Obama and J Wright

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nobody can say with any confidence what black people, or working class whites, or college students, or women will do after a whole general election campaign. The one thing that seems certain is that the issue cuts both ways.

A recent poll suggests Clinton voters are more likely to reject Obama than vice versa.

If the priority is to keep the Democratic Party together, the answer is to agree to a joint ticket. No go, says Nancy Pelosi and other Obama supporters. OK, well, don't complain about the heat in the kitchen then. And stop the talk of looking out for the party's best interests.

Poll: Obama-Clinton Divide
By Dalia Sussman
April 30, 2008, 3:17 pm

As the Democratic nominating contest rages on, most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/poll-obama-clinton-divide/

[RashanGary]

This reaks of a staged event. Obama knows he has to get away from Wright, but doesn't want to look like a traitor to the black people while doing it. What's the solution? Have Rev Wright go crazy-stupid so Obama has an excuse to disown him and everything looks cool to his black following.


You know how these things are done, a conversation among the Obama elite leads from one thing to another. Someone brings up how damaging wright is, someone says how damaging it would be to disown him. Then someone says "if only he'd say something really stupid now so we can move on from this guy" and then everyones eyes light up. Someone who's close to wright accross the room winks at whoevers in charge and the plan is in place. Obama didn't create it, it just sort of happened. No real way to trace it, it was never specifically planned out. It just sort of conveniently happend and now Obama gets the crazy black monkey off his back.

Who cares who wins these things. Everythign is corrupt. Everyone is motivated by money and power and money/power rarely have the will of the people anywhere near the top of the priority list.

[hoosier]

Nobody can say with any confidence what black people, or working class whites, or college students, or women will do after a whole general election campaign. The one thing that seems certain is that the issue cuts both ways.

Poll: Obama-Clinton Divide
By Dalia Sussman
April 30, 2008, 3:17 pm

As the Democratic nominating contest rages on, most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...linton-divide/

Further evidence that the Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party is really just a reincarnation of the old Boll Weevil Democrats, who couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican because it was a Republican President who freed the slaves.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nobody can say with any confidence what black people, or working class whites, or college students, or women will do after a whole general election campaign. The one thing that seems certain is that the issue cuts both ways.

Poll: Obama-Clinton Divide
By Dalia Sussman
April 30, 2008, 3:17 pm

As the Democratic nominating contest rages on, most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...linton-divide/

Further evidence that the Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party is really just a reincarnation of the old Boll Weevil Democrats, who couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican because it was a Republican President who freed the slaves.

Boll Weevil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uivguXs6wY

[Harlan Huckleby]

Further evidence that the Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party is really just a reincarnation of the old Boll Weevil Democrats, who couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican because it was a Republican President who freed the slaves.

I think there is some truth to this. Except the animosity didn't start out at such a high level, it grew as the campaign went along, which suggests race is not a core issue.

I think there are more people opposed to a female candidate than a black candidate. Maybe not in concept, but the reality of a woman out there in the rough-and-tumble rubs people the wrong way.

And Obama isn't black. He's half white. A dark-skinned African American, a guy who looks like Alan Keyes, would not be so acceptable.

[Joemailman]

Nobody can say with any confidence what black people, or working class whites, or college students, or women will do after a whole general election campaign. The one thing that seems certain is that the issue cuts both ways.

A recent poll suggests Clinton voters are more likely to reject Obama than vice versa.

If the priority is to keep the Democratic Party together, the answer is to agree to a joint ticket. No go, says Nancy Pelosi and other Obama supporters. OK, well, don't complain about the heat in the kitchen then. And stop the talk of looking out for the party's best interests.

Poll: Obama-Clinton Divide
By Dalia Sussman
April 30, 2008, 3:17 pm

As the Democratic nominating contest rages on, most of Barack Obama’s supporters say they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton wins the party’s nomination for president. But that positive sentiment is not entirely reciprocated among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the poll say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...linton-divide/

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi will have much to say about who Obama would pick as his running mate? I don't. The real question is whether Obama could pick a running mate who has suggested that the Republican nominee is in some ways more qualified to be President than he is. Right now I'm thinking he might pick Ed Rendell, who could bring in all those disenchanted Clinton supporters while at the same time probably delivering Pennsylvania. If Hillary gets the nomination, I think it's probably a no-brainer that she offers the VP job to Obama. Whether he would accept it is another matter.

[texaspackerbacker]

As a conservative Republican, I'm STILL trying to decide which of the Dems will be easier to beat. One thing sure, each day that goes by, they BOTH become easier to beat--hence, America's chance of coming out of this election without serious damage is getting stronger every day.

I'm beginning to think Obama may actually be the more beatable of the two because Hillary has more support in the states the Dems have a strong chance to win. Obama, on the other hand, is strong in a lot of southern and western states that the Dems will lose regardless.

However, if Hillary gets the nomination, a huge number of black and young white Obama supporters are going to see the nomination as stolen from Obama, and are going to stay home and not vote. That would be wonderful from a Republican and American standpoint, because it would strengthen our chances of wresting Congress from the clutches of the evil Dems.

All that says WIN/WIN situation for the Republicans, and hence, for America.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

However, if Hillary gets the nomination, a huge number of black and young white Obama supporters are going to see the nomination as stolen from Obama, and are going to stay home and not vote. That would be wonderful from a Republican and American standpoint
All that says WIN/WIN situation for the Republicans, and hence, for America.

Yep, it is always in America's best interest to have voter's stay home.

[hoosier]

However, if Hillary gets the nomination, a huge number of black and young white Obama supporters are going to see the nomination as stolen from Obama, and are going to stay home and not vote. That would be wonderful from a Republican and American standpoint
All that says WIN/WIN situation for the Republicans, and hence, for America.

Yep, it is always in America's best interest to have voter's stay home.

Leave it to Tex to sum up in one sentence Karl Rove's entire political strategy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Damn straight it is good for America to have people who have pitifully succumbed to the anti-American con job of the Amerircan leftist politicians and media types NOT vote.

Hillary OR Obama win, and America loses. The Dems lose, especially if they lose control of Congress too, and America wins.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi will have much to say about who Obama would pick as his running mate? I don't.

Of course not. But if the Obama supporters had responded favorably to the idea, that would have been a basis of reconciliation, plus would have put some pressure on Obama to give serious consideration. Pelosi made a declaration of war.

Most of this is symbolic. It is the gesture more than anything.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I think it's probably a no-brainer that she offers the VP job to Obama. Whether he would accept it is another matter.

I'm increasingly hearing that Clinton supporters don't want Obama on the ticket. Both of candidates are acruing such negatives.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The 'Race' Speech Revisited
By Charles Krauthammer

"I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother."

-- Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18

Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews.

Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative. Poor Geraldine Ferraro, thrice lashed by Obama in Philadelphia as the white equivalent of Wright's raving racism, is off the hook.

These equivalences having been revealed as the cheap rhetorical tricks they always were, Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.

Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."

That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright's outrages. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama's own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright's racist rants.

Obama's turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites-- one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia -- now stands discredited by Obama's own admission of surprise. But Obama's liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.

Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There's a petition drive in the African American community (400K signatures so far) demanding that the SuperDelegates ratify the Pledge Delegates. A vote for Clinton is a vote for racism.

http://www.colorofchange.org/dems/index.html

Leaders of the Democratic Party are playing a dangerous game -- risking the credibility of the party to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination against the will of voters. Heading down this path means disenfranchising millions of voters and legitimizing a campaign strategy that has displayed a clear pattern of race baiting and divisive politics.
Join us in demanding that Democratic Party leadership and superdelegates uphold the integrity of the party and listen to the voice of voters.

[texaspackerbacker]

If your line, "a vote for Hillary is a vote for racism" is meant to paraphrase the petition, I think you have it wrong.

Just reading the words of the petition, I don't see how anybody could disagree with what they are saying. For the super delegates to go over the heads of the voters would certainly be allowable by Democrat Party rules. However, it may not be wise, as those "disenfranchised" Obama voters really would legitimately feel wronged to the extent that they probably would sit out and not vote.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They say a vote for Clinton legitimizes race baiting. Never mind that the Obama camp has constantly played the race card.

Threatening Superdelegates makes the whole process illegitimate. And of course this petition group is just following the example set by politiicans favoring Obama.

The SuperDelegates were created to be independent. There is no purpose for them if they have to follow the Pledge Delegates.

the argument against having SuperDelegates is legitimate. But they have SuperDelegates, those are the rules. Lots of things about the process are undemocratic. Not having FL or MI vote is ridiculous, and Obama blocked revotes. Caucuses are very undemocratic.