Party may suffer from an Obama candidacy

This has some reasonable "food for thought" points.:wow:

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/226381/

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008


snip>

If Hillary Clinton had no other reason to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination, it would be to demonstrate that Tim Russert, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, David Broder and the Beltway media gas bags don’t decide American elections. Last week, Sen. Barack Obama, the supposedly inevitable Democratic nominee, lost the West Virginia primary by 41 points. Democrats haven’t taken the presidency without winning the Mountain State since 1916.

To use a geographically appropriate metaphor, if there has ever been a canaryin-a-coal-mine primary, that was it. Naturally, the media consensus saw a meaningless result in a race they’d already called for Obama. Evidently, bitter West Virginia rednecks don’t watch cable TV.

****** In 2000, the same pundit chorus urged Al Gore to quit in Florida for the sake of the country (and the Republican Party ). Everybody knows how that worked out.

Today, Gore’s a Nobel laureate. George W. Bush, like Obama a uniter, not a divider, became the most unpopular, ineffective president in U. S. history. Ever heard any media princelings explain how they went so comprehensively wrong ? Me neither.

If nominated, Obama can’t possibly defeat Sen. John McCain without bringing Clinton voters to him. Recently, however, I’ve been hearing from many passionate Democrats who say they can’t and won’t vote for him in November, so I asked a few to explain why.

:freak:

since the Obama true believers are willing to throw half the Democratic Party under the bus, I guess I'm not surprised you'd think that.

What is this world coming to, that someone doesn't fawn all over Obama? And Lyons has the audacity to put it in print! He should be sent overseas and then his passport revoked, for surely he cannot be an American. Tsk-tsk.

Romney beat McCain in a bunch of states and now McCain is the nominee.

and as I have been saying for quite a while (but the caller said it much better) --

If Hillary is on the ticket, it will galvanize the Republicans to come out and vote AGAINST her, due to her historically high negatives with the Reps.

It may help the Dems heal, but it would be detrimental during the GE to have her as VP.

Jimmy Carter said he believes an Obama/Clinton ticket is what the Republicans would like the best. What does that say?

Who are you going to trust, Jimmy Carter or Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Dick Scaife and Bill Kristol?

I'll have a little protein and I'll be back to normal. :banghead:

I'm sure there'll be the predictable outcry.

IMO, the way the Clintons have been systematically portrayed as racist (with the most recent attacks being made on the basis of the WV and Kentucky votes) is the saddest legacy to come out of this whole presidential race.

No one put stupid words in their mouths. They are seasoned politicians and should know that people will recognize racist code words when they hear them.

Do you seriously belive the Clintons are racist?

No, the memo was circulated by the Obama campaign (internally) on how to twist certain phrases and use them to inject race into the campaign. I've linked to it at least three other times, so I'm not going to do it now, but you can find it at Huffington Post - hardly a bastion of a pro-Clinton agenda.

It was at that point that the tone of the election changed. Clinton has rebounded the last couple of months, so the racism talk is starting back up.

say them. how is that different from any other person spewing racism?

situations that have no racial component whatsoever. This is the easiest charge to make and the most difficult to defend against because your motives have already been defined and called into question. This is especially galling to those of us who have dedicated our lives to equal rights and justice for all citizens to have our judgment characterized as racist because we disagree. I think this factor alone will alienate more democrats than any other factor in the fall. That is not to say that they will vote for McCain, but they may not be able to bring themselves to bring themselves to vote for Obama.

Is it racism to want a black president because we have never had one and it is about time (it is, just not this one)? Is it racist to argue against this black candidate because you believe he will lose, he is a lightweight as a national politician and world leader and you believe his campaign played the race card, not the Clintons? Is it sexist to want a woman as president? Is it sexist to prefer a man because you think he is more likely to win?

We are not beyond race and gender issues if they are the issue.

To me your use of the word "spewing" conjures up the N word or something as obvious.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

:nopity:

:hi:

Hypocrite? Never!

Once BO is truly understood, the choice is easy. HRC, there can be NO OTHER!

Which is incredibly stupid logic, but if we all followed it, men should vote for Obama based on that alone.

Don't pick and choose MY words. NO ONE should be voting for BO and it will become painfully clear WHY......eventually.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5762065&mesg_id=5762326

Just keep letting the GUYS make ALL of your decisions; their track record on supporting women's issues is lousy at BEST!!

So you do want all women to vote for Hillary after all.

BO pointed out in his speech TODAY the contribution HRC and the women of her generation have accomplished for ALL WOMEN in ALL GENERATIONS going forward. BO even mentioned the positive affect of HRC's generation women's movement for his own daughters; hell even HE is paying attention. What's YOUR excuse?

Of course she accomplished something great. She's the most successful female candidate in presidential history, and even her biggest critic can't deny that.

And it's plainly obvious what women of her generation have accomplished -- again, I *never* denied that or even mentioned it in the first place.

My problem with your logic is that you said in the linked thread that women should show "some damn support for their own gender" regarding support for Hillary, then you reiterated that point in this thread before you started throwing up strawmen.

person. just say it. it will help you feel better.

I'm a white guy with an AA daughter-in-law and a multiracial grandson; multiracial just like BO. It has NOTHING to do with race, it has EVERYTHING to do with incompetence, inexperience, arrogance and a complete lack of accomplishment in his political positions. There, I said it! Take your GD race cards and go play somewhere else! Quit being so IGNORANT!!

Obama should have achieved power the old-fashioned way, by marrying up. Maybe he should flirt with Pelosi and Boxer...

I am truly interested in how it happens in many cases.

enough said.

for her and it won't be a problem because that woman is not going to win.

what Judith Miller was to the Iraq War.

except for the one where Lyons thinks we couldn't do any better than just appointing her president.

Oh, dear!

bringing in. And the people donating to his campaign. If the loser would bow out graciously, the party would be stronger than EVER before

to what Obama will face from the Republicans. Playing the race card against them will not work because that will define him as the black candidate, not the CHANGE and HOPE and UNITY candidate. They are not going to hold back any criticism based on a fear of being called a racist. Republicans will be even more outraged about this than Hillary's supporters. If the country comes to believe that Obama is using race as a shield, as in if you criticize me you just don't want a black man as president and you are therefore racist, if they come to believe this we can look forward to a defeat of McGovern proportions.

Any candidate who hopes to win must be able to appeal to more than a narrow base.

""If Hillary Clinton had no other reason to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination, it would be to demonstrate that Tim Russert, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, David Broder and the Beltway media gas bags don’t decide American elections.""

OMG! How true, how true!!

:toast:

Obama will make Dukakis look good.

while Clinton draws 700 in an old fogies Home..

She's a DRAG and a Boring person, as are her followers who revel in their chance to finally get to Bully people while claiming victimhood, just like Bush's little ignorant brownshirts we get to put up with now..

You are riding a pig, not a Stallion, your turn to wake up..

If we want to cater to dumb ass racists, let's just make David Duke a King and get the fuck out of here.

In any order. Try to be specific rather than wasting time with "He's a sexist". Enlighten me.

some front-runner...

is that this is like a baseball game with 50+ innings. One or another may have a better inning than the other, but what counts in the end is the overall score.

you make women look small with your whining. go away.

But he's spent so many years defending the Clintons, it looks like he no longer has an OFF switch. The Clintons are, were, and always will be unfairly besieged in his world.

:spray: :rofl:

I mean really. Come on: If Hillary Clinton had no other reason to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination, it would be to demonstrate that Tim Russert, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, David Broder and the Beltway media gas bags don’t decide American elections.

Does anyone really think that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race to demonstrate something to the M$M? They're (wait for it)- bitter because there is an inevitability to the math at this point, now Hillary Clinton fans are using the ol' 'I'm going to teach the entire world a lesson' crap?

WV has 5 bright, shiny electoral votes - picking up, say, New Mexico offsets West Virginia. Maine used to be the magical place, "as Maine goes, so goes the nation," but that hasn't been true since 1936. It's time to stop treating small, atypical states as talismans.

today's stinky fish wrap.

This is when he lost me:

It’s the Obama campaign’s cynical use of race beginning in South Carolina that’s the deal-breaker for others.

“He is making his way to Denver by dividing our party over race, which is maybe the most idiotic campaign tactic ever,” writes C. in Kansas. “This time the witch hunt is coming from our side. It’s heartbreaking. Obama supporters want you to think Bill and Hillary Clinton are lifelong members of the KKK. The audacity of hope campaign has had the audacity to go there.... This fall, they’ll try to make nice and talk unity, but the people they alienated in the most hateful way won’t be there. They deserve to lose for being so callous and childish.” J. in Florida agrees: “Obama and his supporters’ use of the ‘race card’ against the Clintons (with the help of the in-the-tank media ) is sickening. Now we have vile, racist, crazed-for-power Hillary. Obama means to avoid the ‘divisiveness’ of the Clinton years by blaming it on them. That’s a despicable lie, and he knows it. The only way of avoiding divisiveness is to cave to the Republican agenda, which I believe he’s more than eager to do.” “He and his supporters, “ J. adds, “ have systematically sacrificed the central constituency of the Democratic Party—the poor and working class—on the altar of constituencies who look to politics for reaffirmation of their identity: college students and childish Sixties neo-libs.

BushDespiser12

DU GD-P Forum Wed., May 21st, 2008

“He and his supporters, “ J. adds, “ have systematically sacrificed the central constituency of the Democratic Party—the poor and working class—on the altar of constituencies who look to politics for reaffirmation of their identity: college students and childish Sixties neo-libs. (The African American constituency makes sense, so no gripes there. )” By abandoning the principle of universality in health insurance, most think Obama has guaranteed that meaningful reform cannot be achieved. Z. in Georgia adds that Obama’s vagueness on economic issues foretells disaster. “He has no perceptible position on the economy other than ‘We can do better. Yes, we can. Say it with me.’

... I think it's even worse than the people in this article described (his candidacy). The way the System has been pushing Obama on us (they gush over his speeches, and every Clinton victory is described with an article that then goes , "but..."), I have a dark suspicion about what kind of puppet they'll need to prop up the wall-street banks and military sector - a puppet like Obama. Inexperienced, vague on proposals, a proponent of Chicago school free-market economics.

I'll pass.

To the convention!

The DemoZette has kept him around for years as the Token Clinton Apologist. No matter how riddiculous he may have to sound, he always defends Bill and Hillary and anyone in their circle. He ranks up their with Taylor marsh in the credibility department.

Bunch o'sore losing whiners. "We didn't get what we wanted now it's time for a temper tantrum!! Waaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!" You could take their arguments against Obama and use them against any modern political campaign.

Go Condi! I guess?

Real Clear Politics NATIONAL Average: Obama 52.0/Clinton 39.8






Released: May 21, 2008

Obama Builds Lead Over Clinton in National Contest

As he moves ever closer to wrapping up the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Obama is also opening up a big lead over Clinton among Democrats nationwide. In a national preference test, he leads her by a 59% to 33% margin, the latest Reuters/Zogby poll shows.

He completely dominates among those voters under age 35, winning more than 80% support, but also leads among all voters under age 70, where she holds a solid advantage. Obama also now leads among almost all likely Democratic voters according to political philosophy – moderates, mainline liberals, and progressives. Clinton leads only among conservative Democrats.

Obama also leads Clinton among both Catholics and Protestants, and among those who claim no religious affiliation.

more:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1511

Thanks to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6070893&mesg_id=6070893 &

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6072295

:shrug: