"Obama is very good at making policy-oriented, intellectuals feel understood."

Well, considering he was able to convince one of the few progressive healthcare bloggers to support his candidacy despite the fact that he's continually out there bashing universal healthcare, I guess you must be correct on one.

-----

"This may end up serving him well, as the universe of "actual policymakers," though small, is the universe of folks who pass your bills, and so a connection with them can't hurt."

Gee, golly. That sure sounds wonderful, Ezra. But if Obama has no actual plans to pass any significant legislation, I'm not sure how that (dubiously reasoned) advantage would come into play.

But what the hey. Opportunities like 1976 and 2008 come around almost every day, don't they? No problem with throwing them away on aspirational and inspirational candidacies, right?

After all, a Presidential administration doesn't do much other than symbolism, right?

Or maybe your ideas about Obama are pure crap. You've been duped into thinking this guy has the capability to lead this country out of the trouble we're in. But there is absolutely no evidence of that. Even you in your meaderings cite no proof of Obama being capable of accomplishing anything. Sooner or later, folks will start to realize that it takes more than lofty rhetoric to lead. The sooner that you and the Moveons and the Kos' of the world admit you've been duped the better it will be for Democrats and the country.

Hell, yeah!

..oh, wait -- FDR is dead.

Sorry, big man, but you just came out for McCain. Bully.

> You've been duped into
> thinking this guy has the
> capability to lead this
> country out of the trouble
> we're in. But there is
> absolutely no evidence of
> that.

Trick observation leading to false conclusion. Can you name ANY person who has the capability to lead us out of the simultaneous messes of Iraq, total collapse of world respect for the US, energy policy (lack thereof), and a deep recession? With possibility of climate change as a cherry on top?

I can't think of one, and that includes Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Maybe George Marshall - except he diligently avoided electoral politics. Harry Hopkins? Theodore Roosevelt - except that he held many ideas closer to today's radical right along with his ability to address tough problems. Lincoln? We know how he ended up. And of course all of those guys are dead.

So go ahead - explain to me _exactly_ how Senator Clinton will fix "this mess".

Cranky

Dear god, we sound like a bunch of knuckle-dragging republicans, completely convinced that the other side's viewpoint is an affront to god and country.

I think the problem is less that the long primary is turning the process nasty, but that it's baring a very ugly underside that is righteously convinced of its own correctness and is closed to any other viewpoint.

I'm not disappointed by the campaign; both Senators Obama and Clinton have run excellent campaigns. I am disappointed by us.

You evidently have not spent much time listening to Obama's stump speech or his ads. He clearly spells out the challenges facing the middle class - gas prices, health care, pensions, college costs, paying the bills each month - and he does not do it in any way that could be considered too cerebral ("policy-oriented") or out of touch.

He makes a very clean pivot from expressing his understanding of the problems to how people need to get involved with the political system in Washington to change it from the bottom up.

This post could not be more disconnected from my extensive experience listening to his pitch over the last several months.

"Dear god, we sound like a bunch of knuckle-dragging republicans, completely convinced that the other side's viewpoint is an affront to god and country."

I think there are multiple valid arguments in favor of Obama. And I think there are multiple valid arguments against Clinton.

But I think a "progressive healthcare blogger" supporting Obama over Clinton is a fucking embarrassment.

"He makes a very clean pivot from expressing his understanding of the problems to how people need to get involved with the political system in Washington to change it from the bottom up."

Ya, change it. By doing what???!? He never gets to that part.

I actual think this is quite correct, and it's a point I have been trying to get across to people constantly. Look, I am now a lukewarm Obama supporter (I dont think hillary is an alternative) but I think his weakness has been communicating to the low-information voter and connecting with them on the personal level. He still comes across more as an icon then a neighbor, or the trite "guy you wanna have a beer with." And I think that is why he does so well in the large public forum/speech setting.

And this, in a sense, is what comes natural to him. He delivers policy in a professorial manner, as one might expect a lecturer and organizer to do. Not in an Al Gore "egghead" manner but a more downhome yet still cerebral fashion--as I think Ezra puts it more pithily.

And this is his challenge. He needs to communicate policy in a more emotive manner, which is sort of outside his general comfort zone. But this is the trick, it can't be contrived because that negates his essence of decency and authenticity. Instead, I think he will have to tip toe this divide and find the community organizer in himself. Because the young man he described in "Dreams from my father" was a little less cool and a lot more vulnerable, but seemed quite normal to me. I think that voice needs to come out a little more maybe.

welcome to
gabriel guerra- mandragon!!
good news on a friday afternoon!

I also think Ezra's observations are pretty spot on, and something I've been trying to explain to other Obama supporters about why I don't find the "I understand your views" logic particularly compelling; I've always felt the emotional connections we make matter most. More than that, though

But I think a "progressive healthcare blogger" supporting Obama over Clinton is a fucking embarrassment.

Believe it or not, there are quite a few issues out there to take into account other than whether a candidate's health care campaign proposal has mandates or not.

I also think Ezra's observations are pretty spot on, and something I've been trying to explain to other Obama supporters about why I don't find the "I understand your views" logic particularly compelling; I've always felt the emotional connections we make matter most. More than that, though I actually think this can't be corrected this year; for Obama to really make these connections, and reach people in this way takes time, a different kind of insight, and a chance, I think, to find a way to express it. I also think this is one of those things that separates a rookie campaigner, like Obama, from a more seasoned vet like Clinton (who also has the benefit of her husband's innate abilities in this regard). That said, I don't think McCain has it either - I think on the GOP side, that was the role of a Huckabee or a Romney (though Romney, I think, couldn't make it seem sincere) - which means that Dems don't have a "Reagan Lite" fear looming.

Obama had a bad debate. Instead of showing courage and working to overcome the problem, he cancels the next one. He runs. The country doesn't need runners (Bush is a runner, he ran from the Vietnam war). Hillary would never run, you can bet on it.
If MI and FL are not brought into the picture, I will not vote in the presidential election in November. You can run, Dean, like Obama, but without FL and MI I don't think Obama can win in November. You will be remembered in history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have asked that my name be removed from the DNC. Apparently that is too much of a task for you folks to accomplish. Please re-enable the unsubscribe link, as any self respecting organization will have already done.

hillary and bill clinton are not people of integrity. hillary clinton stands silent or tells mistruths, and that is running. she will appeal to the lowest denominator to accomplish her bill personal desires and bill clinton has disgraced himself in this primary season, divided our nation and has tarnished his reputation with the poor character that he owns.
......if obama doesnt win in november, the united states and the world will lose a powerful opportunity to transform the conversation.
obama has already changed the conversation and challenged this country to get on higher ground.
....those who have chosen to destroy his message and twist the words of jeremiah wright have done a great disservice to this country.
may we not lose this opportunity.
may we not see mccain or the clintons walk back into the white house.
i believe it will be a sorrowful day if that happens.
if barack obama does not win the election, it will be because we did not deserve him.

"He makes a very clean pivot from expressing his understanding of the problems to how people need to get involved with the political system in Washington to change it from the bottom up."

Ya, change it. By doing what???!? He never gets to that part.

Obama has been clear on tis point as well. You change it through attention to issues and through pressure on elected officials. You change it by electing people who are not beholden to special interests and who will listen to the American people (and who have demonstrated that through their voting record). You develop solutions not as weapons in a broken political process, but in an open and honest way that respects all points of view.

I realize that this sounds almost ridiculously Utopian, but it is a vision that can work if you can inspire people to expend the tremendous energy required to change the way we approach the legislative process today.

The recent FISA renewal fight is an excellent example of how energized, engaged individuals can, largely through the Internet, derail what was once seen by the administration as a slam dunk. Bush and the telecom lobbyists lost, and the people won (at least temporarily).

On a separate note, we all knew that MI and FL were not going to count from the beginning. They made a bad choice, and now they are paying for it. I fail to see the difference in this situation and the situation facing the Republican voters of the states with later primaries this year. Do you think that the Republicans in Indiana or North Carolina feel that they have any input in the process of selecting John McCain? The current primary system inevitably generates these scenarios; blame the ridiculous system and the rule breakers, not the people who enforce the rules.

hey jimbo
Why is Obama ahead in Michigan polls, while Hillary trails?
Please go find a fresher taking point.

"I also think this is one of those things that separates a rookie campaigner, like Obama, from a more seasoned vet like Clinton"

You're arguing that Hillary Clinton, the inevitable candidate, running basically for the third term of a popular president, and yet losing to an unknown, untested newcomer, the Hillary Clinton who has lost ground even in every state she has won, is a better campaigner than the guy she's losing to? Really?

Obama is very good at making policy-oriented, intellectuals feel understood. This is why David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan [blah, blah, blah]

Gosh knows I'm not worthy to even consider myself more honest and smarter than Sully or Davey, but I will point out that Obama has a habit of lying about policy matters.

It's just that Davey and Sully haven't gotten around to pointing out how Obama lies. They will! Just give them time. Intellectualling is hard, demanding work.

I'm interested to hear some concrete examples of this emotional connection approach that Obama seems to lack.

He uses the "I recently met a person in PA, who told me about how they struggle..." stories. He uses the "sitting at the kitchen table wondering how they'll pay their bills this month" metaphor. He talks to the value of unions and how healthcare options would free them to negotiate for other things, like better wages.

I'm not sure what's left.

One of my favorite quotes from Thursday as he spoke to a UFCW meeting in Chicago: "But we are here to say it's not the Department of Management, it's the Department of Labor, and we're here to take it back." If that doesn't speak to a union member on a visceral level, I'm not sure what will.

"it's hard for Obama to tap into the peculiar cultural signifiers and anxieties of downscale whites in the way that Reagan and Clinton and Huckabee, all of whom were born downscale whites, were able to."

It's about time we started getting close to the truth behind Obama's electoral "problems." He's an urbane, multiracial intellectual being criticized for not appealing to low-information (i.e., pig stupid), parochial voters who, if not outright prejudiced against him, are at least vaguely uncomfortable. Meanwhile, he's trying to run a respectful campaign against a hack who is pushing every trivial "character" issue against Obama that she can grasp, while pandering shamelessly to this same voting bloc.

Once he's finally dispatched Clinton, I don't think he'll have a real problem running against McCain on the questions of whose more likely to make their lives better economically, and keep them out of more dumb wars. Even the crackers you are all faulting him for not pandering to more are not that stupid.

4 months ago, I asked people to tell me anything about HOW Obama would enact his msg of change/hope

what I've gotten instead are anti-Clinton diatribes

still waiting

4 months ago,
You are still waiting because you are too damn lazy to read.
see
posted by: BH | April 26, 2008 12:19 AM

four months ago...
what are you still waiting for?

obama has enacted a message of change in every aspect of this campaign.
he has created a formidable grass roots organization, energized a vast body of new voters, began dialogues in this country that we have not had and more importantly, he has led by example.he has kept his dignity as he has watched his pastor being lynched, he has kept his dignity while being accused, while running for president, of not being patriotic, because he does not wear a flag pin....he has continued to maintain composure and dignity while his wife is accused of not being proud of the united states.....he has continued to remain focused and optimistic, while watching some of the lowest tactics being levelled against him by an ex president.....he has been accused of shallow political thinking, of elitism by an opponent from a background of greater privilege and access....and has had to fight against the spin of the entrenched political machine of the clintons.....from its inception,it was like david against goliath.
and all the while, he has tried to elevate the debate, remain gracious, while holding better foreign policy positions than his opponent and equally sound and acceptable positions on domestic problems.
....the greatest change is that he has tried to bring some element of dignity, calm and respectfulness to the political arena....and that is truly transformative.
he remains a deeply inspiring candidate and the possibility of an obama presidency brings hopefulness to many of us.
for all of our sakes, i hope he will be victorious.

I agree that Obama's weakness of empathisizing with voters as Reagan, Clinton, Huckabee did may be hurting him, the problem Reagan through Huckabee were all faking it. I'm not saying Obama is 100% true and true, but it's hard to compare someone who doesn't bother to engage voters on an empathic level with those who did so purely on a fake level as did Reagan, Clinton and Huckabee to a lesser degree.

a hack who is pushing every trivial "character" issue against Obama that she can grasp, while pandering shamelessly to this same voting bloc.
That's Hillary's rust belt strategy, the southern strategy in a yellow pantsuit.

Brewmn: "He's an urbane, multiracial intellectual being criticized for not appealing to low-information (i.e., pig stupid), parochial voters who, if not outright prejudiced against him, are at least vaguely uncomfortable."

Given just how much you seem to hate democracy, just how is it you became a Democrat, exactly?

HRC, an urbane, intellectual woman, has appealed to "low-information" voters long before her supposed character attacks on BO; his electoral problems are self-made.

I realize it's hard to cut through the KoolAid, but here's Obama sounding just like George Bush and other worthies like David Brooks:

lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007635.html

Not only that, but he supports a highly questionable and secretive Bush trade scheme (called by some "NAFTA on steroids").

I see a new profit source: running POS centers ("post Obama syndrome" centers).

Andrew Sullivan may be an intellectual, but he is not policy-oriented. I enjoy his blog, but it's all morality and egotism, little policy. I prefers yours -- still plenty of egotism, but less morality and less aversion to governance. Nor can I read Sullivan since he's succomed fully to Hillary derangement syndrome, as if he can't recognize his own pathologies in hers..

Gee Ezra, does stupid hurt?

It doesn't really matter anymore. America is not going to elect a black liberation philosphy believer who calls them racists and haters and clingers to their Constitutional rights because they are stupid dupes.

The Democrat Party has a huge identity politics problem. They have for so long given extra credit for things people can't control...their sex, their race that they lost sight of actually gauging candidates on meanignful measures.

It is a beautiful train wreck where the main powers in the party are going to tell a white women that although she has spent 35 years in service to the party, the job is being given to a minority simply because he is 'black'...errr actually half black and we can't go back on our affirmative action policy or we risk riots and bloodshed on the streets of Denver.

Those who actually thought a campaign would be about policy are simply deluded and should not be listened to....

"obama has enacted a message of change in every aspect of this campaign.
he has created a formidable grass roots organization, energized a vast body of new voters, began dialogues in this country that we have not had and more importantly, he has led by example.he has kept his dignity as he has watched his pastor being lynched, he has kept his dignity while being accused, while running for president, of not being patriotic, because he does not wear a flag pin....he has continued to maintain composure and dignity while his wife is accused of not being proud of the united states.....he has continued to remain focused and optimistic, while watching some of the lowest tactics being levelled against him by an ex president.....he has been accused of shallow political thinking, of elitism by an opponent from a background of greater privilege and access....and has had to fight against the spin of the entrenched political machine of the clintons.....from its inception,it was like david against goliath.
and all the while, he has tried to elevate the debate, remain gracious, while holding better foreign policy positions than his opponent and equally sound and acceptable positions on domestic problems.
....the greatest change is that he has tried to bring some element of dignity, calm and respectfulness to the political arena....and that is truly transformative.
he remains a deeply inspiring candidate and the possibility of an obama presidency brings hopefulness to many of us.
for all of our sakes, i hope he will be victorious."

a) Capitalization is your friend
b) I asked for HOW Obama would enact his msg of change/hope, saying his campaign has been little more than an anti-Clinton diatribe. All of that jibberish, and you answered absolutely nothing, in fact proved my point. Again.

Let me know when Obama decides to add some substance to his message.

WISCONSIN

Cynthia McKinney wins Wisconsin Green Presidential Preference Primary

OSHKOSH -- Cynthia McKinney received a majority of the votes cast in the Wisconsin Green Party Presidential Preference Primary. Ms. McKinney received 79% of the vote; Kent Mesplay received 10%; write-Ins for Ralph Nader 5%; Kat Swift 2%; uncommitted 2%; and Jesse Johnson 1%. (Mr. Nader is running as an independent and is not seeking the nomination of the Green Party of the United States.)

you choose to negate all of the transformative elements of obama's campaign.
i believe that our foreign policy and domestic agenda will change very significantly under barack obama, recognizing that nothing can happen over night.
do you really believe that in an obama administration there wont be a shift in foreign policy, and all aspects of our domestic agenda?
ezra and others have spent much time helping people like myself to understand the policies he is putting forward and they are fully substantive, whether you agree with them or not.
and how can you discount the change and direction that things take, depending on the individual and their leadership? who the president is, affects how they govern.
who a candidate is, affects how they run their campaign. that would be grounds enough on which to vote for him.

and, relishing the chance to insult my writing style and calling my thoughts gibberish, no wonder you cant relate to barack obama.

4 months ago,
How will Hillary do anything when
A.) She failed 12 years ago.
C.) She is too incompetent to win a campaign against a junior senator.
D.) She can't manage her own campaign well enough to keep it out of dept.
E.) She will not get the nomination.

Ezra, I have to disagree here. Plenty of constituencies in the USA keep voting for the same party over and over again despite the fact that the party doesn't "deliver" for them, or even when that party doesn't even state that they even have a policy to address that constituency's policy preference. Why do they do this? Because they feel that the candidate "understands" or "respects" them. To a large degree, many voters are policy-oriented, but don't even think that politics matters or can help them, so they're happy as long as the politician they vote for displaces the appropriate amount of deference and acknolwedgement of their views.

Obama knows this, and it's why his "I have understood you" rhetorical gambit works, particularly with voters not necessarily inclined to agree with all of his ideas.

To the rest of you Clintonites: despite running the 20th century's best campaign, Clinton is losing because she voted for Kyl-Lieberman and kicked off her campaign with a plaintive request for a "national conversation." There's really no victory possible with that, and you should get over it. She rolled the dice with Mark Penn and lost. Your complaints are just petty nitpicking.

relishing the chance to insult my writing style and calling my thoughts gibberish, no wonder you cant relate to barack obama.

I really hope you're not comparing your writing style do Obama's rhetoric or campaign style. I generally refrain from criticizing your writing, but, seriously, don't try to defend yourself.

> You change it through
> attention to issues and
> through pressure on elected
> officials. You change it by
> electing people who are not
> beholden to special interests
> and who will listen to the
> American people (and who have
> demonstrated that through
> their voting record).

Late Obama supporter here, but I have to say this one still bothers me. It seems to be based on a fundamental assumption that the people and groups that Obama (and we) think need to change will not (a) recognize what Obama is trying to do (b) develop plans to counter it (c) organize (d) fight back by all means fair and foul (e) win x% of those battles.

I have seen too many group settings where the decision of the leadership (and sometimes even the majority backing the leadership) for change have been thwarted by small, powerful cliques whose rice bowls were threatened and who fought back like hyenas to protect themselves to think that change simply "happens" because it is willed. In fact one could consider that theory simply the other half of the walnut of Cheney's "triumph of the will" theory.

Cranky

tyro...

you completely missed my point.
i was certainly not comparing my writing style or rhetoric to that of barack obama.
my point was, that if the commenter can say unkind things with a mean intent,about someone's writing and thoughts, ..then, they would not have an appreciation for the restraint and dignity of barack obama, and how that benefits him as a leader, able to enact change and continue the national conversation with extraordinary forgiveness and patience.

cranky...

when in history has this not been true?

a leader could turn a staff into a serpent and still, he would be maligned by the mighty, who were threatened, jealous, insecure and afraid of change.
we have no choice but to keep pressing on.
supporting those who will work as instruments of change, no matter how disheartening the struggle may seem.

Hillary can not win if nominated at this point. She will be behind in pledged delegates. She will almost certainly be behind in the popular vote. If nominated, the black community will know that she is nominated entirely because she was white, and Obama was black.

Like I've said a million times, you can paper over that fact by referencing McGovern, or talking about 'empathy' to white people. But you will never trick the black vote into believing any of that. They aren't going to come out in the number we'll need them to come out in. Hillary won't be able to buy them off with a few extra government programs and some kind words about MLK.

Hillary supporters are kidding themselves when they think she will be President. Even if you managed to get the nomination, you'd lose in the fall and likely take the senate and 20 seats in the house with you.

Hope the superdelegates don't end up presenting the nomination to Obama. I'm a Hillary supporter, and if she doesn't get the nomination, I'd rather vote for McCain. I just don't trust Obama. Atleast, I know that both Hillary and McCain are true American patriots.

Sam: While you know Narack Obama is just a dirty N*****. We get what you're saying, we just don't want people like you voting for us anyway.

Sam I agree with you..it comes down to trust and I dont trust him, at all. And Soullite you're comments are a disgrace. As if anyone who doesnt trust BO is a racist..please grow up

Soullite : Typical hypnotized Obama troll.

Interesting--the guy who has the endorsements of Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and many, many other longtime stalwarts of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party can't be trusted by greg and Sam, the Clinton supporters. I'm searching for a hypothesis here--Obama's corruption? Flip-flopping? Lying? ...and I'm not finding anything.

Now, I wonder, I wonder--what reason might be left?

I'm with Soullite.

> cranky...
>
> when in history has this not
> been true?

Sure. But I see absolutely no sign that Obama understands this and has a plan to deal with it. One way to do so is the Cheney/Rove method: ignore all opposition, forge ahead regardless, and use every means at your disposal to destroy your opponents. Which Cheney and Rove have taken to new heights in the modern era by subverting the Justice Dept and using it to prosecute and jail their opponents, or just destroy their reputations. Obama presumably won't do that. So what _will_ he do?

Cranky

The lack of TAP preview capability must be destroyed!

Calling all toasters and soullite:
lol. You seem to be saying that if I don't support Obama, I'm a racist! I don't base my decisions on who endorses Obama.
I say that I just don't trust Obama. If you can't figure out why, that ain't my fault.

cranky...
i am no political expert, but i think obama keeps trying hard to bring people on board, to keep reaching out.
the best way to encourage change, is by not personally humiliating or threatening people. finding ways to bring them around to your way of thinking so that they save face, and feel included, and an important part of the process.

it is a hard walk, but if anyone can do it, i believe it will be barack obama.
............ the ways in which people are trying to paint him as belittling others, or being elitist....are just hurtful alterations of the truth by taking things out of context in order to bruise him.
i have confidence that he will be able to affect change and bring people on board with his gifts for leadership, consensus-building,pragmatism and calm. i am very optimistic:-)
the way he has run his campaign so far, has not let me down.
he will accomplish things because he will lead by example.

"I say that I just don't trust Obama. If you can't figure out why, that ain't my fault."

Well, since won't say why you don't trust him, yet will vote for two white candidates with diametrically opposed views on most of the msjor issues in th campaign, I'd say Soullite makes a reasonable assumption that you are racist scum.

And this is now a favorite tactic of the trogldyte sectors of the electorate: claim that they don't "trust" or "understand" Obama for reasons they fail to specify, yet claim offense when people call them on their obvious racism.

"Given just how much you seem to hate democracy, just how is it you became a Democrat, exactly?"

I don't hate democracy. I just wish Americans weren't so stupid that they vote against their economic self-interest in favor of things like whether or nor someone wears a flag pin in their lapel.

These low-infomraiton voters supporting Clinton aren't supporting her because of her positions on the issues; they're supporting her because she's a "fighter" and/or because they feel vaguely uncomfortable with the smooth-talking black guy. That's a hurdle he can overcome when facing McCain, but I don't think he can in the primary.

"Given just how much you seem to hate democracy, just how is it you became a Democrat, exactly?"

I don't hate democracy. I just wish Americans weren't so stupid that they vote against their economic self-interest in favor of things like whether or nor someone wears a flag pin in their lapel.

These low-infomraiton voters supporting Clinton aren't supporting her because of her positions on the issues; they're supporting her because she's a "fighter" and/or because they feel vaguely uncomfortable with the smooth-talking black guy. That's a hurdle he can overcome when facing McCain, but I don't think he can in the primary.

Sam, we know exactly why you can't trust Barack Obama: He's black.

I hate to break it to you, but history won't be any kinder to people like you than I'm being right now. If you really think the history books are going to record the nuances you pretend exist, you're kidding yourself. All they are going to say is that some whites sides with McCain over the black guy and they either: a) proved decisive to give McCain the presidency. or b) Didn't fucking matter.

I'm going to guess B. We lose 12-15% of the party every election. I think I'm standing on pretty solid ground in declaring that fear of teh darkies is always the reason why.

Thats exactly my point. Just because I don't trust Obama, you immediately assumed that its because of the color of his skin. Thats what a typical Obama hypnotised troll would believe.

If you had asked why I don't trust Obama, I would have explained.

But since you immediately assumed me to be a racist, you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to listen and analyse.

So I won't waste my time or yours.

Thats exactly my point. Just because I don't trust Obama, you immediately assumed that its because of the color of his skin. Thats what a typical Obama hypnotised troll would believe.

If you had asked why I don't trust Obama, I would have explained.

But since you immediately assumed me to be a racist, you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to listen and analyse.

So I won't waste my time or yours.

All the brave (misleading) talk by OFB, but the facts keep getting in the way. Check out the latest Rasmussen polls (I know you don't trust polls, OFB, when they don't agree with your views). MI and FL won't vote for Obama if they are excluded by Dean, and he can't win where Hillary will. Even worse, Obama is in a downward spiral, witness PA. So Obama runs, hasn't got anything to say, uses noise (racists!) to mask Hillary's advantages. How, exactly, will he win the nomination if Dean doesn't use manipulation and trickery?

Hillary fans, take the pledge. Send it to the DNC. "I will not vote in the presidential election unless MI and FL are brought into the equation immediately. If that happens, I will vote for either Democratic candidate whomever wins the nomination". See, that's simple. Even you "intellectuals" can get its simple logic.

As for calling me "racist scum", best not do that to my face, coward.

"Well, since won't say why you don't trust him, yet will vote for two white candidates with diametrically opposed views on most of the msjor issues in th campaign, I'd say Soullite makes a reasonable assumption that you are racist scum."

"Sam, we know exactly why you can't trust Barack Obama: He's black."

ahh I get it. NC primary coming up, got to up the AA vote by calling all Clinton supporters racists. Question is will the AAs fall for it again this time and continue to overlook Obama's deficiencies, CLINGING to identity politics, or will they vote for the one who can actually do something.

What's your going rate for the race-bait, Trolllite? How much is the Obama camp giving you?

Obama the empathizer...heh, Counselor Troi says, "He is lying, Captain!"

"And this is now a favorite tactic of the trogldyte sectors of the electorate: claim that they don't "trust" or "understand" Obama for reasons they fail to specify, yet claim offense when people call them on their obvious racism".

Here's a good example of the "noise" from Obama I complain about. Obama raves on and on about "change", Hillary talks about specific problems and give specific results oriented solutions. Obama and the OFB make charges of "racism". When I hear Obama and/or the OFB talking specifics then I will give him equal consideration.

"ezra and others have spent much time helping people like myself to understand the policies he is putting forward and they are fully substantive, whether you agree with them or not."

My point exactly. Why does Obama need "ezra and others" to explain his policies? I can't know if I "agree with them or not" because I can't remember the last time Obama has actually spoken ON policy.

You yourself, and many of the commenters here, can't support an argument for his candidacy that doesn't rest on a comparison (or crazy hatred) to Clinton's, and that's scary in a presumed nominee. That puts us in GW 2000 territory.

> Hillary fans, take the pledge.
> Send it to the DNC. "I will
> not vote in the presidential
> election unless MI and FL are
> brought into the equation
> immediately. If that
> happens, I will vote for
> either Democratic candidate
> whomever wins the
> nomination". See, that's
> simple. Even you
> "intellectuals" can get its > simple logic.

So explain to this simple intellectual: should New Hampshire and Iowa go ahead and schedule their primaries for November? That is, their 2012 primaries for Election Day 2008? Note that I said "primaries" because Senator Clinton has declared caucuses illegitimate.

Cranky

PS Good letter from an 78 y.o. white Michigander in the current issue of NYRB on the primary situation.

The lack of preview on TAP must be destroyed.

> My point exactly. Why does
> Obama need "ezra and others"
> to explain his policies? I
> can't know if I "agree with
> them or not" because I can't
> remember the last time Obama
> has actually spoken ON policy.

Please point me to a concise, complete, precise explanation by Senator Clinton of her vote for the Iraq war and her Iraq policy in general. One that is not filled with equivocations and that does not have to be explained by her staff afterwards.

Cranky

The lack of TAP preview capability must be destroyed.

4 months ago...

i depend on ezra's blog and other blogs to help me understand all of the candidate policies, so dont try to twist that comment into anything related specifically to obama.

......i have by now, given you many substantive reasons why i support barack obama.
how is this for starters....i trust him not to take us into war with iran....and work peaceably in the middle east.
he is the only candidate that i trust with our foreign policy.
......i believe he is the only candidate that will best be able to pass a health care initiative and i trust his economic plans and the people who support and endorse them.
and my top reason for voting for him is that he is not a dysfunctional person. the most important quality in a leader.
you can try to "dumb" obama down, but it wont work.
my other reasons dont matter to you, obviously, but they are very important to me, and others.

> i am no political expert,
> but i think obama keeps
> trying hard to bring people
> on board, to keep reaching
> out.
> the best way to encourage
> change, is by not personally
> humiliating or threatening
> people. finding ways to
> bring them around to your
> way of thinking so that they
> save face, and feel
> included, and an important
> part of the process.

Sure, I try that technique in the workplace all the time. Problem is, people can and do have fundamentally different ideas about what is right, what should be done, and who should make those decisions. When you try all the rootbinding crap, it not only doesn't work but the people opposing change have dug into a stronger position and are fighting harder, and the only tool in your box is kumbya you are in a deep swamp. When was the last time Obama played hardball? Note that his community organizations, like all community organizations in Chicago, has in reality 1/100,000th the power of the New Daley Machine and is routinely squashed by every conservative monetary interest in the metro area.

And I really don't think that Cheney, Addington, Wolfowitz, Norquist, Scaife, and their handmaiden Rove think they are losing the bigger fight. They are undoubtedly aware that they don't have the momentum right now, and they might have to give up the 2008 election. Losing in '08 will cost them some Supreme Court seats which will be a bit of a setback. But it will tag with Democrats with the blame for the final collapse in Iraq and the possible collapse of our economy and allow another 50 years of Vietnam-style dolstchosslegende attacks on "the libruls". But just as Kansas had a tough 3rd quarter in the NCCA final but fought back to win in the 4th, I am pretty sure that the Radicals are gunning for the final dismissal of Democrats and liberals into the political wilderness in 2012. They ain't gonna be singing kumbya in 2009 no matter how much you suck up to them.

Cranky

The lack of TAP preview capability must be destroyed.

He's still going to be the next president, and being honest is not a trick.

Note to KU alumni and supporters: please do not interpret my previous post as implying that Kansas bears any similarity to Cheney or Rove. I was using that as an example of a team that fought back to win; there was no implied comparison of motives!

Cranky

I like Kansas; I really like it!

"i trust him not to take us into war with iran....and work peaceably in the middle east.
he is the only candidate that i trust with our foreign policy."

Thank you for this. This is more persuasive than the rest here.

You win when you stay pro-Obama not anti-Clinton.

"So explain to this simple intellectual: should New Hampshire and Iowa go ahead and schedule their primaries for November? That is, their 2012 primaries for Election Day 2008?"

I think if we learned anything this primary, it would be that going early is not necessarily what it used to be, and that it makes absolutely no sense to have the convention so long after the last primary. What was the logic in that anyway?

cranky

i know i am out of my milieu in political discussions, but,in reading your comments, these were my thoughts.
the bottom line:i dont think obama is naive.
to have come this far, to have fought this hard against the clinton machine, when hillary and bill were placing the crowns on their heads again, he has been extremely masterful.
i believe he is not just a principled, wise person, but also a very highly skilled politician, who will surround himself with excellent people and will have the support, ear and blessings of many influential and brilliant people.
i trust in that.

and so, what is the alternative, really, cranky?
for me, there is none. i cant bring myself to vote for unscrupulous, immoral,ruthless people.
i believe that obama has the skills and potential to fight harder and smarter. i still believe that there are karmic principles that are at work in all things.
everything is ultimately, a roll of the dice. sometimes, circumstances and legacies are just built on dumb luck.
but i am going with obama.
the twenty-first century has started without us.

Jimbo, she has no adantages. We can't win the election with our percentage of the white vote. Winning 100% of 40% of 70% of the population won't get you to 50%. Hillary has nuked any shot she ever had of winning the black vote.

and yes, saying that you have mystical, magical reasons you won't share with anyone else that lead you to believe that Obama can't be trusted is a pretty sure sign of racism. Not shockingly, most racists won't admit that they are racist. Instead they say things like 'Obama has a chip on his shoulder', or 'I just don't trust him (without giving any reasons)', or 'He won't win working class whites, so we can't nominate him' despite the fact that Democrats never win working class whites.

Hillary can't win, because the only way she can be nominated is by declaring that even the best black candidates are not acceptable. You can lie your ass off all you want, and Ezra Klein can give you all the cover for it with these lame ;Obama is McGovern!' or 'Obama doesn't have Empathy!' posts, but the bottom line is that if SD's pick Clinton over Obama, they are doing so because Obama is black.

What are you going to say to the black voters you need in the fall to win? That you want black votes, but you won't accept black candidates?

> and so, what is the
> alternative, really, cranky?
> for me, there is none. i cant
> bring myself to vote for
> unscrupulous, immoral,ruthless
> people.

My spouse put an Obama sticker on the car in on November 10th 2004 and attended his announcement in Springfield. I hoped for Gore and initially supported Edwards with reservations. I am now supporting Obama and will contribute to/work for him in the general, for basically the reasons you state. I will vote for Senator Clinton in November if it comes to that, but I will not contribute to or work for her.

Which still leaves me with some serious concerns about what happens in 2010 under President Obama.

Cranky

I thought Obama did grow up as a down-scale white man? I have seen my nephews and nieces (Whacks? Blites?), brought up in similar manner develop that same detachment, which I believe comes from not really belonging to the "white" or "black" world. This doesn't mean they don't have empathy, it means they are protecting themselves from pain. I don't know if Obama can move out of that shell.

> and yes, saying that you have
> mystical, magical reasons you
> won't share with anyone else
> that lead you to believe that
> Obama can't be trusted is a
> pretty sure sign of racism.

I am generally in agreement with you here and on other political boards soullite, but I have to say that is a little unfair given that Obama's own campaign rhetoric contains no small amount of mystical magical rhetoric and "then a miracle occurs" gaps in the proof. Not saying that it bad or disqualifying for a politician; FDR used some of the same. But it is fair to have doubts.

Cranky

Contribute Online Now!
Or mail your check to:
Power to the People Committee
Cynthia McKinney for President;
Joan Christian, Treasurer;
P.O. Box 311759;
Atlanta Georgia 31131-1759

"Cerebral" is an identity of sorts, Ez.

Anonymous, I doubt that there is anyone on this site who listens to your protestations of innocence regarding racism.
In one comment thread, 'Not gonna Say it"- March 21st
You've

1.)denied the Tuskegee experiments ever happened

Me: "I bet you'd deny the government would give black men syphilis "

You: Didn't happen ....quit listening to Wright and read your history...

And

2. Said this This talk about race would presumably have to have some grievances launched against blacks -- otherwise it would be too one way. Now who would dare to do that? Here's one grievance: failure to acknowledge that affirmative action comes at a cost to other groups and people. I won't name more. I'll just sit back and let people jump down my throat for this, demonstrating that a true "dialogue" is not only not possible, but is divisive.

The reason people call you a racist is that you are a racist. If you want to keep denying it, I can dig up some more more damaging quotes.

It's pretty clear that you know everyone else thinks you're a racist. You just want to deny it to yourself. well guess what, nobody thinks they are racist.

And then you go on to attack Cynthia McKinney and compare supporting Obama to that.

Gee, I wonder how anyone could think you're a racist?

And for the record, a real dialogue on race will include those things.

But you sit there and pretend that Affirmative Action mainly benefits black people at the expense of whites. It doesn't. It mainly benefits upper-class white women at the expense of everyone else. It IS racism when you make it a racial boogey man and ignore the reality of the program. But you keep doing so, regardless of how often people set you straight on the subject.

"This is, in part, because that's a trick related to identity politics, and it's hard for Obama to tap into the peculiar cultural signifiers and anxieties of downscale whites in the way that Reagan and Clinton and Huckabee, all of whom were born downscale whites, were able to."

Someone mentioned that part of Obama's inability to connect has to do with his "aristocratic" demeanor, which also likely played against Kerry. This seems relevant to me. He might almost connect better with some of them if he came across more like a brutha'-- but he doesn't. He's in a weird position. He *has* to appeal to those upscale policy types who want proof he's actually, you know, "articulate."

Bush, of course, had none of these problems, and not just because he's a rich white spoiled brat. You don't need to impress power brokers in the Republican Party with your mental capacities when they're just going to turn 100% of their policy making over to Fortune 500 CEOs, anyway. So McCain can just say "I don't really even know anything about the economy" and not only get away with it but it's great news.

This *should* be a gaffe for most of the rest of the economically concerned electorate, but you'd definitely have to shout over McCain's bubba-thing.

" It doesn't. It mainly benefits upper-class white women at the expense of everyone else."

Actually soullite, apart from math, science, and engineering, that probably tapped out some time in the '80s. Most women do very well meeting college entry requirements and hit a huge brick wall the second they hit the workplace.

That's probably why alot of the *anti*-affirmative action cases in education are brought by annoyed white women, these days. And why there's a movement afoot to contend that high schools don't serve boys very well, and new affirmative action-like initiatives to get more men on a lot of campuses.

I'm sure all that will twist your undies even more.

and yes, saying that you have mystical, magical reasons you won't share with anyone else that lead you to believe that Obama can't be trusted is a pretty sure sign of racism.

Yeah, I agree... if more than a few Hillary supporters (and those few are IME often low-info women, ironically) managed to articulate their distrust, I'd take them more seriously. But give that so many can't or won't, it's not hard to conclude that there's a good reason for their reticence.

After all, it's not hard to say 'Obama can't change anything, because American politics is, has long been, and always will be a corrupt, lowest-common-denominator endeavor, one in which liberalism is destined to forever be on the margins, fighting for scraps and forced to use crude manipulation to score small victories over the essential right-wing tendencies of the electorate; I'm voting for Hillary because she's the best we can expect given those assumptions.' And that makes sense, although of course the logical response among us 'activist' and 'elite' types is 'so why should we give our time and money to what is so clearly an exercise in futility, since the other classes you're lionizing clearly don't put forth similar efforts?' I guess we could give these folks the benefit of the doubt by assuming they won't state their positions because they still expect us to do most of the actual work of winning the election for, and later defending, their candidate (sorry, I'm not), and therefore they don't want to be honest. But again, I think something darker than even that kind of rank cynicism is at work here.

latts, you rock. I'm a white guy who is now (though not always) solidly middle class. After living through the Republican-lite Clinton adminstration, then suddenly finding that Bill and Hillary are the second coming of FDR (per Paul Krugman), and further being subjected to the hostility and ridicule of Hillary supporters whose firsthand memory of politics apparently begins in January of 2001, I sometimes wonder why I bother.

"And then you go on to attack Cynthia McKinney and compare supporting Obama to that."

Attack?
If Obama gets the D nomination, I'm VOTING for her...also, diff anon than the ones you quoted; sorry

look it is brewmn pretending he is middle class. The only way you are middle class is if you were fired from your law firm or you took a leave so you can work full-time for the Obama campaign.

You are Chicago yuppie who is supporting the candidate who won't make you subsidize poor people's health care.

Obama's empathy is of a more cerebral variety -- he understands your ideas, gets the theory behind your mistrust of government, is familiar with concerns about the breakdown of the American family, etc.

What evidence is there to suggest that Obama understands any of this? He apparently still doesn't understand why his "cling to religion, guns and xenophobia" comment offended so many people.

fahey, Jacquelyn, all blind obamots: Exelon donated to Obama (via it's managers) --the Nuclear company and issue about which Obama LIED. He said he passed nuclear disclosure legislations, but sorry, that was a lie, it never even made it past committee. He lied that the incumbent, Alice Palmer, of his Illinois district endorsed him, she says she never did, which is pretty darn believable cause she tried running on a write in ballot. Obama lied about agreeing to public financing. Talk about a flip-flopper. He does it when he's an unknown but then changes his mind after getting mind blowing amounts of money online. Who wouldn't, right? But if it was Hillary or anyone else changing their mind( read: lying) they'd get attacked. He was on vacation when Illinois moved to vote on hand gun control yet he claims he voted on tough issues? Sorry, but that's a lie when you're sunbathing instead of voting. He lied about how much Rezko donated to his campaign, and turning around to donate it to charity doesn't matter. He lied about his connections. Obama knew all along about Wright. There's a report about Wright and Obama asking him not to give the invocation to his candidacy from April 30, 2007. Feel free to google it. Obama has not changed anything nor can he. He did not join the group of 14 and has the most partisan voting record in the senate--how is that change? What does he, exactly, want to change? The constitution? enabling present votes in the senate? He does not give any details on any policies. He lied about his adviser meeting with canadian officials. Oh, he lied about Wright, too--denying to AC360 he's ever head the racist messaging, then gives a speech about race in which he admits he's heard the racist messages. Which is it? Just because he's been in politics for less time than Clinton or anyone else for that matter, doesn't mean he's clean, or doesn't play the politics game. He can't have it both ways--claiming change when his character proves he's no different, then claiming it's "silly season" when the press or anyone comes out against him. His support on the Wood Funds board of the AAAN, a non-profit set up by former PLO adviser Rashid Khalidi kinda suggests Obama's inclinations about peace and moral equivalency in the Middle East. Obama plays chicago politics, claiming the greater good while being stained with mud and hoping those looking at you are blinded by the message. Well that's what happened here. The press didn't probe anything substansive about Obama's policies or past until it was too late. And the irony is, all Obama does is complain that no one asks about policy, when during his speeches, he never discloses them! At least, not without using words like hope and change in lieu of facts and amounts. He wants to raise the capital gains tax. There's really nothing else to say.

Cranky, if you listened to the debate in SC, and then to the one in LA, you would know Clinton's policy and rationale on Iraq. In SC she explained that the legislation she voted for was to continue negotiating until all options failed. In that case, the president would have the authority to use force. The title is actually deceiving once you read the text of the legislation (which is what Obama used to spin her argument against her): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107aRxC8Z:
In the LA debate, Tim Russert cohosting, Clinton said she regretted her vote on Iraq, when asked if there was one thing she would change in her political past. Her policy is to design a withdrawal plan within her 1st 60 days in office under the consultation of the generals. She is committed to getting the troops out of Iraq. Anyway, it's all there on her website and she's repeated her policy ad naseum in the debates and campaign.

Just as I figured. The Obama trolls have their own twisted sense of logic.

latts,soullite, real twisted sense of logic.

> In SC she explained that the
> legislation she voted for was
> to continue negotiating until
> all options failed. In that
> case, the president would have
> the authority to use force.

Except she knew damn well that the Bush Administration was filled from top to bottom with PNAC alumni who believed fervently in the "stir the beehive" theory and who were hungering for war with Iraq. Voting for "authority" was /exactly/ voting for war. That's the question she backs and fills on; either she was smart enough to see that, in which case she voted for war, or she wasn't smart enough to see that, in which case she isn't smart enough to be President.

Cranky

The lack of TAP preview capability must be destroyed.

either she was smart enough to see that, in which case she voted for war, or she wasn't smart enough to see that, in which case she isn't smart enough to be President.

And assuming that her 'experience' is in the ways of Washington (for lack of a better phrase to define the understanding of someone whose professional DC resume is rather thin), then the former must be the case, meaning that she didn't care that they were attacking no matter what. I guess there are a lot of people who admire such dishonesty and cynicism in that context, but I'm definitely not one of them.

Thanks, brewmn-- I also remember the nineties well, since Bill's election was pretty much at the start of my adult life, and I'm now middle-middle class, but several steps ahead of my parents. Guess I've always been out of step with the Clinton machine; in the nineties I supported them, but wasn't one of the 'elites' they happily cultivated back then except for having a [rather useless] college degree, and now that I'm both more comfortable and more critical of them, they've decided they don't like my type too much. Heh... oh well.

Amazing how many affluents are now claiming to be middle class.
You might want to check those income quintiles again.

Obama's bourgeoisie supporters can not admit they are supporting the candidate whose policies are in line with their economic interests so they cloak themselves as middle class. Social liberals do not want to pay for programs for their downscale fellow Democrats and a voting accordingly.

"Social liberals do not want to pay for programs for their downscale fellow Democrats and a voting accordingly."

Exactly...see BO's non-universal healthcare as example #1