out illegal immigrants does not mean that a plan isn't universal. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it does, universal means everyone, if everyone's not covered, it's not universal. illegal immigrants without healthcare cause the same problems as citizens without healthcare.

And anyway, I still don't think mandates = universality either, because some people will ignore the mandates.
posted by delmoi at 7:23 PM on June 4, 2008


My impression of the campaigns is that Hillary played dirty pool while Obama mainly stayed above it all. Hillary would say something horrid, and Obama would sluff it off with "Well, campaigns are stressful, I'm sure it was just a mistake."

If my impression is correct, then IMO Hillary lost mainly because most people are sick and tired of shit-throwing swift-boating negative campaigning.

Also, IMO the only advertising Obama needs to do from this point out is:

"John McCain: Four More Years of This [picture of Bush]."

Seriously, if McCain is elected, America deserves to be flushed down the toilet.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:23 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Everest analogy has very valid things to say about ambition, but there's an extension: there have been plenty of people on Everest in that sort of situation who have gotten themselves and others killed because they didn't admit they weren't making it to the top.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:23 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton to End Bid and Endorse Obama
posted by peacay at 7:24 PM on June 4, 2008


dsword writes "krinklyfig: Nope. As I said, it's a long way off. "

Well, FWIW I think Obama has a better chance of getting movement on healthcare, because he has the ability to work across party lines in a way that's severely lacking in Clinton. She may claim to be more devoted, but I don't know she'd be better at making it happen.

"Along those lines, I've been bothered for a while that Obama sounds a hell of a lot like George W. Bush did in 2000. Instead of 'faith,' it's 'hope.' Instead of 'uniter, not a divider,' it's 'not red states and blue states, but United States.' It's meaningless rhetoric. And his incessant use of the phrase 'From the [striking feature] of [place] to the [different striking feature] of [other place],' has done little to inspire my confidence in his ability to be creative, let alone lead. Rather, it's mostly made me wary of how much more he might screw the country up."

Dude, the primary differences are twofold. First, Bush is an idiot. Seriously. He's not interested in nuance, intellect, science or any of that stuff. Fuck that noise. Obama's the polar opposite, The ginning up of hope is a means to get people excited for the campaign and its possibilities. It works. It's a hell of a lot better than trying to scare people into voting for you, which is what we've gotten from the Republicans since Nixon, not to mention too many Democrats. Second, Bush quickly and easily became a tool of other people who had definite goals in mind, people who could outsmart him and manipulate him. Obama is not going to be another Bush. I'd put money on it, and I don't trust politicians as a rule, Democrats nor Republicans.

Those repeating phrases are important. Most people do not hear all the speeches. They are evolving, too. The new stuff is going to evolve into a whole new theme not long from now, when the McCain-Obama race goes into higher gear. It's only political wonks like us who notice the phrases repeating. He's really a hell of a speechwriter, along the lines of Lincoln when the moment calls for it, who also wrote his own speeches. Obama has a speechwriter now, but they work on it together, which is very rare.

I was worried, too, but he is the real deal. He's handled everything with a lot of grace and strength, coming back to improve on his weak points, like debating, and knowing when to rise above the stupidity of the game, and he doesn't crumple under fire or roll over, even when he refuses to grapple. He may not win, and November is a long way away in the political timeframe. But I'm not worried about him if he does.

"All that being said, here's hoping he wins in November. He's got my vote. Hopefully, we'll also get a big enough majority in Congress (the Senate, in particular) to actually get some things done."

Yeah, and I do think he'll be one of the only people sane enough to keep a handle on that sort of situation, with the executive and the legislative united in the same party after a particularly unpopular president and congress on the other side. The temptation will be to go nuts and grab for everything, and act unilaterally and brashly, which is how the Republicans last did it. Not a good idea. Given how the campaign has been run so far, I think he could find humility in such a circumstance, but I'm not as sure about Clinton. In any event, it looks like a good possibility, and it will be a relief.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:25 PM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


hey, don't forget, old white guys gave us the inquisition, the holocaust, the hanford site, the eugenics movement, the WTO, the crusades, and even more!

Maybe "old white guys" isn't the best term, as it ignores the horrible atrocities committed by people who aren't. How about Bastards? Can we use bastards instead?
posted by mrzarquon at 7:28 PM on June 4, 2008


Also, last time I spoke to Handsome Dick Manitoba he told me (and I quote) "I'm voting for Barack Obama because Bruce Springsteen told me I should." What more do you need to know?
posted by jonmc at 7:33 PM on June 4, 2008


I still want to believe
posted by waraw at 7:33 PM on June 4, 2008


Maybe "old white guys" isn't the best term, as it ignores the horrible atrocities committed by people who aren't. How about Bastards? Can we use bastards instead?

I'd buy that for a dollar.
posted by bwg at 7:37 PM on June 4, 2008


Bruce Springsteen is an old white guy, and he recently gave us a decent album, as well as his very important previous contributions. (I have been waiting forever for Springsteen to come up again so I could poke fun at jonmc by noting he is a big fan of Arcade Fire and several songs from Neon Bible seem to draw stylistic inspiration from him.)
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:46 PM on June 4, 2008


Second, Bush quickly and easily became a tool of other people who had definite goals in mind, people who could outsmart him and manipulate him.

Exactly. It was always clear that Bush was at least leaning heavily on the family's handlers. It may not have been clear to everyone that he was doing so not because he was delegating responsibility, but because he was simply incapable of leading. That's an important difference, but in any event it's fairly obvious that Obama is the man in charge in a way that Bush never was.

To look at Obama's career and campaign so far and to try to draw that equivalence is nonsense, and it indicates a misunderstanding of exactly what Bush's problem is. "Lofty rhetoric" means nothing one way or the other, and drawing that kind of parallel between Bush and Obama indicates only that you've become cynical. It's not a substantive similarity.
posted by spiderwire at 7:49 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Does the US really need another old white guy as President?

Dunno, but following up on jonmc's comment, I think Iggy Pop would really balance the ticket. "Lust for Life" would be a big improvement on "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow" as a campaign song.
posted by lukemeister at 7:51 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama backs Lieberman against the wall.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:52 PM on June 4, 2008


Of course it does, universal means everyone, if everyone's not covered, it's not universal.

I wonder when Canada's going to implement universal health care.
posted by oaf at 8:06 PM on June 4, 2008


(In case you don't get it, health care plans can exclude illegal immigrants and still truthfully claim to be universal. They cover everyone who lives in their jurisdiction.)
posted by oaf at 8:09 PM on June 4, 2008


There's something cultural here that we apparently adult enough to talk about, so never mind.

Oh, that's crap. If you find it tiresome, don't bring it up, but it's hardly surprising that America has not yet embraced a candidate for President that has to overcome both racial and class prejudices all at once. It's equally difficult for anyone to succeed in the dominant culture when when they are fighting both gender and race prejudices, or class and gender prejudices. There's nothing mysteriously nuanced or unspeakable about the cultural aspects of this -each form of otherness sets off its own set of reactionary triggers, and few strategies can overcome more than one of those at once. That's why 'firsts' are celebrated - because with each falling barrier, the importance of the obstacle is diminished. There is a rather solid pattern in American history in which black men generally achieve political milestones before white women do (judgeships, representative office, executive office), and black women, in general, achieve them last. That's not coincidence; it's testament to the difficulty of fighting two sets of prejudices at once, some from within your own group and some from outside.

It's also not destiny - there have been some exceptions - but it's awfully rare, and that's not surprising.
posted by Miko at 8:14 PM on June 4, 2008 [8 favorites]


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday

Yeah, but which Saturday?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:15 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


A Wellesley/Yale education and a middle-class background doesn't prevent female Americans from being discriminated against. These achievements have been won in spite of the obstacles posed by institutionalized sexism, and have never protected anyone against individualized free-floating sexism.

Sorry, Miko. Had to alter your previous comment a bit. Although I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote after:

There is a rather solid pattern in American history in which black men generally achieve political milestones before white women do (judgeships, representative office, executive office), and black women, in general, achieve them last. That's not coincidence; it's testament to the difficulty of fighting two sets of prejudices at once, some from within your own group and some from outside.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:57 PM on June 4, 2008


Here comes more racism as well as rank stupidity: CNN.com is running a two minute video on Obama giving a couple people a fist pump. For anyone who's unaware, the fist pump/bump/pound is commonly used by anyone, in my experience, but is viewed to be a somewhat "Black" thing. Not in any negative way, but making a whole video of it is basically spending two minutes saying "Hey, Obama sure is Black, unlike you, isn't he?" I'm surprised he didn't have the idea to avoid using it.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:08 PM on June 4, 2008


(In case you don't get it, health care plans can exclude illegal immigrants and still truthfully claim to be universal. They cover everyone who lives in their jurisdiction.)

Well, if they didn't "live" here they wouldn't be illegal immigrants, would they?

In any event, even within the universe of legal immigrants, not everyone is covered by Hillary's plan, since some people are going to ignore the mandates.
posted by delmoi at 9:13 PM on June 4, 2008


1. Awesome. It's really, finally, truly time for the important fight.

2. I just lost an hour of my life due to a link upthread posing a question concerning an airplane on a conveyor belt. . . I have some questions regarding the relationship between the conveyor belt's acceleration and the rolling resistance force of the wheels, and how that force is transmitted to the plane via the friction between the wheels and the axles. Someone smart please message me and end this madness. . .
posted by flotson at 9:22 PM on June 4, 2008


Yeah, but which Saturday?

Oh, you stop now. Seriously, this thing is done. Clinton took advantage of the last chance she's going to have to be in charge of her role in this presidential race to choose her moment to concede and I don't begrudge her that even though I supported Obama from day one.

It would nice if everyone who is serious about wanting a Democrat in the White House would start emulating all the actual Democratic politicians in this thing and start making nice with our erstwhile opponents. Everyone else can get busy sticking on their McCain bumper stickers so I can start hating them immediately, except for Eideteker: you keep searching for your Gay Marriage and Legal Weed dream candidate, you crazy diamond (I have to admit, it's an appealing platform).
posted by nanojath at 9:26 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


alfred e newman for president!

i hate myself for this, i really do, but i just can't help it - god, dnc, please change that picture
posted by pyramid termite at 9:31 PM on June 4, 2008


Oh and flotson, you know they did it on Mythbusters, right? As it turned out, with airplane wheels spinning freely, the drag exerted by the conveyor spinning them backwards was negligible (compared to the thrust of the props, anyway) and it took off just fine - even though the pilot himself was skeptical, he totally thought the opposing forces would stop the plane.
posted by nanojath at 9:31 PM on June 4, 2008


Obama should offer Hillary a job as White House receptionist. She's apparently good at answering calls, even at ungodly hours.

It's win-win!
posted by mazola at 9:32 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sorry, Miko. Had to alter your previous comment a bit.

Both are certainly true, though I happened to be concerned with discussing Obama and racism in response to an earlier comment, not Hillary and sexism at that moment.
posted by Miko at 9:35 PM on June 4, 2008


WOW, did I ever come late to this party! I feel like writing responses to any of a dozen posts--and replies, and reposts--on this thread, but let me just say I'm happy. To me, though, this whole process of who will win and who won't, the real gambling odds, don't happen until the VP slots are filled. For now, though, I'm just thrilled that Obama's got it. It will be a very interesting campaign this fall.

I could write 10 long paragraphs about my dislike of Hillary, but...I won't.
posted by zardoz at 9:54 PM on June 4, 2008


She deserved to stay in it until it was over and I appreciate that she did. As do millions of folks who voted for her even after she was declared out of it.

I don't want to appear to be picking at a sore point for anyone but it should be noted that the media were merely doing what they usually do in these sorts of contests. When they could mathematically project that there was no possible path to the nomination for a candidate, that's what they did. When Tim Russert on MSNBC declared it was over, he was just talking about the numbers, but then you've got Chris Mathews (who is admittedly a bastard and had been blatantly biased against Clinton) and Keith Olberman (who can be a real dick at times and was overtly pro-Obama) and they just have to babble on and on about the implications of Tim's projections because that's their job. There's a good case against the bias from certain pundits but not necessarily against the media in declaring it over in March or thereabout. And no one in the political realm was publicly saying it was over.

I actually think the media and politicians went pretty easy on Clinton after it became inevitable. The media de-emphasized the mathematical certainty and entertained Clinton's popular vote/big states rhetoric. No one called for her to drop out. The issues about her extremely unlikely odds and her possible reasons for staying in the race only came up again in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the Pennsylvania primary. She hammered on Obama's bitter comment. She framed Obama's problem with Appalachian voters as a more general problem with blue collar whites, and she hounded this topic all the way to Kentucky. So from March 12 through May 22, Clinton was really beating up on Obama on these issues even though it was already clear she wasn't going to win. The media ate it up. The ratio of mentioning "popular vote" compared to "delegate race" seemed like 100 to 1. "Appalachian" is a long word, and who really cares about details anyway, so every headline leading up to West Virginia and Kentucky was in effect "Obama's Problem with Working Class Whites."

The question was fair: with all that is at stake for Democrats in an election they should win and the extremely long odds of her pulling out the nomination, why was Clinton staying in the race?

An argument for the super delegates? They weren't really moving toward Clinton before Pennsylvania, and after North Carolina and Indiana they were going to Obama in steadily larger proportions.

Florida and Michigan? Well, the Rules & Bylaws Committee ruling showed that didn't really matter at all to the delegate race. Even if they had seated them in full with full voting strength, Obama still would have won, just by a smaller margin. The challenges were all about Michigan and Florida moving against the DNC primary/caucus schedule so the ruling was mostly about party discipline. They were going to seat the full delegation no matter what, restoring 50% voting power was going to happen regardless of how the primary season had turned out. Basically, the whole Florida and Michigan drum beat from the Clinton camp was more spin related to their popular vote and big states arguments. And even this was going to happen no matter what. I'm sure Clinton was going to run this Florida Michigan gambit even if she had been winning, to score points with those states for the general election. When she amped up her rhetoric by bringing up womens suffrage, the civil rights movement, and Zimbabwe, it clearly was becoming a spectacle.

There are plenty of reasons why it was fair to point out that the race was decided. There's work to be done. There's all that money that donors gave to Obama and Clinton, spent to fight a battle that was already won. The DNC is short on funds. They don't even have enough money for their convention.

It didn't even matter what her motivations were, the end results of her tactics, if taken all the way, would be to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's nomination, end up in a floor fight at the convention which she would still lose, and put a huge damper on the chance of winning in November.

I understand the power of her argument, nearly 18 million voters, it sounds like a lot. But in reality, half of them say they would vote for Obama. Out of the other half, a third of them will vote Republican just like they have in the past two elections. And in the end, she was out running up her popular vote totals while Obama was trying to focus on McCain.

Given all of this, I think pretty much everyone has been extremely kind to Clinton. I can understand why her supporters appreciate her efforts, like valentinepig, but I think it was equally valid for the rest of the party to call her efforts into question.
posted by effwerd at 10:17 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


I have some questions regarding the relationship between the conveyor belt's acceleration and the rolling resistance force of the wheels, and how that force is transmitted to the plane via the friction between the wheels and the axles. Someone smart please message me and end this madness. . .
So small that it can be ignored. If axle friction were an issue, it'd be a problem on tarmac, too.

posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 PM on June 4, 2008


Is (enough of?) America sick enough of racism that it's going to become a liability against anyone who tries using it to influence the vote?

I find it hard to take seriously the idea that the majority of Americans are racist, let alone racist enough to shoot themselves in the foot.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 PM on June 4, 2008


And for that matter, is enough of America sick enough of negative campaigning that it's going to become a liability against anyone who uses it?

I should think you've all got the taste of Bitrex in your mouths after the last go-around led to the horrendous mistake of electing Bush.

Surely to god, hasn't the playing field changed? The old tactics, they mustn't work any more.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:45 PM on June 4, 2008


A letter from Hillary to her supporters.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise
...
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
posted by delmoi at 11:07 PM on June 4, 2008


I would just like to point out, that well over six hundred and fifty replies to this pointless exercise called an election, and under twenty replies to the ukelele thread, IS FUCKING SICK MAN!

Get your priorities straight, humanity. Oh. And I hope all your heads fall off. =P
posted by ZachsMind at 12:08 AM on June 5, 2008


delmoi writes "I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise
"...
"I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."


Yeah, she was under a lot of pressure to do that, but good for her. She did the right thing. If she can grit her teeth and rally her troops for Obama as much as she did for herself, it could help a great deal, maybe even more than a running mate spot would.

I hope her side doesn't push the VP thing too much. That doesn't sound like a good idea in practice, like after the campaign is over and they have to start governing. Too many cooks. Because it's a bad idea, Lanny Davis is promoting it with a petition, naturally. How could he let a bad idea pass by without putting his weight behind it? He was contrite this evening, though.

Obama was openly asking for Bill Clinton's help today. I guess that's a good move? I just hope ol' Bill can keep himself in check a little bit ...
posted by krinklyfig at 12:19 AM on June 5, 2008


If I was Obama, I'd promise a juicy cabinet seat to Hillary, perhaps Secretary of Health and Human services if she wants to promote Universal Healthcare, or perhaps even Secretary of State.

Hillary would have more actual power as Sec State then as VP, and as a bonus, her name wouldn't actually be on the ticket, so it wouldn't hurt him later on.
posted by delmoi at 1:02 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I thought maybe the peeps still festering at hillaryis44.com might be having a 'moment of clarity' right now, but they're just digging in. I can understand not wanting to hold your nose, but going so far as to vote against your own interests just out of spite seems really...desperate. I think this provides a noteworthy data point for evaluating the saying, "Democrats fall in love and republicans fall in line."
posted by mullingitover at 1:43 AM on June 5, 2008


I just wanted to say that I'm a lifelong republican that voted for Obama. WooHoo!
posted by CuJoe at 2:40 AM on June 5, 2008


Oh, you stop now. Seriously, this thing is done

Evidently not 'till Saturday, which is puzzling to me. People have run for President, had 50 million people vote for them and yet they conceded the race that night. Yet Hillary delivers a speech saying she's not making any decisions that night and continuing to whip her supporters into a frenzy.

Very curious.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:51 AM on June 5, 2008


Hillary would have more actual power as Sec State then as VP, and as a bonus, her name wouldn't actually be on the ticket, so it wouldn't hurt him later on.

I think she could actually be one of the most powerful people in the Senate, if you she wanted to settle in there. I think she could be truly excellent at it if she would stop running for President (which she's been doing for 6 years).
posted by psmealey at 4:02 AM on June 5, 2008


"Yet Hillary delivers a speech saying she's not making any decisions that night and continuing to whip her supporters into a frenzy."

Because on Saturday, she will rip off her mask and reveal that, underneath, she is actually Barack Obama. Bill Clinton will quietly excuse himself from the rally to go spend a few hours in the shower.
posted by Eideteker at 4:31 AM on June 5, 2008


People have run for President, had 50 million people vote for them and yet they conceded the race that night. Yet Hillary delivers a speech saying she's not making any decisions that night and continuing to whip her supporters into a frenzy.

The fact that the superdelegate vote is flexible in the primary makes choosing to concede quite different.
posted by Miko at 4:38 AM on June 5, 2008


The fact that the superdelegate vote is flexible in the primary makes choosing to concede quite different.

Not at this point. Once Obama passed the half-way point - the 2118 delegate votes needed for the nomination - the Super Delegates were unlikely to go against the will of the people or the majority of the delegate votes. Obama passed the half way point of the pledged delegate count last week. It's been a foregone conclusion since before that.

I was willing to cut her some slack - even after the desperate stunts she's pulled - because why shouldn't she keep running throughout the entire primary season? Personally, it makes sense to allow all states to have their say before a presumptive nominee is decided.

But to not concede on Tuesday night was a calculated move to... well, only Hillary and her advisers understand that one. It wasn't because the result was still in question, however.
posted by crossoverman at 4:53 AM on June 5, 2008


Oh, for the love of ... lots of candidates don't concede when they've numerically lost the nomination, it happens all the time. Many stay in all the way to the convention. Jesse Jackson, Gary Hart. Dozens more. Ron Paul hasn't conceded this year. Heck, I'm pretty sure Edwards never formally conceded this year, he just stopped bothering to campaign. People have nominally stayed in the race to make a point, or to bring attention to a particular issue, or to "run" for a stab at the vice-presidency, or to try to pay off campaign debt, or just because they friggin' can.

At this point, she's even dismissed her staffers and let everyone know she's ending things on Saturday. Chill out, OK?
posted by kyrademon at 5:10 AM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Not at this point. Once Obama passed the half-way point - the 2118 delegate votes needed for the nomination - the Super Delegates were unlikely to go against the will of the people or the majority of the delegate votes. Obama passed the half way point of the pledged delegate count last week. It's been a foregone conclusion since before that.

Yes, I understand all this as well as you do, but "unlikely" and "impossible" are two different things. I think it was fine for her to take a few days to bring the campaign to an end - she had every right. I would have seriously opposed a run as an independent or waiting to the convention and I wrote the campaign to say so - I'd be surprised if I wasn't one of many. But I don't begrudge her the choice to wait, foregone conclusion or no. Al Gore was a foregone conclusion in 2000, and when I went to bed on Election Night, he was President-elect. The circumstances were (obviously) very different, but in high-stakes games, there can be surprising reversals.
posted by Miko at 5:21 AM on June 5, 2008


The fact that the superdelegate vote is flexible in the primary makes choosing to concede quite different.


As another person pointed out superdelegates aren't known for flipping after pledging to a candidate.

I'm pretty sure Edwards never formally conceded this year

Which was fine, because he wasn't acting like an obnoxious brat. If she wants to press a point or champion a cause, I doubt many people would give her grief for that.

But that speech on Tuesday night? That was just the icing on the shit cake of things she's done wrong, on so many levels.

The circumstances were (obviously) very different, but in high-stakes games, there can be surprising reversals.

I'm curious, what do you think would or could have changed?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:27 AM on June 5, 2008


What are we to make of Terry McAuliffe on The Daily Show last night? (6/4/08)

He was acting nine kinds of crazy, said "we concede nothing" and then in response to Jon Stewart asking how he would respond to Obama asking "WTF?!" replied "KISS MY ASS BARACK OBAMA. AHHH MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

Comedy Central video here.


Is the Clinton campagin backing out of the Saturday thing or is McAuliffe completely off of his rocker?
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:26 AM on June 5, 2008


By Tuesday Obama had a decisive majority of delegates; the electoral vote was uncertain on Election Night 2000. He's had a small, steady, and increasingly insurmountable lead in delegate since February. Bush won 50.5%of the electoral vote; Obama won 53% of the delegates and superdelegates.

Al Gore won the popular vote; Clinton didn't win the popular vote unless you don't give Obama any votes in Michigan even though exit polls showed that 35% of Michigan voters would've voted for him if he'd been on the ballot (not that it really matters, since the race is decided by delegates).

She should have conceded on Tuesday and acknowledged the historic moment of the first African American candidate in American history. Failing that, she could at least have congratulated Obama on winning the Montana primary that night. Instead she "aggravating the poo" out of Whoopi Goldberg.

The fact that the superdelegate vote is flexible in the primary makes choosing to concede quite different.

Except they haven't been flexible in this primary; the superdelegates have been declaring for Obama for months. She's been arguing for months that the supers would support her, and she's been losing that argument for months.

McAuliffe was Tuesday night, not last night.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2008


Phew. The next super long mefi political thread I read the entirety of will hopefully be for President Obama!
posted by Onanist at 6:50 AM on June 5, 2008


...is McAuliffe completely off of his rocker?

Terry McAuliffe Downs Shots On "Morning Joe"
posted by ericb at 6:51 AM on June 5, 2008


Terry McAuliffe is personally responsible for the abysmal condition of the Democratic Party at the end of the 20th Century. If he backed the second coming of Jesus Almighty Himself in a primary for dog catcher it would be enough reason for me to back the other candidate. I know, I know he didn't act alone, but I place him squarely at the top of the list.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:00 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


What are we to make of Terry McAuliffe on The Daily Show last night? (6/4/08)

He was acting nine kinds of crazy, said "we concede nothing" and then in response to Jon Stewart asking how he would respond to Obama asking "WTF?!" replied "KISS MY ASS BARACK OBAMA. AHHH MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

Comedy Central video here.


Is the Clinton campagin backing out of the Saturday thing or is McAuliffe completely off of his rocker?


Actual news that she would back out Friday seemed to be only hitting the major news networks late last night, which would be after that awesomely non-news Daily Show segment was taped. The first officially from her staff noises that she was going to bow out over the next few days, rather than just rumors from outside her campaign, hit the radio last night. And then the timing had changed to Saturday by this morning. Also the Post is reporting that she's starting to tell staff goodbye and that for many of them, tomorrow is the last day of work. I think they get paid through June 15th though.

So yeah, the signs are getting stronger that it's over. No one really knows for sure until she speaks Saturday, but she does seem to be finally shifting gears now. And it's quite a shift for her, and her supporters are quite adamant, so it's going to be difficult for her. But I think it is real now. Whether or not she fully concedes Saturday is still up in the air, it seems. But now she's getting a lot of pressure from other Democrats in Congress to support Obama. Supposedly she will at least suspend her campaign and say something supportive, if not a full endorsement.
posted by Tehanu at 7:03 AM on June 5, 2008


What are we to make of Terry McAuliffe on The Daily Show last night? (6/4/08)

Okay, to be fair that was actually on 6/3, taped during the day before the SD and MN primary polls closed, before Obama technically cinched the nomination. I heard Jon Stewart talk about that on the show yesterday so I actually wanted to see it :)
posted by delmoi at 7:04 AM on June 5, 2008



McAuliffe was Tuesday night, not last night.


Hrrm. OK, confirmed by Comedy Central's amazingly clunky website. That's a relief. Now to find out why DirecTV is messing with my mind again.....it's the Daily show, fer crissakes. /facepalm
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:05 AM on June 5, 2008


So McAuliffe's been drowning his sorrows in the booze and blow? That was not a sober Daily Show appearance.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:06 AM on June 5, 2008


After watching those two McAuliffe videos, all I can hear in my head is DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS. DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:10 AM on June 5, 2008


Hrrm. OK, confirmed by Comedy Central's amazingly clunky website. That's a relief. Now to find out why DirecTV is messing with my mind again.....it's the Daily show, fer crissakes. /facepalm

I adore that show to an unreasonable degree, but it is neither daily nor news. It is a brilliant satire about news that does in many cases pick through a lot of crap to flash you some very real and under recognized insight or information through its deconstruction of infotainment media, but it is very rarely a primary source of information. Only if Jon Stewart interviews someone who says something new, really. Breaking news about politics is not all that reliable to being with, but especially not there. It's not what they do. What they do is tear it apart a few hours or days later.
posted by Tehanu at 7:15 AM on June 5, 2008




So McAuliffe's been drowning his sorrows in the booze and blow? That was not a sober Daily Show appearance.


Agreed. It was reminiscent of Oliver Platt's character's coke-fueled hysteria in Bulworth.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:16 AM on June 5, 2008


Actually that Terry Mac video was hilarious, and kind of fascinating. He clearly knew it was over, but it's almost like he just didn't give a fuck. And it wouldn't surprise me if he was a little drunk too.

But yeah, if that had been on 6/4 rather then 6/3, it would have been much more problematic.
posted by delmoi at 7:18 AM on June 5, 2008



I adore that show to an unreasonable degree, but it is neither daily nor news.....Breaking news about politics is not all that reliable to being with, but especially not there. It's not what they do. What they do is tear it apart a few hours or days later.


Fair enough. I just meant that I'd like to see today's satire rather than yesterday's. As to it not being 'daily,' that isn't clear-cut. Most often they do speak to 'the news of the day' (or at least the news stories of the day, which might be the news of yesterday in actuality.) I didn't mean to imply that the Daily Show is a breaking news source, a primary source, or is somehow sacrosanct in its commentary. As you point out, it's only the interviews that (rarely) make news. Of course, the the McAuliffe moment had occurred after the reports of Saturday's concession to come then it would have indeed been newsworthy (as I thought was the case.)

As to adoring The Daily Show to an unreasonable degree: "if loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right."
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:28 AM on June 5, 2008


Very true, snuffleupagus. But does Jon respond to love letters? No, alas. Little heart stickers, perfume, enclosed cigarettes of his preferred brand-- it doesn't matter. He remains aloof.

*wistful*
posted by Tehanu at 7:47 AM on June 5, 2008


For Clinton, a key group didn’t hold -- "Break in supposed firewall of superdelegates turned out to be crucial."
posted by ericb at 7:51 AM on June 5, 2008


Well, if they didn't "live" here they wouldn't be illegal immigrants, would they?

Since they didn't enter on an immigrant visa, they aren't immigrants, and don't live here as far as such a health plan would be concerned. They're visitors.

Canadian provinces' universal coverage doesn't cover illegal immigrants. It's still universal.
posted by oaf at 7:52 AM on June 5, 2008


Minnesota Post: Clinton supporters wowed with warm reception at Obama rally.
posted by ericb at 7:54 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


They're visitors.

No, they didn't enter on a Visitor's Visa either.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:55 AM on June 5, 2008


After watching those two McAuliffe videos, all I can hear in my head is DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS. DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS.

I. LOVE. PUERTO RICO!!!
posted by aqhong at 7:56 AM on June 5, 2008


Jon Stewart last night: Mocks "Hillary Is Inevitable" Punditry [video |8:49].
posted by ericb at 7:58 AM on June 5, 2008


Thanks for that link, ericb. It was a great look at what had to be a bittersweet moment for those Clinton supporters.
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:13 AM on June 5, 2008


FWIW back before it all began I always thought Clinton was innevitable, primarily on the grounds that she was the most like John Kerry.
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on June 5, 2008


No, they didn't enter on a Visitor's Visa either.

Some of them did. The point is that as far as we're concerned, they're legally residents of wherever they came from.
posted by oaf at 8:17 AM on June 5, 2008


"She did the right thing."

No. She didn't. This is more of her just being a power hungry control freak.

At a minimum, the right thing to do would have been to end her campaign and congratulate the winner on Tuesday. Instead she -

- Explicitly refused to admit she had lost.
- Pointedly avoided congradulations.
- Insulted the winner.
- Lied about getting more votes.
- Claimed she was the better choice.

She lost the race weeks ago. And she has spent those weeks lying, mentioning that candidates sometimes get assassinated, and insulting the obvious winner.

That's not doing the right thing. That's doing the wrong thing.
posted by Ragma at 8:23 AM on June 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


McAuliffe isn't the only one who was melting down.

From the Washpost's interesting post mortem:

"On Monday night, the Clintons flew back to New York after a long day of campaigning in South Dakota, a state she would win on the day Obama clinched the nomination. On the plane ride home, they sat in the front row, and no one dared talk to them. One aide said the tension in the front cabin -- visible to reporters in the back -- was painful to endure.
Another member of the inner circle described Bill Clinton as coming "unhinged" in the final hours, raising his voice in phone calls with superdelegates, constantly revisiting his wife's options for staying in the race. "He keeps asking me, 'What about so-and-so? What about so-and-so?' " the supporter recalled, saying the former president wanted constant updates on superdelegate moves."
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:50 AM on June 5, 2008


DNC will no longer take lobbyist, PAC money

Obama aims to make openness an issue

DNC Confirms That Obama's Man Paul Tewes Is Coming Aboard
posted by effwerd at 9:03 AM on June 5, 2008


McAuliffe's comments remind me of the Iraqi Minister of Information.
posted by drezdn at 9:10 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


No, they didn't enter on a Visitor's Visa either.

Some of them did.


No, because then they'd be out-of-status nonimmigrants.

The point is that as far as we're concerned, they're legally residents of wherever they came from.

That's not necessarily true either. Are you starting to see why the "illegal alien problem" is a bit more complicated than just black and white?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:11 AM on June 5, 2008


DNC will no longer take lobbyist, PAC money

To the skeptics who kept asking what this "change" was that Obama kept talking about: This. It looks like this.
posted by EarBucket at 9:11 AM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


DNC will no longer take lobbyist, PAC money

Whoa. That's big. And he's shifting personnel... that sound, what is that sound? Is that.. democracy? QUICK DOES ANYONE REMEMBER WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE? I don't think I've heard it operating much, and definitely not on this scale, since I became eligible to vote.
posted by Tehanu at 9:24 AM on June 5, 2008


Terry McAuliffe is doing his job, just like that Iraqi Minister of Information did. He's stayed on message throughout.

He's a PR guy, people. If he started going, "You know, there's no way in hell Hillary can win this, and we're a bunch of idiots for even continuing to try," he wouldn't be doing his job.

Yeah, we can Godwin this and argue it's just like some German soldier at Auschwitz, but you know? Espousing a belief in the faint hope of a miracle victory while playing fast and loose with the truth vs. shoveling gassed bodies into an incinerator?

NOT THE SAME THING.

I give him this: He's never once strayed off message. He's worth every penny and bottle of Cuban rum the Clintons have given him.
posted by dw at 9:24 AM on June 5, 2008


Terry McAuliffe is doing his job

If that were true, the contract with America would have been a (humorous) footnote in history, Al Gore would be wrapping up his second term and thousands of Iraqis (and Americans) would be alive today.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:35 AM on June 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


oaf: Canadian provinces' universal coverage doesn't cover illegal immigrants. It's still universal.

I guess I'll have to tell my cousin from Betelgeuse to go elsewhere.
posted by Kattullus at 9:37 AM on June 5, 2008


I felt like the subtext to McAuliffe's appearances was "I know what I'm saying is crazy, but I have to say it anyways, so I'm going to really embrace the Falstaff role while I do it."
posted by spiderwire at 9:38 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


He's never once strayed off message. He's worth every penny and bottle of Cuban rum the Clintons have given him.

Well, that blunder where McAuliffe mistakenly said Tim Russert's dad was probably watching the primary from up in Heaven (Russert's dad quite famously still being a living member of "The Greatest Generation") wasn't exactly top-form PR work.

And that aggressive "inevitability" campaign strategy kind of backfired because it reminded a lot of voters of the Bush administration's aggressive use of the media to transmit its political talking points and to promote the inevitability of its policy decisions (like, for example, the US entry into the Iraq war, which the media also quickly let us know was inevitable, despite popular opposition).

But hey, the guy did his best.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:42 AM on June 5, 2008


And that aggressive "inevitability" campaign strategy

Wasn't that mostly Mark Penn's idea?

And the real problem there was that not only did they come in like a Big Ten into a BCS Championship game (overhyped and believing too much in that hype), none of them -- Penn, McAuliffe, Bill, Hillary -- did anything to alter course until it was too late.

And like an SEC team, the Obama team was too fast, too crafty, and using their offensive line to tear holes in Hillary's D.

Yeah, Jeremiah Wright played the pampered, loose spring WR role well, but in the end, he wasn't that big a distraction.

Let's see, baseball, college football, basketball... anyone want to take a stab at a hockey comparison?
posted by dw at 9:53 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


GOP fears Obama's money machine
posted by effwerd at 9:57 AM on June 5, 2008


GOP fears Obama's money machine

I love it! Of course they do because his "money machine" as they've spinned it isn't a money machine at all but a whole hell of a lot of individual voters writing checks!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:10 AM on June 5, 2008


"And like an SEC team, the Obama team was too fast, too crafty, and using their offensive line to tear holes in Hillary's D. "

It was, in fact, like watching the University of Michigan defend against an option team.

"Let's see, baseball, college football, basketball... anyone want to take a stab at a hockey comparison?"

Something about the Ducks, maybe, where they won solidly for a couple of years, but now have fallen off? Or maybe, providing Obama wins the presidency, some sort of Wings analogy?
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 AM on June 5, 2008


It was, in fact, like watching the University of Michigan defend against an option team.

Like Vince Young.
posted by spiderwire at 10:48 AM on June 5, 2008


Hockey comparison: "Dear Red Wings"
posted by kirkaracha at 12:05 PM on June 5, 2008


Let's see, baseball, college football, basketball... anyone want to take a stab at a hockey comparison?

I can think of at least one horse racing comparison...
posted by Pollomacho at 12:10 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hillary's incessant campaigning is Obama's blessing in disguise.

Now he knows exactly where each and every one of his strengths in weaknesses are, across every demographic, in every state. He has infrastructure set up to campaign in every American's back yard, even in counties that are typically Republican strongholds.

Do I think that Hillary's constant campaigning was on the balance a bad idea? Sure; but I think more good will come out of it than is readily apparent.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:23 PM on June 5, 2008



I can think of at least one horse racing comparison...


Her supporters conjure up a different comparison:

Affirmed.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:32 PM on June 5, 2008


I actually, in the big picture agree with you, jabberjaw. In another plus, Clinton's dirty politickin' gave Obama plenty of sneak preview of the GOP's dirty tricks and essentially made him teflon coated from here on.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:40 PM on June 5, 2008


Affirmed.

Don't you mean Hillary = Alydar?
posted by dw at 12:41 PM on June 5, 2008


Jesus. Check out the new logo on johnmccain.com. Look familiar? At all?

The biggest mistake you can make in politics is to try to co-opt your opponent's brand. You just end up reinforcing it in voters' minds, telling them that "change" (or whatever) is a good thing. It's almost impossible to convince them that you're a better choice to provide it than the candidate originally associated with it. Trying to run as the "change" candidate was one of Hillary's biggest mistakes in the primaries, and if McCain tries it, Obama will eat him alive.
posted by EarBucket at 12:46 PM on June 5, 2008


Oh, and I'm sincerely hoping that this becomes the new out-of-context internet meme.
posted by EarBucket at 12:49 PM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


All McCain's look is missing is the Gotham. Guess they couldn't afford that.
posted by dw at 12:56 PM on June 5, 2008


but I think more good will come out of it than is readily apparent.

I actually, in the big picture agree with you, jabberjaw. In another plus, Clinton's dirty politickin' gave Obama plenty of sneak preview of the GOP's dirty tricks and essentially made him teflon coated from here on.

Can I throw out my captain insano idea? Since nothing is ever new and original, I'm sure someone has already thought this up and said it better, but I've felt for months that ever since around Super Tuesday or whenever you personally want to think that Hillary was effectively not going to catch up, she did something spectacular.

She masterminded a strategy to beat McCain by crushing his arguments, or better yet, the ultimate kiss of death for a lot of things in our ultra time sensitive society - make his points of attack old.

If you look back at so many events, the phone call, the comparing of herself to him experience-wise and so on - causing Olby to go on his little "that way madness lies" diatribe. When it got to the gas tax holiday it seemed like she was making it a little too obvious what she was doing.

3/4 of the substantive stuff he would have come at obama with is old. People will be desensitized. I can't stand a lot of the stuff she does, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I think she's just orchestrated the first half of a brilliantly crafted plan, by her, to secure the presidency for the democrats.

Like I said, I'm sure this has been said previously, and better, but I haven't seen it. I think the thing I want to see now, is how Hillary turns many of her supporters against McCain. It'll probably be with Roe V Wade. She had to stick to the health care thing to appear credible.

Anyway, if I ever get wind that this is indeed what she masterminded, and Obama wins, I will stand and applaud her for ten solid minutes. I'm trying to think of more of the pivotal moments of the primaries to suggest for thought under this lens, but for the last several months it really has kept me wondering in the back of my mind.
posted by cashman at 12:58 PM on June 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


I wish I could have masterminded that second set of italics around my quotation of Pollomacho's reply.
posted by cashman at 1:00 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Further uniting the Democratic Party behind Barack Obama as its nominee, the New York congressional delegation this afternoon came out en masse to declare him their standard bearer and laud Hillary Clinton's planned endorsement of Obama on Saturday.

"We come here collectively to endorse the decision by our fearless leader," Representative Charlie Rangel told reporters. "We're so proud of her."
More Signs of Democratic Unity from The Boston Globe. Underlining mine.
posted by Kattullus at 1:06 PM on June 5, 2008


I had the same thoughts, cashman, but somehow I just can't possibly see Hillary Clinton as the kind of person to "take one for the team." She's seriously going to have to play political catch-up ball to hold onto a national presence after this. She's strong enough to do it, sure, but she's not in the best of positions right now. Of course, if there is a back room pulling the strings on this, then she'll get all the opportunity to come out of it she needs, she'd be owed a BIG favor.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:08 PM on June 5, 2008


Oh, and I'm sincerely hoping that this becomes the new out-of-context internet meme.

Save the Dehydrated Babies 08!
posted by ericb at 1:09 PM on June 5, 2008


dw: "All McCain's look is missing is the Gotham. Guess they couldn't afford that."

The right seems to have the worst graphic designers. Most right wing blogs and political websites are horribly designed.
posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on June 5, 2008


“The right seems to have the worst graphic designers.”

Yeah, the JPG artifacts in the McCain banner are bad, and the lighting really makes him look sick, beady-eyed, and sinister. (He reminds me a bit of Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-face character from that really bad Batman film.) And they used Trebuchet MS — at least it’s consistent with the rest of their website, but gross and weak when compared to Gotham.

But I don’t think it’s a trend of Right vs. Left. Remember back in 2004, Bush’s campaign art was widely considered far superior to Kerry’s. And there are some really crappy-looking left-wing blog designs, too. Take a look at HillaryIs44, for example.

Obama’s campaign artwork is just excellent.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 1:53 PM on June 5, 2008


Oh, and I'm sincerely hoping that this becomes the new out-of-context internet meme.

Dude, if you add cold water to your dehydrated instant babies, they get big like they ought to, but they're all hypothermic and just sort of turn off. And if you add too much water, they're all runny and taste funny. So you want single-baby-sized bottles, and you want them hot, but not too hot.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:54 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


"She did the right thing."

No. She didn't. This is more of her just being a power hungry control freak.

At a minimum, the right thing to do would have been to end her campaign and congratulate the winner on Tuesday. Instead she -

- Explicitly refused to admit she had lost.
- Pointedly avoided congradulations.
- Insulted the winner.
- Lied about getting more votes.
- Claimed she was the better choice.
You left off the fact that she had herself introduced to the crowd as "the Next President of the United States".
posted by Flunkie at 2:33 PM on June 5, 2008


TBH, assuming she does nothing more of a horrific nature, I'd galdly not mention her name or hear about here for the next, oooh, howabout forever?
posted by Artw at 2:40 PM on June 5, 2008


You left off the fact that she had herself introduced to the crowd as "the Next President of the United States".

And, evidently (according to the last paragraph of this report), let the press know her plans for bowing out this weekend before contacting Obama directly.

Those Clintons: classy to the end.
posted by scody at 2:43 PM on June 5, 2008


Here's a neat flash gizmo that shows how people voted in the Democrat primaries.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:51 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Here's a neat flash gizmo that shows how people voted in the Democrat primaries.

Cool. Well done.
posted by ericb at 3:10 PM on June 5, 2008


I was wondering about the dehydrated babies.. Was that just a complete gaffe, or is there some reason why dehydrated babies should specifically be given hot water?
posted by Ms. Saint at 3:26 PM on June 5, 2008


How Obama Did It
posted by effwerd at 3:49 PM on June 5, 2008


Obama bats down rumors about his wife.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:53 PM on June 5, 2008


Details about the Lieberman confrontation. There's a brief video too, but all it shows is Obama leading Lieberman out of the frame.
posted by aqhong at 3:54 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama bats down rumors about his wife.

"Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner."

Shouldn't The Corner be capitalized?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:08 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


No. The corner of my street isn't capitalized.
posted by ericb at 4:44 PM on June 5, 2008


Brandon Blatcher writes "Here's a neat flash gizmo that shows how people voted in the Democrat primaries. "

That's amazing. Wild the extreme between black and white.
posted by Mitheral at 4:45 PM on June 5, 2008


Everything's Gonna Be All White.
posted by ericb at 4:46 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Shouldn't The Corner be capitalized?

The Corner: Shouldn't The Corner be capitalized?
posted by ericb at 4:47 PM on June 5, 2008


Shit, those trogs beat me to the joke by an hour.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:51 PM on June 5, 2008


Obama bats down rumors about his wife.

I think this is an area where Obama excels, and does it in a very low key and effective way. He does rapid response even better than the Clinton 1992 team did. So long as the Obama capaign responds to this bullshit quickly and eloquently (Clinton's team was sharp, but was too often very defensive and awkward), they can press on McCain's shortcomings and made a good case based on the issues.
posted by psmealey at 5:05 PM on June 5, 2008


Tom DeLay On Obama: ‘Unless He Proves Me Wrong, He Is A Marxist’.
posted by ericb at 5:15 PM on June 5, 2008


Someone tell Tom DeLay that no one who's got more than two brain cells to rub together gives a donkey's dick about what he thinks. Whatta douchebag!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:31 PM on June 5, 2008


Tsk. Answers must begin with "Unless Tom DeLay proves me wrong, he is a..."
posted by Artw at 5:38 PM on June 5, 2008


Isn't he in prison watching his ass in the shower yet?
posted by caddis at 5:44 PM on June 5, 2008


Isn't he in prison watching his ass in the shower yet?

Yeah, 'cause that's the kind of prison guys like Tom DeLay end up in.
posted by nanojath at 5:54 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have a dream...
posted by jonmc at 5:59 PM on June 5, 2008


Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran If A Democrat Wins The White House
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on June 5, 2008


The times, they are a'changin: Bob Dylan endorses Obama.
posted by EarBucket at 6:16 PM on June 5, 2008


As I noted above, No Quarter is the latest subject of my ceaseless amazement. I can't help but share today's post:
Clintondems.com isn’t just some site by a bunch of Hillary supporters. It is founded by Maggie Williams, Hillary’s indefatigable campaign manager.
Markup original. Seriously, this is some sort of joke, right? Sure, the site (which seemingly has been around since last month, domain registered on May 16) lists Williams' email on its about page, but surely that's merely meant as a call to action. I mean:
The goal of this website is to create a place where Democrats that feel the DNC and media have acted in bad faith towards the American people can gather to organize, share insights and have their voices be heard.
And we're asked to believe that Williams would consent to her name being attached to a project with this mission.

There's some humour I'm missing here, right? Where are the cameras?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:25 PM on June 5, 2008


CNN: Obama and Clinton meeting right now at Clinton's DC home.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:28 PM on June 5, 2008


Bruce Springsteen is an old white guy,

so am I, and I support Obama, too.

Barack Obama - Old White Guys Like Him.
posted by jonmc at 6:30 PM on June 5, 2008


Well, after a long day of whipping the party into shape, Obama is now in an unscheduled meeting with Clinton. I suspect he will try to convince her to "concede and endorse" rather than "suspend and support." He will offer to pay off her campaign debts and then get rid of the remnant VP hopes.
posted by effwerd at 6:38 PM on June 5, 2008


This is rich: Obama wanted his meeting with Clinton to be as much on the down-low as possible, at least at first, so he apparently had his personal press contingent board his jet back to campaign HQ in Chicago... and then ordered the plane to take off without him.

Didn't do much good, though, considering the press now has her house surrounded...
posted by Rhaomi at 7:33 PM on June 5, 2008


There's a brief video too, but all it shows is Obama leading Lieberman out of the frame.

tbogg has a better video here.
posted by tachikaze at 7:43 PM on June 5, 2008


The four main tabs on the front page of John Mcain's website:

Decision Center, General Election, Obama & Iraq, and Golf Gear
posted by octothorpe at 7:58 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Decision Center, General Election, Obama & Iraq, and Golf Gear

John McCain is selling a commemorative John McCain divot tool. I don't know that I've ever met anyone who owns a divot tool. Tell me again who the elitist is?
posted by EarBucket at 8:01 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ditching the traveling press corps -- hilarious. Significantly, also the kind of gamesmanship that McCain's been using for years to get them in his corner. He continues to impress.
posted by spiderwire at 8:15 PM on June 5, 2008


Wow, McCain doesn't even respect the troops enough to give up golf? Shameful.
posted by homunculus at 8:27 PM on June 5, 2008


Ragma writes "That's not doing the right thing. That's doing the wrong thing."

All we can really do now is stop making this an issue. If Hillary concedes, that's good. If she puts her efforts fully behind Obama, that's great. She should anyway, but I don't think there's much point in dragging this out unless she continues to do so. Looks like she's getting the message. Obama really does need her to make gestures that will bring her voters over, and I don't see the advantage in making a permanent war out of this primary.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:37 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


As an aside, wtf, lieberman. I'm at a loss for words. Just, wtf?!?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:39 PM on June 5, 2008


762 comments? This thread is unstoppable!
posted by Locative at 2:18 AM on June 6, 2008


Oh, the golf. The gulf. The golf. Whichever.

You guys know that McCain is fucked, right? There's no WAY he can beat this guy (Barry). Even if his 'base' all turn out, he's still fucked. There are going to be people turning up at the polls who never would have voted for anyone else. There are going to be people signing up to vote simply to elect the Black Dude. You know why? Because he doesn't have a fucking golf gear link on his homepage.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:58 AM on June 6, 2008


You guys know that McCain is fucked, right?

Nothing is certain and assured. It's a long time between now and November, anything could happen. Barack is going to have to work harder than ever before to win this thing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:00 AM on June 6, 2008


Obama bats down rumors about his wife.

I'm still curious what it was? Ophay? No, too old fashioned. Whitey, Honkey? No, us whities use those all the time now. Cracker? Ooh, I bet it was cracker, but how can that be derogatory any more when the crackers themselves name their favorite restaurant after it?
posted by Pollomacho at 4:18 AM on June 6, 2008


John McCain is selling a commemorative John McCain divot tool. I don't know that I've ever met anyone who owns a divot tool. Tell me again who the elitist is?

aw pshaw, golf is hardly confined to elitists anymore. the best golfer I know personally drives a UPS truck
posted by caddis at 5:07 AM on June 6, 2008


aw pshaw, golf is hardly confined to elitists anymore

Yeah, but only a wanker would buy a divot tool. The rest of us use tees.
posted by psmealey at 5:44 AM on June 6, 2008


It seems to me that Obama can keep Hillary off the ticket easily, by 1. requiring her whole-hearted and irrevocable public endorsement while he's still vetting his short list (done), and then 2. having his VP search/vet team require her to list for them every dollar paid or contributed to Bill Clinton since 2000, and what was given in return - to which she cannot refuse but will not comply.
posted by nicwolff at 6:24 AM on June 6, 2008


Decision Center, General Election, Obama & Iraq, and Golf Gear

The "Obama & Iraq" tab is all about McCain's stupid criticism that Obama hasn't been to Iraq in 800-whatever days so he doesn't know what's going on, unlike McCain, who goes there all the time and doesn't know the difference between Shiite and Sunni and has to be corrected by Lieberman.

I entered the Decision Center, and it looks like they couldn't decide between the blue and green versions of the McCain logo.

And really, all you need to say is "John McCain divot tool."
posted by kirkaracha at 6:30 AM on June 6, 2008


Tom DeLay: Not yet evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud
posted by lukemeister at 6:41 AM on June 6, 2008


Sen. Barack Obama and Rep. Mike Honda introduce bill to make American students more competitive in science fields.

Funny, I was wondering earlier today what Obama's candidacy and potentially his election would mean for science education. This gives me a really good idea.

Here's a neat flash gizmo that shows how people voted in the Democrat primaries.

That's really neat.
posted by Tehanu at 7:39 AM on June 6, 2008


"You know why I know no tape exists? Because all copies of it were wrapped up in an American flag and burned on a woodpile ignited by Hillary Clinton and Kitty Dukakis....
...This is the '08 version of a really weird conservative urban legend that pops up every four years, The names change, but the basics remain the same: 1) It always involves the wife of the Democratic presidential candidate; 2) It always portrays the wife -- not the candidate -- committing some anti-American, unpatriotic act."
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:27 PM on June 6, 2008


Clinton's couldas, shouldas, wouldas.
posted by ericb at 1:48 PM on June 6, 2008


The infamous story, now confirmed many times over, is that Mark Penn didn't know that California wasn't a winner-take-all state.

(from ericb's link)

Wow. Just, wow. That's absolutely stunning incompetence right there.

Until I read that, I had always thought that, though I preferred Obama, Hillary would have made a pretty damn good president. However, so much of being a good president is choosing the right people to whom you delegate responsibility.

And choosing someone who would make that fundamental of a blunder to be your chief campaign strategist? Not very presidential.
posted by dersins at 2:56 PM on June 6, 2008


The infamous story, now confirmed many times over, is that Mark Penn didn't know that California wasn't a winner-take-all state.

One of the interesting things about the Clinton campaign, to me, was her unwillingness to replace her senior advisers and change her approach when things started to not go well for her. Instead of changing what she was doing, she did more of the same. When a story like this comes along, suggesting that her advisers were not wrong in minor ways, but in really major ones, it makes me wonder why she or Bill weren't firing people and making heads roll. If anyone were to run a tight ship, I would have thought it would be her, but that wasn't the case at all.
posted by Forktine at 4:08 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


Stephen Colbert Challenges Viewers To 'GreenScreen' McCain
posted by homunculus at 4:30 PM on June 6, 2008


ne of the interesting things about the Clinton campaign, to me, was her unwillingness to replace her senior advisers and change her approach when things started to not go well for her. Instead of changing what she was doing, she did more of the same. When a story like this comes along, suggesting that her advisers were not wrong in minor ways, but in really major ones, it makes me wonder why she or Bill weren't firing people and making heads roll. If anyone were to run a tight ship, I would have thought it would be her, but that wasn't the case at all.

This.

If there is any cockamamie benefit to this aspect of the democratic process, it's in seeing how candidates manage their money, personnel, expertise, and time. Obama was something of a master at this. Clinton gave it a very good shot, but she kept getting stuck in ruts, listening to the wrong people, snapping at weird moments (or having others below her snap on her behalf), and all these other little dings which cost her the nomination. Her air of "clearly I am the next President, it's only logical" worked initially, but as the battle wore on it looked a little...delusional. It pitched Clinton as the logical choice for the Presidency, and it was like making sure you get your fiber and do your taxes on time to make sure that she wins and that inexperienced fellows do not. Obama, on the other hand, stumped as a candidate - there wasn't the air of entitlement, no air of inevitability, and there was the sense in his marketing that voting for him was an act of active participation in the changing of America. That kind of interactivity, even if it's mostly an illusion, was an extremely effective marketing idea.

Also, it helps not have have Terry McAuliffe or Mark Penn or even Bill Clinton near your Presidential campaign. I mostly like Bill Clinton, but his remark about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina was a serious mistake - unabashed race-baiting in a manner far more calculated and malicious than anything Rev. Wright ever said. And when Bill Richardson endorsed Obama and the Clinton staffers were shrieking in his ears about "loyalty" - well, kids, if you have loyalty, it should be to decency and your ideas of how to best serve the country, not to the wife of your former boss. That sort of favor-based bullshit reminded me of why I don't like the Clintons more. Again, if Hillary had uploaded a newspaper-swatting video afterwards, I might be more forgiving.

The Economist has an interesting article about Clinton which makes her campaign seem like much more of a failure than it really was - I think Obama and Clinton both ran strong campaigns, and I do firmly believe that Clinton would have made a strong President. However, Clinton was behind the times, showed little innovation, and was too slow to learn from her mistakes.

What's funny, too, is that I think she's more charismatic than Obama by a good margin. I still like Obama more. Neener neener.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:44 PM on June 6, 2008


Again, if Hillary had uploaded a newspaper-swatting video afterwards, I might be more forgiving.

Wow, this sentence corresponded to a paragraph which I had deleted. I leave it here without any further explanation. Instead, enjoy Bill Clinton showing his true colors over Richardson endorsing Obama:
People close to Clinton said he views the governor's action as a personal betrayal. "I think [Richardson] really owes a big chunk of his success and his career to the Clintons," said an associate who has discussed the matter with the former president and requested anonymity to speak candidly.

"Look," Richardson responded, "I was a successful congressman rescuing hostages before I was appointed. I was a governor afterward, elected on my own."
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:49 PM on June 6, 2008


"I think [Richardson] really owes a big chunk of his success and his career to the Clintons," said an associate who has discussed the matter with the former president and requested anonymity to speak candidly.

This gets to the heart of why, I think, so many folks have been turned off by the Clintons over the years -- what appears to be their overweening self-regard. Of course, on Planet Clinton, Richardson owes his career to them -- regardless of what the facts of his career trajectory might actually be. Among countless other instances, it's little wonder that the charges of narcissism against both Bill and Hillary come up so frequently.

For fun, I did a little comparison between the transcripts of Obama's and Clinton's Tuesday night speeches. They are almost exactly the same length -- 2450 words for Obama to 2240 for Clinton. Obama used the words "I," "me," and "my" a grand total of 24 times, or once every 100 words; Clinton used them 88 times -- once every 25.

As I read in another post-mortem on Clinton's campaign that I can't find right now: Obama seems to talk about ideas; Clinton seems to talk about herself. That might work in some elections, but it didn't work in this one.
posted by scody at 5:26 PM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wow. Just, wow. That's absolutely stunning incompetence right there.

For contrast, here's a profile of David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager and chief strategist.
posted by aqhong at 5:57 PM on June 6, 2008


From the TNR article aqhong links:
Pretty much the only time anyone in Obamaland can recall Plouffe betraying real emotion was on a late-night conference call after the crushing loss in New Hampshire. Plouffe methodically laid out the plan for the upcoming states. Then, at a fraction of a decibel louder than his usual gravelly whisper, proclaimed, "Now let's go win this fucking thing."
Badass.
posted by spiderwire at 6:10 PM on June 6, 2008


Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps
posted by homunculus at 6:20 PM on June 6, 2008


Bill Richardson endorsed Obama and the Clinton staffers were shrieking in his ears about 'loyalty'"

James Carville called him Judas, but the Clinton supporters love to say Obama's supporters worship him.

One of the interesting things about the Clinton campaign, to me, was her unwillingness to replace her senior advisers and change her approach when things started to not go well for her.

Hmm...now why does that sound familiar?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:37 PM on June 6, 2008


I think the single most amazing post in this thread is Mr. "Blazecock Pileon" demanding to know where there was evidence of sexism. Ha. Yes, a lot of Hillary supporters are pretty dismayed by the sexism. Most recent cases that come to mind would be Chris Matthews on Tuesday demanding over and over to know if, as VP, she would be obedient. WTF. A lot of women are appalled by this garbage. Insisting that it doesn't matter because you don't see it and that we shouldn't be able to point it out, that the Sexism Watch items are not valid because you have decided they are not - first, I disagree, but second, this is not helpful, if the goal is to not alienate enough Clinton supporters that it throws the election to McCain. (I'm already thoroughly alienated and despise Obama completely, though I will be at Hillary's speech this morning and see what she has to say that might change any minds.)

I'm not saying here on MetaFilter you should censor yourselves, but if you're saying the same things to people in real life who are skeptical of voting for Obama, this is not going to help win them over. Nor will dismissing concerns of theirs or talking about how people who voted for other candidates are retards etc. Especially now that it appears he'll be nominated, it might be a good time to be gracious instead of another pileon. I'm seeing this all over the political blogs and news sites, and it really turns people off your candidate.. his own most fervent supporters might well do him in.
posted by citron at 1:29 AM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


(The Daily Show recently had a nice little retrospective of some of the media sexism against Clinton. Quite a lot of clips. In case anyone somehow missed all of them the first time around.)
posted by kyrademon at 2:25 AM on June 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


re: Sexism and the Clinton campaign

I don't think anyone would deny that there was blatant sexism on the part of many in the press, in the right wing blogosphere, and elsewhere where Clinton's campaign was concerned.

The point, though, to many of us, is that none of that sexism came from the Obama campaign itself (maybe from its supporters acting in an unofficial capacity on occasion, but never the campaign itself).

No one in the Obama campaign ever raised any of the stereotypical gender-biased concerns about Clinton's qualifications for the presidency, nor did it ever even make an issue of Clinton's gender. No one associated with the Obama campaign ever said publicly that Clinton only got where she is because she's a woman, for instance. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, did make Obama's race an issue.

On those counts, Obama supporters are the ones who have the most to complain about, IMO. But they shouldn't. And we should move quickly to heal the wounds in the party. But Clinton shouldn't be the VP.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:13 AM on June 7, 2008


Other people have been harping on about this, but it bears repeating, the reason Obama won and Hillary lost is that Obama was against the Iraq War and Hillary was for it. If Hillary had been against it there would have been no contest.
posted by Kattullus at 7:18 AM on June 7, 2008


(I'm already thoroughly alienated and despise Obama completely, though I will be at Hillary's speech this morning and see what she has to say that might change any minds.)

Excellent. Vote for Bush then. Let's make this about personalities and who we feel good about or would rather sit down and have a beer with again. The politics of the personal has done such wonders for the health of our democracy. Let's hate people who share 99.99% of our political principles because we lost a contest to them. Let's ignore Obama's 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and instead help elect a guy who's already pledged to put more justices in the mold of Alito and Scalia in the supreme court, so we're virtually guaranteed a reversal of Roe V. Wade in our lifetimes. Let's let right wing spin-doctors convince us there's a massive rift in the Democratic party (oh, those dithering liberals--if only they weren't so quick to turn on each other. oh well. eight more years of republican government.).

We can't afford to be this gullible now.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:20 AM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


What Hillary Won
posted by peacay at 7:41 AM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm already thoroughly alienated and despise Obama completely...

Wait... what are we supposed to say to you to change your mind if this is your position?

Also, Dahlia Lithwick addresses feminist infighting: "We Need to Talk."
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:44 AM on June 7, 2008


...talking about how people who voted for other candidates are retards etc.

I'm sorry, but there really is no other word to describe someone who, disgruntled with Hillary's loss, votes for McCain instead. You need to be seriously fucked in the brain if you choose to elect another decimating four years of Bush III. Especially when the only big difference between your preferred candidate and the one you got is what's between their legs.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 AM on June 7, 2008


Congressional Black Caucus Foundation receives racist Obama t-shirt in the mail.

And last month: Obama, Curious George T-shirt offends citizens, stirs up legal action.
posted by ericb at 8:47 AM on June 7, 2008


The real conundrum five fresh fish, is deciding whether you're more immature for stooping to call some a retard or for judging people by your own blinkered criteria.
posted by peacay at 8:59 AM on June 7, 2008


You need to be seriously fucked in the brain if you choose to elect another decimating four years of Bush III.

Exactly. John McSame has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007.

John McBush 2008 [video | 1:05].
McCain Is Exactly Like Bush

McCain Cast 377 Votes in Support of President Bush’s Position, Supported Bush a Majority of the Time

McCain/Bush Friendship Based On Shared Views On Issues

McCain “Steadfast” And “Outspoken” In His Support For War In Iraq

McCain Said “Stay The Course,” Downplayed Violence And Denied Civil War

McCain Supported Bush Escalation, Claimed Success Despite Previous Criticism

McCain’s Reputation Tied To Bush’s Handling Of Iraq

“A Consistent Supporter Of Personal Social Security Accounts”; Helped Sell Bush Overhaul

Flip-Flop On Bush Tax Cuts A “Breathtaking Turnabout”

McCain Supported No Child Left Behind

McCain’s Health Plan Just Like Bush’s Failed Health Plan

McCain Supported Bush Nominees
Oh, and one more thing:
"President Bush's approval rating is at its lowest level to date. Just 25 percent of Americans approve of the overall job Mr. Bush is doing as President, an all-time low for him and among the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a President.

Sixty-seven percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing - the highest such figure in CBS News polls since he assumed office." *
Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


The real conundrum five fresh fish, is deciding whether you're more immature for stooping to call some a retard or for judging people by your own blinkered criteria.

I'll 'fess to the immaturity accusation, but blinkered criteria is a bit much. George W. Bush and his cadre of inner-administration thugs have demonstrably harmed the U.S. The country is an economic and social mess, has lost all respect on the world stage, has invigorated terrorist groups, and so on and so forth. McCain has been lock-step with those actions and ideals and there is absolutely no reason to believe he'll do things any differently if he's in charge.

In light of the atrocities enacted with the support of McCain, I'd like to hear you offer a better description of a person who, in lieu of voting for Clinton, votes for McCain.

I offer "suicidal" as a viable alternative.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 AM on June 7, 2008


I'm thinking that Clinton supporters hell bent on revenge protest votes should throw their support behind Cynthia McKinney, not John McCain. But I also think I need to shut up about Cynthia McKinney.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:34 AM on June 7, 2008


fff, people vote for many reasons and they don't have to be the reasons you decide. Some people - amazingly enough - don't like or don't trust or are skeptical of the lack of experience of BO. You disagree (and so do I) with their thinking that JMc will be an acceptable alternative in light of HRC being out of the race, and particularly so when it's likely he'll be kept in line by a Democrat-filled congress. *shrug* You know all this.

Interestingly, the HRC home page has, in the last five minutes, changed from its usual layout to now having a sign up form to support Barack Obama. They also have a live stream of the speech (can't watch it on cnn.com from o/s) ... well, whenever HRC arrives, that is.
posted by peacay at 9:40 AM on June 7, 2008


She just started.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:48 AM on June 7, 2008


Pretty distinct boo when she mentioned Obama. Splitters.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:55 AM on June 7, 2008


Does her "full support" mean she's releasing her delegates?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:59 AM on June 7, 2008


This is a good speech. Thank goodness! It'll be interesting to see how sharply Obama's support spikes post-speech.

fff, people vote for many reasons and they don't have to be the reasons you decide.

I can't imagine I said I'm deciding for them. I am saying it's bloody stupid to elect a Bush III, and I believe that is a factual statement. Please, give me any logical argument that concludes McCain will be better for the U.S. I simply can not see how repeating the past eight years of tragic mistakes can result in a positive outcome for the country.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:59 AM on June 7, 2008


Yeah, the speech is good. More enthusiastic in support for Obama than I expected. I'm glad to see her enumerating all the reasons Democrats can't afford to vote for McCain.
posted by EarBucket at 10:02 AM on June 7, 2008


IMO best move Obama can make now is to do a "sexism" version of his "racism" speech. A U.S. united in eliminating -isms would be a helluva powerhouse.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:08 AM on June 7, 2008


Please, give me any logical argument that concludes McCain will be better for the U.S.

Because his White House won't be filled with Cheney yes-men.

Because he's smarter than Bush.

Because he's not and has never been tone-deaf.

Because after eight years of Bush the rest of the world will take anyone not named Bush to be at the head of this country.

Because he'll throw the conservatives that voted for him under the bus for the duration of his term, just like how Bush threw evangelical/fundamentalist conservatives under the bus during his second term.

And because, at the end of the day, he may be a staunch conservative who has allied himself fully with Bush in the Senate the last six or so years, but he is still his own man, the guy who sponsored McCain-Feingold, whose restrictions are killing his ability to get elected.

McCain will be a step up from Bush for this country. Obama would be several flights up, of course, but let's not overlook the reality here that MCCAIN IS NOT BUSH.

I don't think there's any question that Obama is the right choice for right now, but let's at least give McCain credit for the fact he's not the total, complete, miserable failure the Bush cabal has been.
posted by dw at 10:35 AM on June 7, 2008


Good job, Senator Clinton. Impressive speech.
posted by ericb at 10:40 AM on June 7, 2008


I'm seeing this all over the political blogs and news sites, and it really turns people off your candidate.. his own most fervent supporters might well do him in.

Back at you. I chose to caucus for Obama, in the end, because I was tired of Clinton's zealots and their rhetoric.

And since I was precinct captain, I got a lot of accusatory crap thrown at me by Hillary supporters. Never mind that the precinct was 2:1 Obama, clearly as a MAN I must HATE WOMEN or want to SABOTAGE HILLARY or something. And if it were SUCH A DAMN PROBLEM that a MAN ran the caucus, why didn't YOU raise YOUR HAND and AGREE TO RUN IT in that FIFTEEN SECOND SILENCE OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO THE HELL WAS RUNNING IT THIS TIME OUT BEFORE I ACCIDENTALLY DIVULGED THAT I HAD RUN CAUCUSES IN TWO PREVIOUS CYCLES?

I mean, that's what really did it in for me with Clinton folks -- that because I was FORCED by ASSENT to run the damn thing that therefore I must be a MALE OPPRESSOR. I have a daughter. I want her to live in a world where she has no more barriers and no more limits. But more importantly, I want her to STICK HER DAMN HAND UP WHEN SOMEONE ASKS FOR SOMEONE TO RUN SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS A POLITICAL CAUCUS. Or, really, if she decides she doesn't want to run it, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNLESS THE PERSON IS ACTING IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE RULES.

Just. Yeah.
posted by dw at 10:52 AM on June 7, 2008 [5 favorites]


Why did it take her so long to make a speech like that? One that embraced the broad narrative of this race, clearly defined what's at stake, and was all about "we" and not "I?"

That's the speech she should have given, minus the concession, after New Hampshire.
posted by dw at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2008


No one in the Obama campaign ever raised any of the stereotypical gender-biased concerns about Clinton's qualifications for the presidency, nor did it ever even make an issue of Clinton's gender.

Oh, I'm sure that the media is just suppressing the footage of that interview where Obama argued that he'd do better with hard-working male Americans than she would.

And re: dw's experience during the caucus: I know someone who took part in one of the Super Tuesday caucuses. Not only was it her first experience with a caucus, it was her first time ever getting politically active and her first time as a registered Democrat. She and a large group of other Obama supporters showed up that morning; they were greeted by two Clinton campaigners, who admitted rather frantically that they "had no idea how a caucus worked" and could the Obama supporters please, please run it? Which they did. And Obama won. At which point, my friend was subjected to grumblings about how, as a woman, she was a traitor to her gender.

Yeah, those Obama folks. What assholes.
posted by scody at 11:34 AM on June 7, 2008


from peacay's link

One much-circulated e-mail proposed turning June 3, the day Barack Obama claimed the nomination, as a permanent day of mournful remembrance “like the people in Ireland remember the Famine.”

as an irish american, i find that statement to be awfully fucking stupid - keep your hands off of my history, ok?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:03 PM on June 7, 2008


the day Barack Obama claimed the nomination, as a permanent day of mournful remembrance “like the people in Ireland remember the Famine.”

Yeah, because millions of people are now going to starve to death as a direct result of his nomination rather than hers. Much like Clinton supporters in Florida are having to turn in their voting cards in order to get food rations.
posted by scody at 1:14 PM on June 7, 2008


Because he's not and has never been tone-deaf.

Is that the same Senator McCain who was having birthday cake with President Bush while people were drowning in the streets of New Orleans? Who claims he "supported every investigation" into Katrina when in fact he voted against them?
posted by kirkaracha at 1:19 PM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Just a quick note:

From saulgoodman: "I don't think anyone would deny that there was blatant sexism on the part of many in the press, in the right wing blogosphere, and elsewhere where Clinton's campaign was concerned."

There were some people in this thread who were denying exactly that, or at the very least seriously questioning the reality of it. That is the only reason I have weighed in on the subject here, because such an insane argument was being made.

I would also like to note that so far as I know, *no one* on this thread, including citron, has argued that (1) Clinton lost solely because of sexism, (2) Obama ran a sexist campaign or was sexist, (3) Obama didn't face any racism, or (4) Clinton faced more sexism than Obama faced racism (although the opposite argument, that Obama faced more racism, *was* made).

I am not in the same place as citron, and have no qualms whatsoever about voting for Obama. But it is hard not to notice that a non-small portion the response here to the pretty straightforward concept "Clinton faced sexism. That sucked." has been: "No she didn't! Prove it! She was a middle-class white girl! That wasn't why she lost! My candidate was more oppressed than your candidate!" And that, I believe, was what citron was reacting to. Might be wise on your part to acknowledge that happened.

As to which candidate's supporters have been more obnoxious, I really wish we all could just acknowledge that it was a hard-fought primary that aroused high passions on both sides, and both sides had supporters who behaved horribly and who behaved nobly, and stop this truly irritating game of "We're a cult? No, YOU'RE the cult!" "No, YOU'RE a cult!" "I'm rubber and you're glue!" If you really are better than that, prove it, dammit. Be gracious in victory or defeat and quit playing that game.
posted by kyrademon at 1:25 PM on June 7, 2008


The many commentors on hillaryclinton.com are unanimous: no to Obama, never, no matter what she says.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:27 PM on June 7, 2008


At what point do they admit that they're basically just republicans?
posted by Artw at 1:37 PM on June 7, 2008


no to Obama, never, no matter what she says.

And yet, it's Obama and his supporters who are 100% responsible for fixing this by being adequately gracious.

Eh, fuck it. For a certain segment of Clinton supporters, Obama could turn water into wine in front of them, and the response would be outrage that it was merely merlot and not caberbet sauvignon.
posted by scody at 1:46 PM on June 7, 2008


(And incidentally, if you would have voted for Clinton if Obama lost, say whatever you like about the die-hards. If you wouldn't have, you're yelling at a mirror. Not accusing anyone in particular either way, but it might be something for a couple of people to think about.)
posted by kyrademon at 1:57 PM on June 7, 2008


The New York Times has a long and really interesting article about her campaign (link). I sound like a broken record, but what surprised me, like in other "what went wrong" articles, is how badly she allowed relations among her senior staff to deteriorate, and how badly run her campaign was.

If that was a preview of what her administration would have been like, we are lucky she didn't win. But I'm still startled that no one had the authority or the courage to tell her early on "things are not working, you need to fire these dunces, your key people are not talking to each other" and so on. That it was allowed to continue is inexcusable -- if she couldn't see it, then surely senior DNC people could, no? Why didn't they pull the plug on the juvenile behavior in her campaign office?
posted by Forktine at 2:41 PM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm convinced there was a ton of sexism in the media. Gahd, revolting.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:42 PM on June 7, 2008


But I'm still startled that no one had the authority or the courage to tell her early on "things are not working, you need to fire these dunces, your key people are not talking to each other" and so on.

Yeah, I know... it's the part of the puzzle I can't quite figure out. There's the makings of a good Shakespearean tragedy in there, I think.

And echoing others, her speech today was excellent. If she'd taken that kind of approach on Tuesday, I wonder if she'd already be on the ticket... and if she's taken that approach for the better part of the campaign, she very well could have won.
posted by scody at 2:47 PM on June 7, 2008


Obama's most excellent thank you, Hillary speech. Damn, the man has class.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:49 PM on June 7, 2008


The many commentors on hillaryclinton.com are unanimous: no to Obama, never, no matter what she says.

If internet crazies decided elections, Ron Paul would be president.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:20 PM on June 7, 2008 [6 favorites]


The internet crazies are pretty much all behind Obama now and have been since the history of numerous (rather than just the one "ghostwriter" thing) racist statements came out.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:32 PM on June 7, 2008


If internet crazies decided elections, Ron Paul would be president.

!!

We should get Hillary a blimp!

That's the perfect solution! I wonder why no one thought of that earlier.
posted by spiderwire at 4:08 PM on June 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Weird stuff in that NYT article.

Unlike her opponents, Mrs. Clinton refused to make solicitation calls to donors and had to be talked into calling the party officials known as superdelegates.

Oh, and wow is Mark Penn a scumbag:

At one point, Mr. Penn argued that Mrs. Clinton should find subtle ways to exploit what he called Mr. Obama’s “lack of American roots,” referring to his Kenyan father and his childhood years in Indonesia and even the offshore state of Hawaii, the campaign officials said.

Big talk coming from a guy who lost his position because he was lobbying for the Colombian government. Dick.
posted by spiderwire at 4:14 PM on June 7, 2008


The widely scorned Penn is definitely one of the main reasons she lost, but she did keep him on long after she should have known better.


More evidence of scumminess
: a Clinton superdelegate says the campaign "explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:26 PM on June 7, 2008


Hillary Clinton: "Take Our Energy, Our Passion, Our Strength And Do All We Can To Help Elect Barack Obama"
posted by ericb at 5:30 PM on June 7, 2008


But it is hard not to notice that a non-small portion the response here to the pretty straightforward concept "Clinton faced sexism. That sucked." has been: "No she didn't! Prove it! She was a middle-class white girl! That wasn't why she lost!

Kyrademon: On review, you're point is well taken. Some here may have argued that Clinton didn't really face sexism, which I agree, definitely wasn't the case. Was that really the main driver behind her loss though? That's moot, I think. What is clear to me is that Obama stayed above the fray and didn't participate in any of the sexism that swirled around the Clinton campaign. Even though he easily could have, in subtle ways, purposely played to those sexist instincts. He didn't. That tells me a lot about the man's character, and I respect it. I don't know if it's necessarily the most politically savvy way to handle what could have been an easy issue for Obama to score cheap political points on, but it's the most honorable way, and that makes me proud that I have and continue to support his campaign.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:37 PM on June 7, 2008


At what point do they admit that they're basically just republicans?

I am convinced that some of those claiming to be Hillary supporters are indeed Republicans playing their part in Rush Limbaugh's coordinated campaign to disrupt and foment discord in the Democratic Party via his Operation Chaos ***
posted by ericb at 5:37 PM on June 7, 2008


GO HILLARY! YOU ARE THE BEST!

18,000,000 of us our with you until you are our President.

Please keep fighting for us! We will fight for you!



by ABG at 6/7/2008 12:24:51 PM
[Login or Create Account to Reply]

*
HILLARY WE ARE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY...

BUT WE WILL NOT VOTE BO...

by Vel at 6/7/2008 12:33:04 PM
[Login or Create Account to Reply]
o
Hillary..........................................

We support you FOREVER!!!

BUT we will NEVER support BO!!! He doesn't deserve it! He stole it!!! NEVER means NEVER!!!

Also, we will FOREVER remember what BO, his nasty supporters, MSM, & the UNdemocratic DNC did in this election.

McCain 08!!!

Hillary 2012!!!

by People at 6/7/2008 1:33:08 PM
[Login or Create Account to Reply]
+
Standing Together

Stand together

Are you ready to Unite

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2595

I Love Hillary - I will work for you
Sorta reads like serial killer rants. I'm kind of glad these folks are no longer in the Democratic base. At least there will be fewer unsolved murders in the aftermath of the convention this time around.
posted by psmealey at 6:33 PM on June 7, 2008


Thank Hillary Clinton (really)

It is still the same day that Clinton officially stepped down, so it's not unusual for her blogs to be filled with outrage. I imagine it would be similar within the Obama camp if she had won, although I hope we can all be civil to each other. Within the next few weeks, most of the Clinton supporters will probably join the support for Obama. In the meantime, I've also made a donation which seeks a matching donation from a new donor to encourage new people. I also bought some signs, shirts and stickers. First time I've ever done that, but I live in a very close swing state, and I'll be damned if I'll let NM go for McCain. Time to get busy.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:25 PM on June 7, 2008


Fine piece in Salon on Hillary's run.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:44 PM on June 7, 2008


I just learned McCain had another wife. I'm not sure his divorcing her after her accident is all that monstrous, though. The likely alternative would be for him to have taken up a mistress. And they do seem to have parted on good terms, plus he's paying her medical.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:01 AM on June 8, 2008


I don't know fff, that seems like pretty jerk-like behavior to me. Dumping your former swimsuit model wife after she's had a crippling accident so that you can marry a blond heiress twenty years younger who has enough money to finance your political career.
posted by octothorpe at 5:03 AM on June 8, 2008


The likely alternative would be for him to have taken up a mistress.

He did just that!

McCain (who has been cozying up to the conservative, family values crowd) met Cindy Lou Hensley in 1979 while still married to his first wife (Carol). So much for the sanctity of marriage.
"On top of that, his personal life was a mess: Although he was still living with his wife, he was aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich....For a candidate running on character and biography, it is also an awkward time to remember: Mr. McCain abandoned his wife, who had reared their three children while he was in Vietnamese prisons, and he then began his political career with the resources of his new wife's family." *

--------------------------

"'You had an affair during your first marriage,' CNN's Bernard Shaw said to the Arizona senator. 'The sitting president is being impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician's private acts be part of public discourse?'

'Let me say that I am responsible for the breakup of my first marriage,' McCain replied. 'I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that's fine.'"*
posted by ericb at 6:06 AM on June 8, 2008


So much for the sanctity of marriage.

Worse was Newt Gingrich, who served one of his wives with divorce papers while she was on her deathbed. This didn't get much traction in the media in the runup to Clinton's Gingrich-engineered impeachment for some reason.

Democrats never win on character debates because of the whole "both sides are bad, but at least Republicans give us tax breaks" argument. People only seem to care when Democrats act immorally. I don't really understand it, but there it is.

Saw this forum thread this morning, it's some comments on BBC News by Brits on whether or not a black man has a chance to be President of the US. Interesting to see how the views. Mostly, not much different from how we see ourselves.
posted by psmealey at 6:49 AM on June 8, 2008


Oh, well, that is pretty simple really, Democrats are pursued by Republicans, who think people care about these issues, while Republicans are pursued by Democrats, who think people care about corruption.

I don't know if Obama will win, but this is a great opportunity, both for blacks and the democrats. I imagine running Obama for president undoes all past pandering to blacks by republicans, ala faith based programs. So Obama is a long term win for the democrats even if he loses the election.

Additionally Obama has the international community behind him, meaning his victory will let us recover from Bush's mess. I'm doubt that would be possible under Clinton. So Obama is the best choice to run.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:15 AM on June 8, 2008


kirkaracha:
The "Obama & Iraq" tab is all about McCain's stupid criticism that Obama hasn't been to Iraq in 800-whatever days so he doesn't know what's going on ...

Why would McMain want to push Obama to go to Iraq? That seems like a stupid strategy, it would turn in to a big media event and highlight the fact that Iraq is still a total cluster-frack. McCain's trips to Iraq have been PR disaster's with laughable pictures of him having to walk around with a helmet and full body armor with attack helicopters flying overhead after he bragged about how safe the country was.
posted by octothorpe at 12:18 PM on June 8, 2008


"Uncle Barack's Cabin"

WTF.
posted by homunculus at 1:37 PM on June 8, 2008


"Uncle Barack's Cabin"

WTF.


I'm not finding the article that Huffington Post references on the site for that German publication. I suspect that Huffington Post may be taking the headline out of context, myself. Or at least there's not enough content or context quoted in HP for me to agree with what they're saying it means.

Which seems odd to me, for a front page article. Is it on their website somewhere and I'm just missing it as I skim?
posted by Tehanu at 2:21 PM on June 8, 2008


Here's a photo of the front page, along with some less hysterical commentary from Der Spiegel.


Also, this is a 13 minute youtube video of Obama's pep talk to his young troops at GHQ. It's really worth a listen.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:30 PM on June 8, 2008


Yeah thanks, I just found that and some other links. I think maybe the original site pulled it. I now think Huffington Post's reaction seems more on the mark than I thought at first, but with a quicker jump to offensive than I would have made. It was certainly in bad taste, though. Reactions from Wonkette and Village Voice.

Yikes. Maybe now that Clinton has dropped out, "tone deaf comment about Obama's race found to be not very funny at all by many and offensive by some" vs. "oh you just don't understand our clever satire!" is going to be the new topic limited to one active thread at a time.
posted by Tehanu at 2:35 PM on June 8, 2008


Ah. They've invited their readers to comment on whether or not the headline is racist. 89 comments at the moment.

I wonder how much of this was a lack of appreciation for the more specific American cultural context and how much was a real tone deafness for racial issues period?
posted by Tehanu at 2:52 PM on June 8, 2008


One Historic Night, Two Americas
posted by homunculus at 5:10 PM on June 8, 2008


Michelle Obama's Whitey video surfaces
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:21 PM on June 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


That was shocking. Someone needs to notify Larry Johnson ASAP.
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on June 8, 2008


Whooooooooooooooa. That's gonna be a problem.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:49 PM on June 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I doubt anyone reads the posts down here, but I just wanted to note that I think I've figured out the general election race at this point in time. For a while now I've been struggling to reconcile the widespread notion of an Obama landslide in November with the day-to-day polling reality--even after NC/IN, Obama has continued to run in a dead heat with McCain. (this has changed with the most recent Rasmussen tracking polls.)

In short, this year McCain is the Kerry of the right.

The similarities are fairly obvious:

a) Selected by the party out of a wide field of interesting candidates, early in the campaign season, primarily because of electability and biography.
b) Is mostly known for war-hero credentials rather than substantive legislative accomplishments.
c) Is essentially the "anybody but Obama" candidate. Loathed by a substantial proportion of the party base, treated tepidly by the moderates, breaks even with independents. Party activists have to tell themselves to bite the bullet and vote for the nominee despite their distaste and distrust.
d) Lacks a defined and articulated position on issues--even if Kerry's supposed flip-flopping was highly exaggerated, it was hard to tell what he really stood for and what he was willing to ditch for political gain.
e) Is forced to resort to constant pandering, which often comes off as laughably ham-handed.
f) Exhibits a woeful lack of media savvy.
g) Faces an opponent who out-fundraises, out-organizes, and out-messages him on almost every level.

Now, Kerry had a good chance, because he happened to be running against Bush and not a Republican Obama. But take a look at this chart of Rasmussen tracking polls from 2004. Notice that only once in those 10 months of polling did John Kerry's support rise above 48%. That's because, I think, this kind of candidate--who functions almost like a blank slate--can only inspire a certain level of support. The protest vote creates enthusiasm up until a certain point, but eventually, unless you believe in the candidate himself, it dries up and fails to reach any further, though it never really dips too low either.

Compare, also, this May 2008 CBS poll with this March 2004 CBS poll. Ignore what the 2008 poll says about Obama; he's just won the nomination and things are still unsettled. Instead, look at McCain and Kerry's favorable/unfavorable ratings. Isn't it strange? A candidate chosen based on his generic biographical appeal to voters doesn't really appeal to them at all! They're both rated slightly unfavorably. But also note how 41% of people are undecided or don't know enough about Kerry--while 29% percent feel this way about John McCain, one point higher than Obama. Barack Obama is a freshman senator who only acquired national prominence four years ago; John McCain has been a figure of national importance for at least a decade, and has been involved in national politics for three more. It is clear that he's just too bland for a third of the electorate to have any definite opinion about him at all.

That means that both Kerry and McCain have to define their identities right in the campaign process. The main risk of this is that your opponent has at least as much of a shot at defining you as you yourself do. That's why Bush's personal attacks on Kerry, and the swiftboatings, were so effective. And that's why McCain is constantly stumbling in his attempts to parry Obama--because he hasn't figured out an effective or consistent narrative to present about himself.

I don't think 2008 will be a landslide, though it certainly won't be as close as 2004. It's evident that, like Kerry (and unlike Reagan, W, and Obama), McCain just lacks the personal bones from which to hang the narrative meat--the reason to vote for him rather than against his opponent. Thus the only way he can win is to cast as much doubt as possible on Obama's credibility. This may be a fruitful tactic, because Obama has a few obvious weaknesses. But I think it will be very difficult for three reasons:

a) Obama is made of Teflon and is also an adept at political maneuvering.
b) These tactics work better when you have the organizational and financial advantage.
c) McCain himself has been constantly making noises to the effect that he despises dirty campaign tricks and 527s, which potentially means he'll cripple his own best chance to win.

It looks pretty good for Obama, I'd say--at least if Kerry is anything to go by.
posted by nasreddin at 6:54 PM on June 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


Michelle Obama's Whitey video surfaces

God damn you.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:21 PM on June 8, 2008


nasreddin writes "It is clear that he's just too bland for a third of the electorate to have any definite opinion about him at all"

Which is in some ways bizarre. War hero, married to two models, seven kids, gay daughter; the guy could be as interesting as Trudeau. Sure, he's older than 9 out of 10 Americans now, but he wasn't 20 years ago.
posted by Mitheral at 8:21 PM on June 8, 2008


I'll second CunningLinguist on the Obama pep talk video. After all this high-budget campaigning from all sides, looks almost too authentic to be true.
posted by Anything at 3:27 AM on June 9, 2008


That's not necessarily true either.

Actually, it is. For our government's purposes, if they aren't resident here, they are resident somewhere else, and came from that place. It's really that simple.
posted by oaf at 5:09 AM on June 9, 2008


McCain: “The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” (Apparently also believes that “In God We Trust” was coined by the Founders.)
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 7:01 AM on June 9, 2008


This is bizarre: McCain blatantly lied to reporters about what he said in a major televised speech a few days earlier, and no one in the media's calling him on it yet.
posted by EarBucket at 8:57 AM on June 9, 2008


'Willie Horton' ad creator takes on Obama
posted by homunculus at 9:47 AM on June 9, 2008


Does it use race-baiting? If I were that guy I'd be worried about people seeing me as a bit of a one-note hate ad director.
posted by Artw at 10:13 AM on June 9, 2008


[Presidential wannabe] McCain: 'The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.'

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." Treaty of Tripoli (1797), unanimously ratified by the Senate and signed into law by actual President John Adams.
When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it...
-- Reverend Bird Wilson
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
-- Thomas Jefferson
posted by kirkaracha at 10:46 AM on June 9, 2008


Forgive me for this link, but now even LGF has blacklisted Larry Johnson’s “No Quarter” blog (purveyors of the Michelle Obama video rumors,) for disseminating “dirty tricks and misinformation.”
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 10:46 AM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:00 AM on June 9, 2008


Wait, Larry Johnson is blacklisted over the mythical whitey video?
I always thought his Grandmama videos were better anyway.
posted by lukemeister at 1:57 PM on June 9, 2008


McCain blatantly lied to reporters about what he said in a major televised speech a few days earlier

Or he just forget that he said something that he probably didn't even write, which given the circumstances of the job of campaigning for President, isn't totally out of the realm of possibility.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:00 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


I guess it's possible he doesn't remember on Friday what he said on Tuesday. I think that brings up a whole different set of questions.
posted by EarBucket at 2:07 PM on June 9, 2008


Or he just forget that he said something that he probably didn't even write

which pretty much proves that he was talking just to have his lips flap and didn't mean any of it to begin with - it was all insignificant blather, even to him

y a w n
posted by pyramid termite at 2:29 PM on June 9, 2008


McCain's Ties To Telecoms Questioned After Wiretapping Flip-Flop
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on June 9, 2008


Regnery Publishing Begins Its Swift-Boating Assault On Obama
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on June 9, 2008


Feminists, the Choice is Obvious:
I marched for women's rights, helped found the first feminist group in Cambridge, and like some of you, danced for joy when Geraldine Ferraro was nominated for vice president.

But I also grew up in an era when an African-American president was an impossibility, when African-Americans in the South were shot for having the temerity to vote. I worked for civil rights, registered black voters. Later, I witnessed busing in Boston, where angry white mobs stoned school buses filled with terrified black children, where people of color were never in power.

I get it.

...[But] let me get this straight; you consider yourself a Democrat and a feminist. Yet rather than vote for a man who supports a woman's right to choose, children's healthcare, and an end to the war in Iraq, you would vote for a man who voted against all of these things.

You would vote for a man who is promising to nominate far-right activists for the Supreme Court, a man who votes consistently against choice, affirmative action, and workers' rights.

You would vote for a man who supports President Bush on most major issues vs. a man whose positions are quite similar to Clinton's.

I just don't get it.
posted by scody at 6:09 PM on June 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


Relax, liberals. You've already won: No matter who prevails at the ballot box in November, John McCain or Barack Obama, the four-decade-long conservative counterrevolution is over
posted by homunculus at 11:10 PM on June 9, 2008


breaks the guidelines?: "Forgive me for this link, but now even LGF has blacklisted Larry Johnson’s “No Quarter” blog (purveyors of the Michelle Obama video rumors,) for disseminating “dirty tricks and misinformation.”"

Owww, you know that you've got problems if you're too batshitinsane for LGF.
posted by octothorpe at 6:06 AM on June 10, 2008


I'm amazed nobody's set up a full-fledged No Quarter parody site yet.

Also: At the Brokered Convention.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:13 PM on June 10, 2008


My favorite piece of NoQuarter lunacy yet. You can't make this stuff up:

Barack Obama and David Axelrod’s Selfish Greed Endangers Every Child in America by Giving a Direct Pathway to Every Pedophile to Our Children
posted by nasreddin at 2:38 PM on June 10, 2008


that no quarter guy is a real scarfbat, isn't he?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:44 PM on June 10, 2008


Jesus fuck what a fucking lunatic. The commenters at that blog are maybe even worse, though.
posted by dersins at 3:16 PM on June 10, 2008


Yikes. I've read Johnson's blog off and on for awhile and I don't remember him being batshit crazy like this. I wonder what happened.
posted by homunculus at 3:40 PM on June 10, 2008


"Terrorist Fist Jab" Anchor E.D. Hill Loses Her Show
posted by mrzarquon at 3:53 PM on June 10, 2008


I don't remember him being batshit crazy like this. I wonder what happened.

A lack of universal healthcare. Poor loon needs meds.

I was amused by LGF's claim that the site is not going to let LGF be used to disseminate dirty tricks and misinformation, and yet the subsequent thread has a considerable amount of dirty tricks misinformation in it.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:27 PM on June 10, 2008


I pretty much stopped reading here:

I turned 18 in November. My first thought? Oh God, I have to vote.I hadn’t listened to the pundits, I didn’t even know who was running. Some Hispanic guy, some black guy, and the former First Lady of the United States; oh, and some other white guys.

Don't get me wrong, I know some passionate, intensely smart 18 year olds. But, I know this guy's work, after stumbling on his blog a couple of months bag. I came to think of him as an oddball crank, a self-proclaimed "liberal" who is given to incoherent, and logic defying rants and out of thin air innuendo and condemnation. Sort of a Michael Savage type, but oddly aligned (tightly aligned) and viciously protective of a Democratic candidate and what, in his mind she stands for, instead of spouting racist tropes that were old hat 40 years ago. Now, it all makes sense. He's 18. He has no life experience anchoring his beliefs. He's got voices in his head, shock tactics, an overdeveloped sense of self-importance, a poor understanding of human nature, and a bizarrely skewed version of very recent U.S. history.

It seems odd when you read heartfelt views posted earnestly on the web, it seems to accord itself a special gravity (until proven otherwise), and can inspire even the most level-headed among us to infantile spite, and bile spitting fury. But, if you met the guy in physical world, standing on the line at the post office, at the grocery store, in a movie, you'd shrug him off (fair or unfair) as a young imbecile, and and never think about him again.

Alas, a star is born. Jack Cafferty, you're on notice, because Larry Johnson just put you there. He's gonna take yeeerrr jerb.
posted by psmealey at 8:20 PM on June 10, 2008


That 'Dem primary season in 8 minutes' video - updated.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:27 PM on June 10, 2008


LGF isn't always nuts.

WTF, Bush? The Sauds have more money than god, more sunlight than they know what to do with, supplied the terrorists that brought America to its knees, and you offer to help them build nuclear reactors?!?!

The mind boggles.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:25 PM on June 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


LGF isn't always nuts.

Even a stopped clock...
posted by pompomtom at 3:54 AM on June 11, 2008


The comment section for the John McCain Golf Pack is great (via BalloonJuice).
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on June 11, 2008


Has johnmccain.com taken down all the golf stuff? I'm not seeing it.
posted by Tehanu at 6:57 AM on June 11, 2008


“Now, it all makes sense. He's 18.”

psmeasley, that’s not Larry Johnson, that’s just a contributer to his blog. Johnson is a former CIA agent, and considerably older than 18, certainly old enough to know better.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 7:34 AM on June 11, 2008


Tehanu: "Has johnmccain.com taken down all the golf stuff? I'm not seeing it."

Looks like. You can see screen shots in the BalloonJuice link in my last comment.
posted by octothorpe at 11:14 AM on June 11, 2008


More on the removal here. Apparently the Obama site also disabled their product reviews even though there didn't seem to be any antics going on over there. Those comments in the screenshots at BalloonJuice are pure awesome though.

“The 2000 Father’s Day McCain Golf Pack had more balls. This golf pack is too much like the George W. Bush golf pack I got last year,” read one review. “But, I will show those Obama supporters that i’m (sic) no elitist when I knock a hole in one.”
posted by Tehanu at 11:28 AM on June 11, 2008


I wonder what the conversation was like just before they put in the golf store. I wonder what the conversation was like after they took it off. Is anything going to replace it? A polo shoppe?
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:54 AM on June 11, 2008


It seems like McCain is always seconds away from a campaign ending gaffe. Someone needs to ask him what a gallon of gas costs.
posted by drezdn at 12:30 PM on June 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama campaign shuts down blog claiming the candidate is a martian.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:06 PM on June 11, 2008


I was thinking earlier-- maybe the best kind of persuasion to use when people are willing to believe any bullshit is to just completely ridicule the bullshitting activity itself. Sort of like Colbert, but a blog. So the martian thing might be the context to use. It could be Obamaisfromouterspace.com or something. Comb over the news daily and find suggestive evidence to support your overarching hypothesis. Ignore actual data. Crop photos of him to look a little off. Photoshop him to look a tinge green, but in a subtle fashion. Insinuate that his incredible powers of charisma are just not earth-based.

I cannot for the life of me find the photo I saw on a site a few months ago, it was a conservative site, but they'd so obviously picked a photo of him that they cropped and framed just so to make him look more stereotypically black. It skewed the proportions of his face and the lighting was darker too. It might have just been creative selection and cropping, but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually altered the height/width ratio directly. It was very... he is a black man. Don't forget what he respresents. I wish I could remember which site it is. It was pretty disturbing, and probably the only truly unflattering image of him I've ever seen. That and the degree to which it was manipulated made it stand out. And it was right by a headline about something or other negative about him. So there was this news tone, but then the altered image.

I don't think people who weren't tracking him in the news so much and were predisposed to dislike him would notice though. It was obvious to me but not obvious. I expect we're going to see some weird stuff go down in this campaign.
posted by Tehanu at 2:35 PM on June 11, 2008


Johnson is a former CIA agent

That seems appropriate. That agency continuously fucks things up beyond all repair. That they're all paranoid loons without any grip on reality would explain that problem.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:59 PM on June 11, 2008


Out of curiousity, I went back and read through a few old threads on the subject of Obama's candidacy from Metafilter's past. Very interesting reading them with hindsight, particularly the argument about whether he or Hillary would be more electable, or whether they'd fall to the side of the road, clearing the way for Ned Lamont or John Breaux to seize the nomination.
posted by EarBucket at 6:17 AM on June 12, 2008


Obama launches new web site, fightthesmears.com.

In other news, Yahoo! is still figuring out hyperlink technology.
posted by Tehanu at 7:40 AM on June 12, 2008


The first few times that I tried to load fightthesmears.com, I got redirected to barackobama.com's front page. Anyone had this? It may have had something to do with javascript being disabled, but now it seems to work regardless, even after I removed the old cookies. Maybe it was some kind of a stale cookie issue?
posted by Anything at 1:30 PM on June 12, 2008


By the way, the Fight the Smears title image is word-spaced inconsistently. I think I'll email them; we can probably expect this detail to be fixed in about four minutes.
posted by Anything at 1:35 PM on June 12, 2008


By the way, the Fight the Smears title image is word-spaced inconsistently.

Hadn't noticed that. I'm sure they'll fix it, because goddamn that campaign has good logos.
posted by middleclasstool at 2:07 PM on June 12, 2008


Fox stays classy: chyron calls Michelle the candidate's "baby mama."
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:07 PM on June 12, 2008


In fairness, that graphic is probably quoting Michele Malkin, pictured at left, and Malkin is, after all, a pretty well known racist scumbag.

Though she is apparently marginally less scurrilous than we are. Who'd a thunk it?
posted by dersins at 3:36 PM on June 12, 2008


Except not. What a laugh: she's blaming fox.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:43 PM on June 12, 2008


(dersins is referring to this)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:43 PM on June 12, 2008


I don't know which is worse, FOX News peddling racist bullshit while pondering liberal outage, or FOX trying to use colloquial expressions. Note to FOX News: She's by definition not his baby mama. I'm not surprised that Michelle Malkin seems to think "my babies' daddy" and "baby daddy" mean the same things.

Well, FOX News mission accomplished, I guess.
posted by Tehanu at 7:30 AM on June 13, 2008


Website peddles racially-charged ‘Sock Obama’ toy.
posted by ericb at 7:48 AM on June 13, 2008


I don't know which is worse, FOX News peddling racist bullshit while pondering liberal outage, or FOX trying to use colloquial expressions.

From today's WSJ:
"For the second time this week, Fox News Channel was driven to respond to criticism over on-air statements about Barack Obama, in this case for screen text that described the Democratic presidential candidate's wife as 'Obama's baby mama.' The term is often applied pejoratively to unwed mothers.

...The phrase baby mama or baby mother is Caribbean in origin, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines it as 'the mother of a man's child, who is not his wife nor (in most cases) his current or exclusive partner.' It has gained wider currency in recent years through use in hip-hop lyrics and celebrity magazines.

...Among friends, 'baby mama' could be construed as friendly or a joke, according to Bakari Kitwana, an artist in residence at the University of Chicago who has written about the phrase in his book "The Hip Hop Generation." But he says its use to describe the wife of a presidential candidate is disrespectful.

'Michelle Obama is not Fox News's homegirl,' Mr. Kitwana said. 'You're taking something out of its culture and political context.'"
posted by ericb at 7:52 AM on June 13, 2008


Michelle Obama is not Fox News's homegirl,

Truer words, I suspect, have seldom been spoken.
posted by dersins at 9:30 AM on June 13, 2008


Once upon a time, Michelle Obama and FOX News were BFFs. Then Michelle married the future most liberal senator in Congress and didn't invite FOX News to the wedding. FOX News stopped speaking to her. To this day, FOX News remains bitter and angry. Also frequently embarrassingly drunk at social functions.
posted by Tehanu at 9:42 AM on June 13, 2008


And Obama's veep is ... a Republican? Some are buzzing about Chuck Hagel, a strong critic of Bush and the war, for the Democratic ticket. A bold idea or political fantasy?
posted by homunculus at 9:56 PM on June 16, 2008


A bold idea or political fantasy?

FYI, political fantasy.
posted by dersins at 12:38 AM on June 17, 2008


Nah ... never happen. But don't be shocked to see: Sec. of Defense, Chuck Hagel.

I almost consider that a given.
posted by RavinDave at 2:22 AM on June 17, 2008


It sure won't be Hillary.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:09 AM on June 17, 2008


Wow, CunningLinguist.

The bundler said that Clinton loyalists were livid over the pick.

"You don't hire Patti Solis Doyle for her operational expertise," said the bundler. "You don't do that. This is someone who failed dramatically at her job. You only bring her on to fuck someone else."


It's statements like these that are quickly eroding any sympathy I had left for Clinton's most loyal former staff. That campaign was problematic from the start, and whenever someone would leave it, or in this case left it during the campaign and now joins with Obama afterwards, there's all this anger and blame that follows. They're not looking at what they maybe did wrong, but rather at what everyone else must have done against them. I'm even more relieved that Obama won the nomination now that I'm seeing the bitter commentary from Clinton supporters. Just thinking about what would have happened if her staff had a general election campaign to run now sinks my stomach.
posted by Tehanu at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2008


The new Quinnipiac poll, out this morning:

Florida: Obama 47 -- McCain 43
Ohio: Obama 48 -- McCain 42
Pennsylvania: Obama 52 -- McCain 40
posted by EarBucket at 5:40 AM on June 18, 2008


McCain rebrands.
posted by aqhong at 8:50 AM on June 18, 2008


WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.
posted by aqhong at 8:53 AM on June 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


McCain rebrands.

So now he's an XFL team? Look, John, they're...extinct.
posted by kittyprecious at 8:56 AM on June 18, 2008


The new McCain logo is terrible. Bad font, bad design, and it doesn't even look like a political campaign sign. It's more like something you'd have seen on the box for an Apple IIc game. Are they actively trying to lose?
posted by EarBucket at 9:00 AM on June 18, 2008


Those are hilarious, aqhong.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

posted by Tehanu at 9:06 AM on June 18, 2008


aqhong: "McCain rebrands."

There really are no good Republican graphic designers, are there? Everything that they come up with looks like something that the Colbert Report would create as a parody.
posted by octothorpe at 9:24 AM on June 18, 2008


Are they actively trying to lose?

I see it as a prelude. I think they're going full bore to the fear tactics. Allow an attack and then have the dark, protective, military colors and stars. In the comments somebody reference how it has a resemblance or elements of the nascar logo. Um, that's not a bad thing since tons of people are involved with that and will be voting, and you're using the feelings they have towards that as an American institution.

I'm probably beanplating this, but I feel like some of this stuff is getting vastly underestimated. One thing is for sure - these next five months are going to be increasingly more memorable and crazy. Or maybe not, what do I know.
posted by cashman at 9:26 AM on June 18, 2008


Are they actively trying to lose? I see it as a prelude. I think they're going full bore to the fear tactics.

Fear tactics are a given, but that doesn't exclude monumental incompetence. 8 years of Bush 2 have pounded that lesson home.
posted by msalt at 9:39 AM on June 18, 2008


"The people who really matter come November - independent voters - turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts [Clinton] on the ticket.''

I'm starting to like the idea of Obama/Wesley Clark.
posted by cashman at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2008


Conservative talk radio hosts (I'm looking at you Monica Crowley) are already saying "Look, the guy's a Muslim, his family admits it. They're all Muslims, too. He can deny it all he wants, but we will protect his Muslim brothers even if they are terrorists. That's why he wants to free all the terrorists in Guantanamo." Obama has scheduled trips to Iraq and Afghanistan and I would love to see him come under some enemy fire and personally grab a firearm and record an enemy kill. Until he personally kills a terrorist, I'm afraid we'll have four years of "He's a muslim terrorist."
posted by mattbucher at 9:58 AM on June 18, 2008


The old McCain star seemed appropriate. The new one just seems Blah.
posted by drezdn at 10:02 AM on June 18, 2008


McCain’s online store has some new “vote red” products that kinda rip off the (product) red stuff. Funny that McCain doesn’t have a clue of what to do about AIDS. (I cannot find any official mention of HIV/AIDS on McCain’s website—just a few press clippings. OTOH, Obama’s site does have an HIV/AIDS fact sheet.)
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 10:20 AM on June 18, 2008


That is awful.
posted by cashman at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2008


new “vote red” products

It reminds me of Tab.
posted by drezdn at 10:44 AM on June 18, 2008


McCain rebrands.

Wow. Way to look like a Nascar logo.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:42 AM on June 18, 2008


Obama kicking butt in swing state polls:

* Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent
* Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent
* Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent
posted by octothorpe at 1:56 PM on June 18, 2008


McCain rebrands.

Actually he didn't. Some dumbass blogger saw a new logo on some merchandise and assumed it was an official campaign logo. It wasn't. Just for the record.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:06 PM on June 18, 2008


Vote Red. Vote Commie!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:06 PM on June 18, 2008


John McCain and the "Project for a New American Century"
posted by homunculus at 6:50 PM on June 18, 2008


[Zach enters the room]

Nine hundred twenty-eight comments total, give or take, as of this posting. Really?

[Zach sits at a chair near a table. Places a colorless button on the table.]

Vote red!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Vote blue!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Vote green!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Vote ...whatever color libertarian is!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Vote paisley plaid polka-dotted with a side order of rectum!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

I'll have whatever she's having!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Wile E. Coyote: Super Genius!!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Negative! I am a meat popsicle!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

All he'd wanted was the same answers the rest of us want. Where do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do is sit there and watch him die!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

Do you get the joke yet? If you still vote, do you get that YOU are the punchline?

[Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.]

...

[Zach gets back up. Sits back in chair. Puts hand over the colorless button again.]

You wanna have another go?

[Throws the colorless button at you in disgust.]
posted by ZachsMind at 7:16 PM on June 18, 2008


Obama opts out of public financing.
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 AM on June 19, 2008


Do you get the joke yet? If you still vote, do you get that YOU are the punchline?

Yes, complete and total apathy would really show 'em.
posted by Tehanu at 7:02 AM on June 19, 2008


Bring back benevolent dictatorships, I say.


I say it mostly to get that rant out of my recent activity.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:18 AM on June 19, 2008


That was a rant? Huh. It felt more like something I would have read in my high school's literary magazine.
posted by dersins at 8:22 AM on June 19, 2008


More Obama art, some of it cool, some laughably awful.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:24 AM on June 19, 2008


CunningLinguist writes "I say it mostly to get that rant out of my recent activity."

Besides that goal I like it when posts reach meaningless base10 round numbers.
posted by Mitheral at 8:24 AM on June 19, 2008


I say it mostly to get that rant out of my recent activity.

I think we can all get behind that.
posted by EarBucket at 10:40 AM on June 19, 2008


Bring back benevolent dictatorships, I say.

I say thee yea and will send my resume immediately. I believe my experience as hall monitor in 3rd grade uniquely qualifies me for absolute power. I only ask that my castle have a moat with goldfish in it, and that Metafilter pay a reasonable annual tribute in exchange for my not posting Buffy fan videos to the front page.
posted by Tehanu at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2008


posting Buffy fan videos to the front page.

I think you're bluffing.
posted by homunculus at 12:56 PM on June 19, 2008


You'll have a plutocracy and like it, dammit!
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on June 19, 2008


I think we can all get behind that.

I bet Larry Johnson disagrees.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:01 PM on June 19, 2008


posting Buffy fan videos to the front page.

I think you're bluffing.


If my sockpuppet army should happen to spam the site with Buffy videos, I will of course ask them to stop. Most of them are pretty bad anyway.
posted by Tehanu at 1:06 PM on June 19, 2008


Obama's first general election ad.
posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on June 19, 2008


Zach pushes the button. Gets an electrical shock. Falls out of chair.

this is how the rubber-gloved elite ensure they will continue to run the system
posted by pyramid termite at 2:26 PM on June 19, 2008


Obama's first general election ad .

Man, I hate political ads. Even in the rare case where I think the politician would do a good job. This is probably the best and most positive message I've seen, and it still bugs me. I think it's the Very Special Episode tone.
posted by Tehanu at 2:32 PM on June 19, 2008


WSJ: Rove blasts both candidates on economy
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:04 PM on June 19, 2008


Tehanu, you obviously never saw Steve Novick's ads. I'm really surprised he lost after that campaign.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:08 PM on June 19, 2008


Nope, and that was pretty awesome.
posted by Tehanu at 7:50 AM on June 20, 2008


Here's a truly remarkable new ad from Oregon senator Gordon Smith, touting his close work with Obama.
The remarkable part is that Smith is a Republican.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:35 PM on June 24, 2008


Larry Johnson's Strange Trip
posted by homunculus at 12:53 PM on June 26, 2008


« Older Big Buck Bunny...  |  You know the feeling that some... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments