Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama's Supporters Think Highly of Him. His Rivals Say, Make It Stop!

As an Obama supporter, not a day goes by when I don’t hear someone speak of the necessity to take Obama down a notch. They claim his follower think he walks on water. They claim these people are robots, or cult members, or trying to assuage some cultural guilt. I mean, how else do you explain the fact that people don’t consider him mediocre? There are no extraordinary people in politics, just people who haven’t been vetted enough to drag their image down into the mud with the rest of the mediocre politicians.

For people who talk a lot about elitism, the campaigns against him seem rife with assumptions. One is that Obama's followers are all irrational folks caught up in some mass hysteria. That assumes that those who are skeptical of him are more rational, right? Doesn't that mean you're looking down on them?

It's certainly must be flattering to us for folks to imply that we're programmed like machines, indoctrinated like cult members. I mean certainly, Obama's supporters must somehow be diminished in their capacity to think for themselves, right, unlike all those free thinkers out there who repeat their candidate's talking points and take their cues from talk radio and bogus e-mails.

And of course, it's oh so egalitarian to imply that the only reason why a man of color in this campaign can come so far is that people are simply giving him affirmative action. Nice, we're trending into racist dogwhistles and not giving credit to a campaign that upset the Clinton political machine.

And who knows how many times I've heard people in the media, the pundits and the journalists wondering whether Obama's message is going to go over people's heads, whether people are moral enough to look past the old politics, speculating on the damage that's going to be caused without even a single ounce of input from the people who are supposed to be confounded or who are supposed to disappoint everybody on election day. The pundits always say: "These people will be offended", "These people will turn away." And do they? some do, but despite everything, Obama closes the leads, even wins contests he wasn't supposed to.

That just makes his rivals angrier. How dare he not peform mediocrely!

The truth is, ours is a political system built as support for mediocre candidates, for a lackluster politics that encourages people to feel alienated, encourages people to feel apathetic. The whole purpose of the philosophy of elitism that drives our politics is that people are morons, that they're not worthy of being treated as anything but a mob of ignorant, fickle, underacheiving, decadent fools that should have the decency to follow the old patterns of appropriate political behavior. The elites among the Republicans like to claim their politics was an antidote to this, that they're in sync with the common folk, but the truth is, their politics was an intensification of that elitism, made worse by their false sympathies.

They encouraged underachieving, encouraged ignorance, celebrated Americans making themselves fatter, overspending. They might talk about religion being so important, but at the same time they celebrated an ultra-competitive, hyperindividualistic, selfishly self-interested way of people carrying out their dealings. They not only gave more of a voice to special interests in their time in power, but they also fed their own people into that racket to make sure the spoils of such victories came back to them, reinforcing their strength.

That many Democrats joined in this and helped perpetuate this has been an irritation among our rank and file. It's something we settled for in light of the political situation, but it's never sat well with us. Again in 2000, 2002, and 2004, we made our sacrifices. Rather than shoot for the top, we settled for the same old BS. We lost each time.

In 2006, we got sick of the compromises and more aggressively pursued the political advantage. We backed progressive values, we pushed our party as a serious alternative, and didn't stop our strategy at the borders of the red states. Lo and behold, we won! During that contest, who was it who supported the most candidates for the legislature, who spread the wealth? Who is it that now seeks to use that strategy again to both support his party and gain his presidency?

Some knock Barack Obama for his ambition. Do I knock him for it? Why should I? Is this not the time to be ambitious? We're sick of politicians who look at this sort of situation and go "Let's just stick with what we have." Sure we might lose. That's the risk of actually competing. Elites like to keep power, and don't like stepping into situations where support is uncertain and dependent upon their cooperation. They don't want to have to bother with us. They like their hierarchies untangled, feedback filtered for their consumption, the public nice and docile.

Trouble with this mentality is how much it invites these folks to bubble themselves off.

Both of the other candidates have bubbled themselves off quite fine, thank you very much. McCain may be revered by some as a maverick, but he's essentially reversed many of his long-time position, selling himself out to the hardline power centers of his party. He sold himself out to the Religious Right, the Wall Street Republicans, and intensified his already considerable support for the Neocons. He reversed himself on abortion, started calling the war a success, and never really stopped his long time associations with lobbyists. He's not free from the special interests, he's surrounded by them, and no absence of earmarks can change those facts. He's no breath of fresh air. His political campaign is nothing new. His views are stock party views. He's like Tom Cruise: he's not a real Maverick, that's just his scripted role on screen.

Hillary Clinton's biggest wins have been in the states with the strongest, deepest party support. She was born, politically, on third base, and congratulates herself for having hit a triple. However, her faction in the Democratic party structure, one that does not necessarily correspond to a real-world voting bloc, is not at all well-liked by the party's rising activist core. The feeling, it seems, is mutual. She's running this campaign on experience, on electability, claiming that Obama is just too much of an unknown, that he's too ambitious, that he doesn't fight bitterly enough. She's running on toughness, but keeping a tough image has been a problem for her, and not in that she fails to do it. She succeeds, but by engaging in the kind of politics that has really worn out its welcome for many Democrats, not to mention many Americans. The Clintons are also well connected to the long-loathed strategy of triangulation, where the party attempted to neutralize the Republican advantage by coming up with slightly different versions of Republican policies. The fact of the matter is, though, that the Republicans are out of favor. So what good lies in triangulating now? Old habits die hard, though, and nobody likes to admit obsolescence.

People wanted a leader like Obama before Obama even showed up. They wanted a charismatic candidate. The want a strategy whose ambition matches the party's rising fortunes, rather than reflects its more defensive past. They wanted a candidate who doesn't have a political policy of giving into the other side on important matters, and in their hearts, they love the notion of a candidate who can bridge the gap between the two parties. A real uniter, not merely somebody who talks about uniting people but whose idea of unity roughly resembles that of the Borg Collective: full assimilation into the party.

It helps things that Barack Obama's campaign involves people so much at a grassroots level, that it's funding, it's style of spreading the campaign relies on people's own initiative. This is a campaign, it seems that happens with you, rather than just to you. That, perhaps, is why charges of elitism have such a hard time sticking to Barack Obama. Wouldn't a true elitist look down his nose at such rabble-rousing tactics, at a campaign more dependent on the movements of ordinary folks than any in recent history?

The mediocre politicians, wedded to the politics of the past, reflect that in the disdain they have for this untraditional campaign's supporters. It's been a long time since a candidate's been capable of arousing such fierce positive support. Now of course, for some this elicits fears of another betrayal, another leader whose charm hides a deeply flawed personality and politics. Ironically enough, I think the reason people don't trust Barack Obama relates to the husband of his current rival: Bill Clinton. He too was a young, charismatic politician who at the end of his second term had left his own party bruised, battered, and out of the majority. Bush, to a lesser extent, inspires similar fears about diehard support.

If being young and charming were all that Obama had going for him, I'd be reticent, too. The reason why I would say that those fears were unwarranted is the fundamental creativeity of the Obama Campaign. Both the Bush administration and Clinton's were pros at working within the confines of Reagan Politics, the paradigm of the Reagan Revolution. Obama seems more like a Reagan-style game-changer than a Bush or Clinton-style opportunist or snake-oil salesman. He owes less to the old system, and in fact seems poised to bring about its successor. Given where the politics of the last generation or so has landed us, it couldn't be better time.

It's time to leave behind mediocrity, to believe that Americans deserve better than they'e been getting. It's time for a politics that lives up to what can be great in our society, rather than sinking down to what is worst or blandest about us. America has better things to do than to wait another few years to start bouncing back from this horror-show of a decade.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #252123


So you are admitting that both parties are elitist now? Good to hear. And that Obama is the only one who can save us from them.

Ok, I’ll bite. Please list for me the reasons I should vote for him other than:

1) He’s charismatic
2) He says he wants change in Washington (I’ve never heard a candidate say that before)
3) That he’s a maverick for not taking PAC money (that’s been a staple of my politics for 3 decades, the Libertarian Party doesn’t take matching funds and people who now support Obama, like David, say that was a mistake, but it’s a virtue for him…)

In addition, he is campaigning here in Indiana and I may or may not be voting on Tuesday (being a Libertarian I shouldn’t, but the rules say I can so if I have a good enough reason I will). He has promised to create 5 million new jobs.

Please explain to me how he will do this. Does the Federal Government have the ability to create these jobs in the public sector? Does he own a business where he can hire 5 million people? Please tell me how he can promise this, I don’t remember this being part of the power that a President has. So far, no one has taken me up on explaining this one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 9:51 PM
Comment #252128

I cant’ speak for Stephen, but I can explain Obama’s job creation platform.

It’s pretty much a common sense apporoach, which concentrates on creating 5 million jobs in the construction and environmental sectors. Funding “green collar” jobs and infrastructure is really a no-brainer. The estimate is that the program would cost $210 billion.

This would be funded by ending the Iraq War, cutting tax breaks to corporations, taxing pollution, and raising taxes on high income earners.

Why should you vote for him? Not only is he charismatic and articulate, he is highly intelligent. These factors give him the potential to be a highly effective president.

Will he succeed? Will he fail? Only time will tell. I think he’s the most promising politician we’ve seen in a very, very long time.

From what I know of your political leanings, Obama wouldn’t fit a lot of issues. The same is probably true of McCain and Hillary. But as we all know, political choices almost never offer absolutes. Personally, I will not live long enough to see a politician who believes 100% the same way as me. And I have a lot to say about that!!! Anyway, it becomes a question of who would do the best job of making America better- however you choose to define ‘better’- casting a vote, and hoping for the best…

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2008 11:03 PM
Comment #252130

Stephen Daugherty, thanks for the laughs, your fiction writing is improved a lot by your sense of humor. Is this the forum where we put in requests to Obamagirl, because I’d like a rendition of Love and Rockets’ So Alive, and the DiVinyls’ I Touch Myself would be great also?

On a serious note, here is RFKjr, on Crimes Against Nature, note the Clinton references:

Too bad the Green Party can’t get him, but if HRC becomes POTUS, he will probably replace her as US Senator from NY.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 11:20 PM
Comment #252131
It’s pretty much a common sense apporoach, which concentrates on creating 5 million jobs in the construction and environmental sectors. Funding “green collar” jobs and infrastructure is really a no-brainer. The estimate is that the program would cost $210 billion.

This doesn’t give much detail, is he saying that we would give the companies the money to hire the additional people?

The cost is $42,000 per person, seems like it. I guess that is a way to get more people working, take money from everyone else and hire them ourselves. But does it really solve the issue?

Do you have any more details about this plan because it seems like workfare to me, and I thought that wasn’t constitutional according to Democrats.

This would be funded by ending the Iraq War, cutting tax breaks to corporations, taxing pollution, and raising taxes on high income earners.

So, how would this 5 million offset all of the jobs that will be cut because of these policies? What would be the net gain/loss?

How much do you think will be gained by increasing the taxes on the superwealthy? Other than making those with class envy feel better? If you completely confiscate the money it would be a drop in the bucket. And then he has the audacity to say he won’t support a freeze on the gas tax because it would be a paultry sum? It would probably be about the same amount, or possibly even less.

Not only is he charismatic and articulate, he is highly intelligent. These factors give him the potential to be a highly effective president.

Are you suggesting the other candidates are not highly intelligent? I remember the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate in 96 was a woman with two doctorate degrees, yet no one thought it was a reason to vote for her. Condi Rice is similar but we are told that she isn’t worthy to run as VP, let alone the big job.

But, so far all I’ve heard are ill-thought out plans that won’t work in the real world or address are biggest issue, the fact that we have a huge debt and are already overtaxed. Who is talking about addressing this? No one. So, it must not be important, right? Just keep increasing how much the government does and provides, it will be our children who will have to worry about the check…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #252132

Argh, sorry, 92, not 96… My old man’s brain is getting creaky…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #252133


Hillary Clinton’s biggest wins have been in the states with the strongest, deepest party support. She was born, politically, on third base, and congratulates herself for having hit a triple. However, her faction in the Democratic party structure, one that does not necessarily correspond to a real-world voting bloc, is not at all well-liked by the party’s rising activist core.

So the “Change” thing and the “unite the country” thing, and “new politics” thing is just crap right? It’s really about getting your candidate in. It’s really just hard core power politics. IS that what you are saying?

So it is really just your groups way or the highway. At least that is what your post sounds like. No room for any other thought. No compromise, just charge ahead.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 4, 2008 11:35 PM
Comment #252134

I understand why his fans love Obama. He is good looking, articulate and he says all the things the appeal to left of center folks, young people w/o significant experience and people who want change and believe that whatever change they think they want is good.

I am 90% sure I would have been a Obama supporter when I was 18. Now I see things differently, so I think I understand both sides to some extent.

Obama speaks the rhetoric of the 1970s liberal. He advocates more intrusive government and looks to government bureaucrats to provide solutions to our problems. My experience tells me this just doesn’t work.

Obama supporter say “yes we can”. It depends on what they mean by that. Can they elect Obama? Problaby. Obama is currently the front runner with the best chance to become president. Can Obama solve the country’s problems with more intrusive government. No he can’t. It can’t be done, by anybody no matter how valiant, honest or intelligent. Government is not always the appropriate tool. It is like pounding in screws with a hammer. It works sometimes, especially on rough big projects, but you don’t want to use the hammer on senstive devices.

I have to give Obama credit for advocating the higher gas tax. Clinton and McCain are wrong about that.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #252142

Here is a link that provides more details on Obama’s economic platform than I can provide in a casual comment:

You write: “How much do you think will be gained by increasing the taxes on the superwealthy? Other than making those with class envy feel better?”

Well, I didn’t qualify for the stimulus check because of income, and I would be one of the people paying more in taxes. So why would I be ok with a tax increase?

My job is very sensitive to the economy. I am a full commission salesman. If my taxes are increased by 5%, well, that is very sad for me. But! If a tax increase results in a good economy, one creating jobs and investments in technology and training, or even increased confidence, then my income will increase significantly, and 5% is a drop in the bucket! Throw me in that briar patch!

You write: “Are you suggesting the other candidates are not highly intelligent?”

Hillary is also highly intelligent. McCain… Well, not so much. Sorry. I’m not trying to slam the guy. I’m not interested in arguing about it with anyone. That’s just my own assessment. It doesn’t mean he’s stupid. He brings other qualifications to the table.

“… we have a huge debt and are already overtaxed…”

Yes, we have a huge debt. And I would agree that we are currently overtaxed, in the sense that we are not receiving good value for our tax dollars. The money is going to the military and corporate welfare. That needs to change, immediately.

It’s not so much the amount of taxation that bothers me. The question is, what do we receive in return?

Increase my taxes for a war with Iran? I think not. That is not a good investment of my money.

Increase my taxes and provide publicly funded public university scholarships for an entire generation? We could do that for what Iraq costs each year. That is a good investment of my money. Cradle to grave health care? That’s worth considering, too.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2008 12:50 AM
Comment #252147

Everybody says they want change. What I see with Obama is the political creativity and the attitude to pull it off. Hillary doesn’t negotiate well enough, depends too much on the establishment. McCain has to carry water for a party still in denial as to the magnitude of the disaster that’s enveloped them.

And no, he doesn’t take PAC money, and he mostly depends on people giving less than the maximum. He doesn’t accept money from registered lobbyists. In short, he runs the kind of finance system McCain promised to run himself.

The fact that forty percent of his donors give under 200 dollars gives him better leverage with special interests that know he can afford to offend them.

As for why to vote for him? Because he was willing to take the risk on refusing to back a tax holiday because the policy results would be jobs lost, infrastructure made worse, and little real windfall for the consumer. Do you wish for a politics of symbolic gesture? Obama’s the least dependent of all of them on that.

If he doesn’t fit, he doesn’t fit for you. But when you vote in the general election, consider whether anybody else fits what you need so well, not merely in political terms but practical.

I could care less about Obama Girl, She can go be a Barbie Girl in a Barbie World. She’d be fantastic if she was plastic.

Seriously, though, do you actually think of us as that naive? Obama supporters are not all sweetness and light by any means. We’re often tougher than our own candidate on Hillary and his other opponents.

But it’s not this irrational thing, if you take it from the perspective of young, highly informed, not very gullible young men and women who often hear about the way the candidates are lying to us not long after they let the words slip their mouths.

Let me give you some background. I grew into this off of Frontline Documentaries that I watched. When Moqtada al-Sadr became a problem, I already knew of him, long before, for example. I steadily grew more informed as 2003 progress, and as that happened, the events in the war alarmed me even more.

As we learned and learned, people my age came to question the stances taken by most of our politicians, who being careful and taking us down the path towards neoliberalims, were not that inclined to challenge the status quo.

Events and our current DNC chairmen forced their hand, took the Democrats in a different direction, more strongly and assertively challenging Bush on the war. We almost got it. But we hated how we lost it. One reason why we like Obama’s charisma and charm should be clear: pratically speaking, there’s not a lot of advantage to having a fencepost as a candidate.

Having tried twice with nice guys who weren’t that good at getting people carried away, you can see why some of us have made the calculation that it’s worth getting a little carried away ourselves!

We also wanted a clearly intelligent candidate. No point in electing the next president for whom My Pet Goat is award-winning literature. I don’t want my president to be dumber than me. However well it would serve my ego, I’ve been burned enough by the stupid during this administration to no longer find it amusing when my commander in chief screws up.

I’ll take this up tomorrow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 1:37 AM
Comment #252155

Craig Holmes-
Politics is politics. Change here means taking politics to a level where it no longer just serves the powerful, but serves real purpose for the vast majority of people in this country.

The most that the average person sees from their government nowadays is symbolic gestures, panders and gimmicks, catchphrases and optics. It is seen as the end of political discourse to shape these to captivate and manipulate the public, rather than the means to communicate with them. I’m not so naive as to believe that Obama or any other good politician would not have some strategy or apparatus for selling their proposals, but what has happened over the past generation is that politics has become increasingly elitist and sociopathic in its attitudes. Pathological deceit and immorality has permeated politics.

It’s to the point that even a supermajority of Americans cannot get their president to end a war, or take action on Global warming, or do any number of important things. Politics, instead of being the translator and negotiator of America’s public will, has become a self-serving closed loop. Hillary and McCain both represent the vested interests in keeping this the status quo.

Barack Obama has associated himself with a movement in Democrat politics that is pragmatic, but pragmatic in service to ideals. We’re politically tougher, not so eager to capitulate, but willing to reach across party divides so long as respect is the currency of exchange. We’re proud to be Democrats, not timid about it, whether we’re Western, Midwestern or Coastal Democrats, whether we’re on the liberal side of the party, or the more centrist.

We’re more aggressive politically, that I’m not going to deny. We don’t sit back and let our politicians just do whatever they want. You should hang around Daily Kos for a while and see the approach. Recently, Ben Chandler (a Kentucky Representative, I believe) came under fire for backing Obama. Supporters on Kos subsequently raised over twenty thousand dollars for him in the course of a day or two, to send a message of support for those who, like him (he’s a superdelegate) take political chances to back Obama. This is not an isolated incident.

We also, though, send messages to those who make what we see as damaging political capitulations. We put up lists of names and contact informations and invite our people to essentially bombard them with attention when we think they’re doing something stupid. FISA is a consistent issue, and I do believe they know we’re watching them.

This is called accountability. This is the kind of change we want: the party in Washington more connected and integrated with the party throughout the country.

Now, don’t get the impression that we’re all just rabid members of the left here. There is a spread of viewpoints on DailyKos. The uniting factor is the assertive approach to the party.

Government has not ceased to intrude under Republicans. Regulation hasn’t gone away. It’s been re-written, though, to serve the interests of the already powerful. You rewrite the laws on accounting, on commodities trading, you approve tax breaks for those who don’t need them, give tax credits where once others gave subsidies. The trick is, who feels the intrusion more, who has to deal with the consequences?

The message of hope gets parodied as some apple pie in the sky hopes, but if you listen closely, the underlying message is turning the tide on reform with a government that seems hopelessly entrenched on the side of the special interests.

People are desperate to see the legacy of the Reagan era undone, to put it simply. And its not to return to McGovern era politics, but instead to deal with the special challenges of today. You say it can’t be done. But that’s what youv’e said as your party has failed to get what it promised would happen done. Government can be an effective tool if it is a tool box and not a single set of policy dogmas.

Your people, rather than tend towards a certain policy line, sometimes deviating for practical reasons, instead chose to insist on dogma every time, defending it by saying the results of going the other way would be worse. It’s worn people’s patience thin. They’ve seen our country do better, whether they have memories of the sixties or memories of the Reagan era as their guide. For people like me, the decline of the middle class hasn’t been some abstract subject, but a bitter reality. Even in the boom years of the Clinton Era, healthcare and rising costs were problematic. Bush stepped on the accelerator, and made what was troublesome during the Clinton Administration absolutely crippling during his.

Something’s snapped in America, and I think Obama is keener on that than either of the other two. I think the other two are entrenched in their own legacies, unwilling, each in their own way, to face the new reality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #252170

Barack Obama is indeed a bright, good-looking, articulate man who, in maybe, say, 20 years might be ready to be president. At this point, there are problems that reduce his stature as time goes on.

While no one on the left wants to think about it, I have a major problem with anyone who would stay in a church for 20 years listening to the racist diatribe from a meglamaniac like “Rev.” Wright. Most black people I know are not only embarassed by that bozo, but angered by him as well. For Obama to have claimed for weeks that he was unaware of Wright’s views after sitting in that church for 20 years demonstrates one of two things — Obama must be able to fall asleep in the middle of a Black Sabbath concert or he is being entirely disingenuous.

I can’t believe his apologists would be so understanding if Obama was a white man who sat in a church for 20 years listening to a white minister say the same things “Rev.” Wright said. Obama would be called a follower of David Duke or worse and his presidential aspirations would land in Louisiana swamp. Racism is racism and it is wrong, no matter who says these hate-filled things. That it took Obama more than two weeks to finally pull the plug on the good reverend, especially after his BS session on creating a “racial dialog,” indicates that he was so cynical and afraid of losing black votes that he was unwilling to follow through on his own pablum about inclusiveness.

The real Obama is definitely smaller and less substantial than the product of his soaring rhetoric and “vision.” He is, despite everything said to the contrary, a rather ordinary, first-term senator who would have done well to have spent a little time learning the ropes of that job before racing off after the big enchilada of politics. If his people can somehow manage to democratically exclude Florida and Michigan delegates from the convention and hoist a 48-star flag above the floor for the first time since 1956, Obama will face John McCain in November, at which point he will likely join the ranks of fellow Democrats George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry.

Posted by: goombah at May 5, 2008 12:05 PM
Comment #252177


But where you are wrong is thinking you are doing what is best for the majority of Americans. If you were reprsenting the majority of Americans you would not need these tactics.

You probably represent the majority of liberal Americans, but certainly you are not representing moderates or conservatives.

Watch when you over reach (if elected), you will feel the rug come out from under you. Just ask Bush!!

Anyway, looks like politics as usual.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 5, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #252179

As I recall it, Abraham Lincoln stepped into the Presidency only having been a Congressman.

It’s the qualities of the candidate that matter most, not the length of their resume. James Buchanan had one of the longest, but he is listed as one of the worst presidents ever. LBJ and Nixon had long experience, but both of them were extremely problematic as leaders of their country and their parties. JFK was a decent leader, despite the fact he had only risen to be junior senator. Teddy Roosevelt was hardly experienced at all.

The real question her is why would I support candidates for office that are more corrupt, have real question marks in their past concerning their actions, who seem to be obnoxious, grating, and difficult to like.

Sometimes, you just have to take a chance.

Well, if Reverend Wright gave nothing but the sermons that are continually referenced, there might be some merit to the question. In all actuality, though, Reverend Wright is considerably more sophisticated than you folks give him credit for, and more conventional in this average sermon. I did an entry on “The Audacity of Hope” a while back. It would pay for you to check it out. If that kind of sermon was the regular fare, if the intellectually engaging person we saw on Moyers was who he tended to be, then we can understand Obama’s reluctance. People weigh the good with the bad with the folks they form associations with.

Obama, as a Christian, is expected to be forgiving. He is expected to give people the chance to redeem themselves, not to judge them. He did a very good job of both rejecting what was inconsistent with his message, and nonetheless embracing the pastor. The issue might have faded away for the most part, had Wright not come out and inflamed the situation.

Forgiveness requires repentance, though. Hence his statement that he didn’t know his pastor as well as he thought he did.

I think the smallness here is in the political discourse. You badmouth Obama about needing to learn the ropes… Good heavens, have you been paying attention? He can lose both primaries tomorrow, and still be in little danger of losing the nomination. He has won the majority of the states. He has the majority of the popular vote. He has the most pledged delegates, and is fast catching up with Hillary in the superdelegates. Before this day is out, another may announce support. (Strike that, I checked: Five superdelegates will announce their support)

His campaign is flush with cash, and his far less negative campaign has remained competitive with, if not triumphant over Hillary’s on a state by state basis, despite her kitchen-sink strategy. He’s re-written the textbook on how to win a campaign. The only reason he isn’t already the presumptive nominee is Hillary’s stubbornness. Any other candidate would have conceded the race by now.

Obama will be a far more threatening candidate for you folks. He’s not going to go the safe route of campaigning in just the Swing States and the safe states. He’s going to spread your resources thin, and turnout Democratic voters in places which didn’t see them last time. If all you pay attention to are the obsessive fixations of the media, you miss Obama’s real game, the one that makes him more than just a pretty face with good speaking skills.

Craig Holmes-
Our tactics are nothing really devious. We’re not out there (at least not most of us) giving people flat tires. We’re keeping an eye on our politicians, pressuring them when they make bad decisions, rewarding them when they do good.

And with the average person, we’re basically doing outreach, talking with people, registering voters, building party infrastructure. The big secret of Obama’s campaign is that he’s relying on the average person more to move his campaign. He’s taking advantage of the new technology to both fund his campaign with millions of small donations, giving him a decided lead in financing, and of other web technology to let Obama supporters self organize and then merge into the campaign when he comes along later on.

As for who I represent, read the polls. Most of my opinions are average, the opinion of the majority or of a strong plurality. It’s standard conservative boilerplate to talk about yourselves representing the country, but tell me, who do the polls see as better representatives of this country’s interests?

There is nothing ordinary or usual about the way Barack Obama has campaigned. It is truly historical in more ways than one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #252184

No, no, no, Lincoln only had to deal with the potential breakup of the Republic. No biggy. And of course, you know they took him aside during the campaign and put him through a course on how to stop an internal insurrection.

Nobody’s going to avoid on the job training here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 2:25 PM
Comment #252185


I stand corrected. You are right. Raising a lot of money is the most important qualification for being president. And winning primaries in states like Wyoming and Mississippi and territories like the Virgin Islands and Guam certainly show what true powerhouse Obama will be in November. I never said Obama wasn’t bright; I never said he was a bad politician; and I never said or implied that he wasn’t a Christian — but I do notice that you failed to address my point about racism and you conveniently dismiss the fact that Wright not only said this crap in taped sermons, but he reiterated this stuff again at the NAACP and National Press Club. I ask you again — if John McCain sat in a church for 20 years where the minister was an avowed racist and screamed “G— d—- America!” would you be so forgiving and understanding about McCain?

Finally, there is nothing in Obama’s record to show that he has any intention about reaching out across the aisle. His accomplishments in the U.S. Senate are even less than Hillary Clinton’s, and you would have us believe that experience isn’t an important criteria for being president? McCain does have a record that includes plenty of unpopular positions based on personal convictions, legislation made with the participation and cooperation of Democrats, and actual military and incarceration and torture experience that Obama and Hillary cannot even begin to fathom.

But as I said before — you are wright, ooops, I mean, right. Obama has raise more money than McCain; therefore, he is more qualified to be president.

Posted by: goombah at May 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #252187


Obama probably can undo the effect of the Reagan AND Clinton years. He can put more government on the job. He just cannot make that solve the problems he thinks it can.

Re – Reagan legacy – Reagan got reelected by almost 60%. In 2004 when he died more than 80% of Americans thought he did a good job. If Obama wants to run on a slogan of reversing Reaganism, please let him say so. Go ahead make my day. The majority of American will then see his policy for what it is, a return to the 1970s.

How is Obama different from the 1970s liberals besides the shoe shine and the smile.

Re Lincoln – just because one guy can do something doesn’t make it a rule. Mozart could play a complicated piece of music after hearing it only once, but I would not rely on others to do it just because they could hum a few bars.

Re Lincoln 2 – how did he do avoiding that breakup? We all admire Lincoln, but he presided over the bloodiest chapter of our history. His major strength was his persistence. He stayed the course. He almost lost in 1864 until Sherman and Grant turned the situation around, so maybe if you want to draw Lincoln lessons, you should look at the whole man.

Posted by: Jackj at May 5, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #252190

Barack Obama has raised millions from individual donors, and vastly outdistanced candidates reliant on big money donors. At this point, he’s got 1.5 million donors. That’s quite a few for a mediocre politician.

As for his victories, there’s nothing to be ashamed of in winning small states and territories, because ever win counts. It only becomes shameful when you start becoming an elitist, when you start getting picky as to which states count. That’s just political closemindedness.

As for Wright? Republicans and others refuse to expand their notion of Wright beyond this cartoon villain they’ve cooked up for themselves from a few soundbites worth of footage.

I’m not going to defend what he said, before or after. They were legitimately offensive. But they were never as simple as some have portrayed them. The chickens come home to roost came home in the words of a US ambassador first. The damnation he spoke of is no different in effect than that thousands of far right pastors have called down on America for different reasons.

But beyond that, Wright was never simply the sum of those remarks. The offensive remarks show the rather alarming and uncomfortable side of a respected, learned pastor, whose typical fare was more like the 1992 sermon that Barack Obama adopted his key catchphrase and his book title from: The Audacity of Hope. read that, and come back and tell me that he’s just some racist pastor.

No, I think the truth is, he’s a rather complicated figure, who has said some things that are racially divisive. I don’t get the sense that he’s a black supremacist, but I do get the sense that he believes that blacks cannot count on white society to be fair or unprejudice. He is, in many ways, just like the folks that Obama was referencing when he talked about folks getting bitter. I think Wright ironically confirmed his former parishioner’s diagnosis of the problem: he doesn’t think things have really changed enough to unburden himself of his resentments and hard feelings.

What makes your response to this ironic is that you, too, are caught in the same trap as Reverend Wright, too unwilling to see that change can happen despite some people. Wright’s bitter resentments need not be Obama’s nor yours.

On the subject of experience, the real problem I think is that the people who have sufficient experience haven’t shown sufficient judgment to make that experience a plus rather than a negative. When Hillary voted for that Amendment backing the administration on Iran, she showed she hadn’t learned from her previous stampede with Bush. Sure enough, the news came out saying that Iran abandoned its weapons program and won’t have a nuclear weapon any time in the near future.

McCain, meanwhile, for all his maverick positions has voted with the party 90+ percent of the time, and has also proceeded to flip-flop on virtually every position that made him a maverick. He consorted with the religious right, once “agents of intolerance”, he surrounds himself with Lobbyists, takes PAC Money and lobbyist money, having made a big deal out of his political purity, he’s reversed himself on being pro-choice, and has bought into the Bush tax cuts that he felt were morally unconscionable before. He went from being a maverick to being a generic Republican, a move so unconvincing that the pundits on the right were turning on him right up to the point he was hit with a New York Times story. As for torture? He flip-flopped on that, too, backing Bush’s veto on waterboarding.

McCain is not the consistent rock of maverickness that you want him to be. And don’t think that won’t come out. It’s already happening.

On the subject of the Reagan legacy, I think that’s something that people pretty much remain positive on until you get into the details. Fiscal Irresponsibility, rollback of environmental protections, of labor laws, his backing of the cultural conservatives, etc… the truth is, Reagan simply had a fine public relations team working for him, and most Americans were not nearly as plugged in to what was going on as we are now.

As for Lincoln? persistence wasn’t his strength, his willingness to work with others who didn’t agree with him, to face the hard facts are what saved the Union. He didn’t want to conquer the South, he wanted to regain it for the union, emphasizing forgiveness and peacemaking over revenge as the North won. Staying the course is just a bunch of Bush-era pablum. Blind stubbornness cannot win a war.

Who knows what Obama is capable of; one thing is for certain: he’s certainly capable of much more than the candidates we’ve nominated before.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #252213

“young, highly informed, not very gullible young men and women” is not how I would characterize BHO’s adherants. I believe they are as susceptable to advertising and conformity to their peers, as those who are not highly informed. It’s always difficult to persuade younger people that experience is valuable, but BHO is a rather extreme example of inexperience. I voted for McGovern in 72 and Gene McCarthy as a 3rd party candidate in 76, out of nostalgia. They were both very experienced. BHO is the equivalent of John Lindsay.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 7:13 PM
Comment #252223

Dr. Hubert-
I’ll see you a Jeremiah Wright (Who Obama has repudiated), and raise you a Ron Parsley and a John Hagee(who McCain likely will never repudiate).

I’ll see your Rezko (who Obama did no favors for) and raise you a Charles Keating (who McCain did a big favor for).

The Farrakhan bet you should take off the table, because Farrakhan is only related to him by means of Wright. He’s repudiated Wright, so I think by that standard, Farrakhan has been absolutely drop-kicked. Or are we playing Six Degrees of Barack Obama? He’s two degrees away from Kevin Bacon, by the way. Tom Hanks endorsed him, and Tom Hanks was in Apollo 13 with Kevin Bacon!

I’ll see your Ayers (a long-settled former radical that Obama barely knows), and raise you G. Gordon Liddy, the convicted felon from Watergate, unrepentant, who in the mid-nineties advocated that the people in the Branch Davidian compound aim for the ATF agent’s heads because they’ll be wearing body armor. Yes, charming.

If you want to talk about typical Washington politicians, let’s have that discussion, because McCain fits many of the characteristics.

Of course you wouldn’t characterize us as well informed and independent minded. That might ruin a nice political canard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #252238

Stephen Daugherty, I wouldn’t characterize you as young or gullible, we would disagree on independent minded, but I will grant you are well-informed which I would like to augment by having you look into RFKjr. He makes a lot of important points that explain much of what is necessary for the future. He also makes your candidate look like a dilettante.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 11:39 PM
Comment #252259

On the subject of RFK, Jr., I already know about him. He kind of lost me on vaccines. He believes that Thimerosal is responsible for the increase in autism, when there’s no real solid evidence for that claim, and no reduction in autism cases after it was removed from it.

There’s also the issue of his tendency towards strident rhetoric. I know you don’t mind that, but if our aim is to grow a coalition, we need somebody with better judgment about what he says and where he says it.

And lastly, why a Kennedy? I have nothing against them personally, but I’m not a big fan of dynastic politics, name recognition being favored over actual merits. I mean, do you think Bush would have gotten the nomination if his name was George Anderson? Get me somebody who’s earned their place as a front-runner.

You can talk to me about dilettantes when you can show me another candidate who has organized a successful 48-state campaign against a political insider who was supposed to win it walking away.

He’s fifteen away on Superdelegates. If today gives them no reason to bolt or freeze, He will have the majority of committed Superdelegates before the week is out. He’s gained 88, she’s gained 13.

After today, Superdelegate are the majority of the delegates remaining. Obama has proven himself. No dilettante could pull something this complex off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2008 8:29 AM
Comment #252260

By the way: I am young! Look at my profile photo in the “about” section.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2008 8:34 AM
Comment #252264

Stephen Daugherty, get a haircut! The pictures attached to some of those profiles explain a lot more than people might want.

The first episode of this Eli Stone series was on the vaccines. ABC aired it with a disclaimer. RFKjr also had a lot to say about mercury in one of the videos I linked previously. Why a Kennedy? Because the Democratic party is hereditary for some of us. There is also a business and social connection for some people here in Chicago. What you are characterizing as “strident rhetoric”, others would characterize as passionate advocacy.

I don’t have much more to say about BHO, because there is not much there. I wouldn’t bet against him, because he is the handicapper’s pick, but the timing is against him, and I have seen it all before, repeatedly.

This is a sad and funny version of Forever Young:

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #252283

Actually, I’m worse right now, on the hair end of things.

On the subject of strident rhetoric, I understand what you’re saying, but I’d say this: the distinction does not work in your favor unless your target group agrees that what you’re doing is impassioned advocacy. That may be part of the difficulty between Barack Voters and Hillary Voters at the moment!

Barack Obama, I think, wins on his approach, and that approach alone can bear fruit that even experience alone could not. I also appreciate that he’s sought out the voters and the states that otherwise wouldn’t receive our attention. Believe me, that’s the first step to any meaningful expansion of the party.

To me, Hillary just seems to embody the kind of hesitation that has made the party voted into the majority in 2006 weaker in Washington than it had to be. We need to take the initiative. Hillary might be a formidable fighter, but we need more than a fighter, we need a leader, and on that count I don’t think she measures up to him. Experienced or not, she’s not shown consistent good judgment in her campaign.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 6, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #252292

Stephen Daugherty, you’re not as young as you would like to be, but you’re definitely Irish. Someone like RFKjr is able to inform people about things that they would otherwise not be aware. People don’t even know a lot of what is going on, outside of their region. The return of pollution that we thought we had dealt with, is a good example of the necessity of passionate advocacy.

BHO is seeking voters in the places where he can get them. You’re crediting him with something different than what he is actually doing. I would be happy if Wyoming and such places were in the Democratic column in November, but I wouldn’t count on it. Even in less out of the way places, his figures don’t add up to anything substantial. “expansion of the party” is not necessarily my goal as much as improvement of the party with people who can accomplish things. BHO reminds me of Syndey Greenstreet in the Maltese Falcon. “I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes talking, etc.”

On “the majority in 2006 weaker in Washington than it had to be”, see Harry Reid on The Daily Show last night. The concept that BHO is a leader is a new one to me. Is this the talking point of the day, straight from the campaign? Leaders who vote “present”? I’m here. Follow me!

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #252319

Now that Super Delegates Matter Even More… Lets Ordinary Voices Be Heard

The unconstrained votes of some 800 top Democratic Party officials, known as Super Delegates, now matter even more following the Pennsylvania Primary, which continued to leave both Presidential candidates short of the 2,024 primary-pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Those believing these Party insiders (who include governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers) should be more accountable to rank-and-file Democrats, can now have their voices heard through This one-stop portal is the first and only one empowering grassroots Democrats to directly communicate with their state’s Super Delegates – via email, fax or postal letters. maintains lists of Super Delegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or are still uncommitted. Users can, with one click, target all uncommitted Super Delegates and urge them to publicly endorse a certain candidate, or remain uncommitted. Users can similarly lobby Super Delegates to keep an existing commitment, or switch to the other candidate.

Although Sen. Obama leads with 1,490 pledged delegates to 1,336 for Sen. Clinton, neither would attain 2,024 even if one or the other won two-thirds of the remaining primary delegates. While Clinton leads among Super Delegates, 259 to 235, Obama has narrowed this gap steadily over the past six weeks. Over 300 Super Delegates remain uncommitted.

The website is strictly independent, and is not aligned with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, whose similar civic engagement website,, is dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop by connecting citizens and lawmakers.

Thousands have visited since it was launched on April 3. Since then, the website has been upgraded by adding a blog, the ability to invite friends, and free email delivery.

Posted by: Kathy at May 7, 2008 8:41 AM
Comment #252364

S.D., This is from the FDA page on “Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate.”

“The various mercury guidelines are based on epidemiological and laboratory studies of methyl mercury, whereas thimerosal is a derivative of ethyl mercury. Because they are different chemical entities - ethyl- versus methylmercury - different toxicological profiles are expected. There is, therefore, an uncertainty that arises in applying the methylmercury-based guidelines to thimerosal. Lacking definitive data on the comparative toxicities of ethyl- versus methylmercury, FDA considered ethyl- and methyl-mercury as equivalent in its risk evaluation.”

Methylmercury is a neurotoxin. The toxicity of methylmercury was first recognized during the late 1950s and early 1960s when industrial discharge of mercury into Minimata Bay, Japan led to the widespread consumption of mercury-contaminated fish (Harada 1995). Epidemics of methylmercury poisoning also occurred in Iraq during the 1970s when seed grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide was accidentally used to make bread (Bakir et al. 1973). During these epidemics, fetuses were found to be more sensitive to the effects of methylmercury than adults. Maternal exposure to high levels of methylmercury resulted in infants exhibiting severe neurologic injury including a condition resembling cerebral palsy, while their mothers showed little or no symptoms.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #252420


Excellent article, and even better responses to those who disagree. Anxiety about any candidate is understandable and reasonable, but more to the point, anxiety about EVERY candidate is understandable and reasonable. As important an office as is the Presidency of the USA, it’s pretty frightening to entrust it to ANYONE. But we have to do that, because SOMEONE has to have the job.

Am I anxious that a President Obama may face dilemmas for which he will have less than satisfactory responses to? You bet I am. But from what I’ve seen of his calm, his judgment, his ability to communicate, his ability to navigate the political world without losing sight of the idealism needed to accompany any movement for change, I am far LESS anxious about anticipating an Obama presidency than that of any other choice we’re now looking at.

McCain may have made a reasonably good President 8 years ago - certainly better than the disaster (RC) who has functioned in that role - but I just don’t see it today. Clinton would likely restore competency to the Oval Office, but she unfortunately would reinforce the divisions that Bush has cemented. Both, however make better Senators.

Obama is Presidential. He’s not out to lead his party nor his government, in spite of however many times Jack tries to falsely claim Obama favors more intrusive government. Obama is out to lead his country. I am ready to give him that chance - not because he is perfect - but because my America needs to believe once more that her potential is greater than the sum of her imperfect pieces, from the President to each and every citizen.

Of course reality does not magically spring from aspiration, but without aspiration reality is guaranteed to be mired in mediocrity. Obama dares me, a middle-aged white man to cast aside cynicism. He’s far more effective at inspiring our young to idealism, at the same time that he has demonstrated his own effectiveness at dealing with political reality. Any society relies on both the dreams of its youth and the pragmatism of its elders. Over the last 40 years we have grown increasingly cynical to the point that even teenagers and younger are more routinely becoming jaded. Even if we believe that youthful idealism is folly, most of us recognize the positive role that idealism can play in a healthy society.

It is high time America take a chance on an aspirational leader.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at May 7, 2008 11:17 PM
Comment #252423

Sometimes, activism gets the best of science, and both suffer for that. We can imagine all kinds of implications from certain facts or theories, but more often than not, our conclusions are wrong. That’s why we need scientific methods.

You get people emotionally invested in bad science, you’re not doing them a favor. At this point it seems you’re more likely to cause neurological damage through bacterial and viral infection than prevent what may be an absent mecury poison, or an unpredictable, or. rare auto-immunre response

More later…

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #252429

I would think that the “bad science” was injecting mercury into small people in the first place, claiming that it’s the “good mercury”, which can be eliminated from the body, I am always offered the hepatitis B vaccination at work, and they need to have a signed piece of paper on file saying that I refused it. I get the flu shot every year. The last one was useless.

This is RFKjr’s page on robertfkennedyjr./Thimerosal.PDF

Posted by: ohrealy at May 8, 2008 7:51 AM
Comment #252463

Obama’s Race Against Race
By Nicolas Powers
From the April 25, 2008 issue
A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.


Posted by: The Indypendent at May 8, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #252465

There is no scientific evidence that the dosage of thimerosol used in (some)vaccines causes any harm other than injection-site redness. There is tons of scientific evidence that vaccinations do not cause autism. Anti-vaccine people are arguing from isolated anecdotes, without any scientific basis. This is one of the best studied areas in history, and no correlation was found between vaccines and any harm. You want to say welcome back, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diptheria? Welcome back, meningitis, nerve damage, subacute sclerosing panenecephalits, birth defects, sterility, and life on a respirator! Welcome back, common early childhood death! Vaccines are the greatest (maybe second or third greatest)accomplishment of humanity. You want all of that based on non-scientific anecdotal stories that are refuted by some of the largest and best-performed studies in history? The final truth is that scaremongering about vaccines will kill people. It has killed people, and it will kill more people. There’s plenty of evidence for that.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 8, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #252492

“non-scientific anecdotal stories” in pediatric practice trump the junk science of “largest and best-performed studies in history”. Mercury is either poison or not. Since they do not understand it’s effect on the brain, better not experiment any more on small children. Threatening us all with death and disease sounds more like scaremongering.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 8, 2008 7:11 PM
Comment #252696

You calling it junk science does not make it so. However, your anecdotes are just the kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in reasoning that such controlled, large-scale studies are designed to eliminate. In actuality, these studies are some of the largest, most comprehensive, and best designed ever. Your argument that mercury is either poison or not, so we should never use it is stupid. Nothing in life is so clear-cut. Everything is poisonous, given a large enough dose. You can die from drinking too much water. The truth is, the germs that thimerosol keeps from growing in vaccines are much more dangerous than the incredibly small dose of thimerosol. When mercury was taken out of vaccines—nothing changed! No change in autism rate! nothing! Vaccination is among the safest thing you can do, and prevents some of the most horrible things imaginable.
I am not trying to frighten, but to make absolutely clear what is at stake. Everything I listed is a proven effect of an infection that is currently preventable by vaccination. If you think autism is scary, think about this: the death rate from measles since the year 2000 is 1 in 250. Mumps causes sterility in men. Rubella causes massive birth defects. Measles can turn into an encephalitis that destroys your brain. Tetanus kills you from exhaustion as every muscle in your body contracts until you die. The Hib vaccine prevents an infection that kills babies in a matter of hours. Polio causes paralysis and death. If we stop vaccinating, all of these diseases will come back. Where people have rejected vaccination, in Britain, in some places in Africa, these diseases, and their effects, have come back. These are facts. People have died because of anti-vaccine propagandizers, and I’m sure more will.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 12, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #252718

Obama = Lost Elections
It seems that Obama & Obamatics are drinking their champagne before the real party has started…
Obamatics have become so blind, they can not see further than their noses…
Ideological rhetoric without any solid plan of how to deal with those three major issues (1. the WAR; 2. weak Economy; 3. the Environment) that are affecting our lives is just a hole in the water…
With the help of media that artificially build him up, where empty promises were not backed up by substance, he might think that he will win…
Just wait!
When his affiliation for 25 years with a racist anti American church, where Farrakhan & Wright were his “uncles”; his elitist out of touch comments regarding blue collar American working class people; his direct & indirect derogatory comment directed towards Bill Clinton’s successful presidency; his naive approach of the war in Iraq based mostly of his pull-out-without-a-plan plan; Tony Rezko & Co deals; his wifes comments about being “proud for the first time” of USA; all of these will come back to haunt him and will suffocate his candidacy and leave DNC in chaos disarray for not making the right choice…

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at May 13, 2008 3:20 AM
Comment #254075

I just want to say; Obama has no more control of what goes on in Trinity Church than Hillery had over the Oval Office when Bill was President. I don’t understand what the hipe is, Obama is not the Pastor, He didn’t posture the Priest, anyway, what happened to ‘freedom of speech, is the Priest not entitled to his opinion? Does everyone have get permission from the Clinton “passe” to make a statement. I voted for Hillery in the primary but I am sorry to say I can’t vote for her in the general election. The Clinton’s have come all the way out the box.

Posted by: Maxine wade at May 31, 2008 11:46 PM
Comment #254551

I just can’t vote for Oama. The longest that he ever held a full time job was for about four years. And he didn’t do anything to distinguish himself in his legal profession or any other job he had, as best I can tell. I keep hearing he was a community organizer. That seems to be two of the three jobs he had between college and law school and I don’t hear too much about what he accomplished there. The Illinois senate was a part time job, he had a failry high absenteeism rate, as he did in the US Senate. In both bodies he developed a reputation for taking credit for the work of others. See the Washignton Post story on this subject. He’s a part time law professor who never published anything and his leadership style was rejected by whomever chooses Harvard law Review Presidents. They decided to go in a different direction the following year. Do you see anything in his life that indicates he is actually interested in making the tough decisions involved in governing? I sure don’t. President Bush didn’t exhibit a strong interest in governing either - and see what happened?

Posted by: Mary OK at June 5, 2008 12:02 PM
Post a comment