home

Obama's Worst Enemies

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:04:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via corrente, David Sirota demonstrates how to do the most harm you can to Barack Obama:

The Clintons are doing everything they can to make this convention all about them - and to absolve themselves from the substantive criticism of both Clintonism and Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign. . . . No, Bill Clinton was not "painted as a racist" - he was a racist during the campaign.

Nice work David. John McCain thanks you.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< "I'm Hillary Clinton And I Do Not Approve That Message" | The Conventions, The Oscars Awards Show Of Politics >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Worst Enemies | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    you know that Sirota basically dislikes everyone, including Obama. He ripped obama on CNN this morning for his choice of Biden and about everything else Obama does.

    While I wish he would shut up about the Clintons, he is like a Nadar guy in essence. I guess in america, everyone has two things and one of them is an opinion.

    David is a friend of mine (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    He's writing what he thinks.

    And I am writing what I think.

    BTW, to pretend David is all alone in this attitude or was during the primaries is disingenuous.

    The problems Obama has with Hillary supporters comes from what was said and done regarding the Clintons by the likes of a whole bunch of people, including most especially, Jim Clyburn.


    Parent

    exactly right (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    all the way down to the delegates on the floor.

    Parent
    Not what was done. (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    What continues to be done.  

    Parent
    It's the single thing I will never, ever forgive (5.00 / 32) (#39)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    I was trying to articulate my violent opposition to the Obama nomination to a friend of mine this morning who's on the fence.  I respect this friend, and am not trying to preach to her.  I think some folks who haven't been paying much attention simply believe they should vote Democrat, not matter what.

    Which I understand, and respect.  But I am entitled to my own opinion, which is this:

    1.) I don't think the Party should be rewarded for bending the rules in favor of one candidate over another

    2.) especially since the favored candidate has a lesser chance of winning the general election.

    But what I will never, ever forgive?  The racism charges.

    Look, I live in the South. I'm very active in politics on the very local level (school board, state House races, etc.)  I deal with real, live, virulent REAL racists every day of my life (mostly Republican).  If it were up to them, there'd still be Jim Crow, and poll taxes, and all of that.  I honestly think a lot of folks, particularly in the northern U.S., have no idea just exactly what's still going on in a lot of pockets of the country.

    To equate those people with Bill Clinton?  Who singlehandedly appointed more blacks, women, Hispanics and gays to his Administration than all other Presidents in history combined?

    It's the most egregious insult that I can imagine.  For Obama to allow his supporters to not only line up behind this slander - but to allow them to smear Clinton's supporters with the same pack of lies - is absolutely unconscionable.

    Not only will I never give one cent to Obama; will I never vote for him; and will I tell everyone who'll listen exactly how I feel about this, I'll do everything I can to ensure he's defeated in November, and I plan to work to ensure the removal of the likes of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile as well.

    I've been walking around my Denver hotel with a "Hillary 18 Million Strong" t-shirt and having to listen to a lot of chuckles and derision out of Obama delegates.  Good luck electing him without the hundreds of thousands of people - if not millions - who'll stay home thanks to him and his thuggish, immature and despotic behavior.

    Parent

    Interesting point about (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    Clinton's appointments.

    It's also rich as creosote to suggest a former Dem president was/is racist.

    It's toxic writing.

    Parent

    you go (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    Eleanor

    Parent
    Eleanor (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    You rock!!  

    I hope you document the stuff that the Obama fans/delegates/campaign staff say and do to you this week in Denver.  It's important that the truth be told about how despicable, and stupid, some of these people are.  That will be useful when the sane among us have to rebuild the party from the ruins that these people are creating.

    Parent

    Here~! Here~! My Good Lady! Here ! Here! (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    I surely understand the difficulty us HRC and Pro-Democracy peeps [sneaky grin] have in explaining WHY we can't vote for Obama. I agree with everything you've said. Obama should have and could have stopped the egregious behavior of his supporters (minions?). EEEKS-

    He had every opportunity to RISE ABOVE THE MUCK and he missed doing so far too many times. But it's like James Carville said (and I know he must of snatched this one from somewhere down South)

    "They say the best time to plant a tree is 25 years ago. The 2nd best time is NOW!"

    Obama has time to make fixes, but at this point he's let so many things stack up...it's f'in CHAOS at this point, but still, he can make amends if he'd ONLY try!

    Parent

    Senator Obams could have stopped all this (5.00 / 12) (#72)
    by sharmajee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    with a single phone call, press conference, or debate performance. He chose not to do in 2007, he chose not to do in Spring 2008, he chose not to do it in Summer 2008. It's easy to see why, it was a gift that kept on giving, and in keeping with history, it worked. But the question is will it work in November? For now, the Clintonists are just a nuisance he has to put up with.

    Parent
    Not only did he not stop it, but (5.00 / 12) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:56:03 PM EST
    as he still has not done so, and with other evidence we have seen, I can only conclude that it was a deliberate campaign tactic to provoke Bill Clinton, at the least, and probably Hillary Clinton, too.

    It is a very Rovian tactic.

    There is a worse word for it, too, but I won't go there.

    Eleanor, you stay cool, too.  Thank you for being there.  I think that I could not do so well.

    Parent

    I said from the very first time (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    when they start spinning "fairy tale" as racist, pretending Bill said it was a fairy tale for a black man to be president, a blatant lie.......
    that this was the ROVIAN play.
    Axlerod knew it....he planned it.
    Rove's genius (and I do despise the man and his evil ways) was this "Attack your opponents strength."  He went after Kerry in a way no one ever thought he could pull off....attack a Purple Heart recipient for his "bad" service... he had republicans mocking purple hearts.

    So here Obama has to beat out the legacy of two people beloved by the AA comminity.  ROVIAN perfection: turn them into racists.
    And when supposedly educated people buy it because their CDS is greater than their IQ,  it works.  
    Obama would never have come close if Hillary pulled in the AA community.  But between Rove and that hypocrite Oprah, Hillary and Bill were accepted by some to be racists.

    NOTHING made me angrier than that.

    Parent

    Have you seen how generally (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    Happy the African American community is with our CHOICE?  If not come to Detroit, Oakland, DC, Baltimore, NYC- just ask someone.  Again, we are free thinking people- don't assume we were bamboozled please.

    The Clintons are great.  I am guessing that if you did a poll of AA the number of people that think ill have him is still tiny.  He is still liked a lot (NOTE- Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall- they are BELOVED)

    Parent

    I apologize (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    I meant to say "if Hillary pulled in her original share (in other words, the polls before the racists accusations began) of the AA community  

    I have no doubt that there is diversity of thought in the AA community, in any community.  Our local Hillary group's leaders were an AA couple, and our most vocal spokesperson was a gay AA man.  Most of our group was female and many Hispanics.  
    Sadly our AA couple leading our group had to drop out because of threats......sad but true.  


    Parent

    That is aweful (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    Hopefully he is okay.  Our leaders are only as good as our citizenship- these types of acts are a bad sign for our democracy.  

    Parent
    It's the white liberal guilt types (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:58:35 PM EST
    that I read in the comment above, if you look at it closely.  I have yet to meet any African American, of several with whom I have talked, who were fooled by the Rovian tricks.  They say they know the Clintons aren't racists.  Those who are for Obama are not for him because they are against the Clintons.

    I have seen this in my own family, the supposedly educated types noted above -- and not previously prone to CDS at all.  Some were great Clinton fans.  But they turned on a dime and fell for the Rovian tricks because they are gullible.  And as I talk with them, it is the worst kind of liberal guilt that is their motivation.  The dumb kind.

    Btw, all of the Obama backers, and there are many, in my family live in lily-white suburbs.  I'm the only one in a diverse neighborhood, and in a majority-minority city.  I find that interesting.

    Parent

    Those Rove lessons (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by 0 politico on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    were applied well.

    When did the Dems start eating their same party opponents?

    Forgot.  The Chicago angle.

    Parent

    Yep. You see it, as I've said (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    that everyone now is seeing a Chicago primary campaign.  Destroy your Dem opponent.

    It's just not a good idea now, when the opponent is a Republican.

    Parent

    Too true. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jen on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:13:39 PM EST
    I heard -- when it was going on -- from a very good source that it came straight from the top. I'm not at liberty to say who made the claim, but it was someone who would know, inside Hillary's campaign.

    Parent
    Since I first became politically active (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    during the Nixon era, the one thing that I have always found politically beyond the pale was wedge tactics -- tactics that pit one group of Americans against another, that encourage one group to resent and fear another.

    The first time I saw such a tactic used, by Nixon, I wept. It was the famous Nixon ad featuring a very elderly white woman walking fearfully down a darkened street. It's point was to set age against youth, white against black. And it was, in my book, morally reprehensible.

    Over all these years, with the exception of the George Wallace campaigns, those kind of tactics have been almost exclusively associated with the Republican party. But this year, for the first time, it was a "liberal" Democrat who sought to divide us -- dividing black against white, youth against age, the affluent against the working class.

    I'm a much older, more jaded person than I was when I first saw that Nixon ad. I didn't weep in shock and disbelief at the Obama campaign's efforts to divide us and play on class and racial resentments and paranoia. But it did break my heart.

    The funny thing is, in this general election, McCain is the first Republican in my memory who hasn't, yet, run by trying to divide us by race, class, gender, etc. His hard and constant attacks against Obama may deserve criticism for their accuracy, fairness, etc. But he hasn't, yet, attacked the people who SUPPORT Obama. Other Republican campaigns have made Democratic constituencies as much of a target of attack as Democratic candidates. McCain hasn't.

    In this election cycle it is the Democrat who has launched attacks against his opponents' supporters, played on class prejudices, made race, age and gender an issue, etc.

    That is something I find almost unbelievable -- and completely unforgiveable.


    Parent

    unforgiveable. (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by daria g on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:28:30 PM EST
    A friend of mine compared Hillary to George Wallace several months ago.  

    Really?  She is like him, and I am the kind of person who would vote for George Wallace?

    It's going to take me a very, very long time to let it go.

    Parent

    I call BS (none / 0) (#117)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    If for no other reason then they are trying to divide us over Hillary.  But we could go into the racial stuff too.

    Parent
    So far, there is nothing from the McCain campaign (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:07:59 PM EST
    like the Nixon ads -- that came from the campaign, not surrogates. Or, even anything as closely associated with the McCain campaign as the Willie Horton ad was associated with Bush 1.

    That doesn't mean there aren't Republican groups and supporters making racist appeals. There are.

    But, so far, the main thrust of McCain's attacks against Obama have been aimed at him personally -- his experience, his celebrity, etc. Those attacks may be unfair or inaccurate -- but they are not at all the same thing as pitting one group of Americans against another, encouraging disdain for and anger at the supposedly "racist" working class, older women, "angry feminist," "people with needs," low information voters, etc., etc. or fear of other Americans, most especially of minorities.

    Maybe he'll get around to it in the future. But so far, the strongest appeals of that type were part of the Democratic primary.  

    Parent

    Sending lots of love to Eleanor A today.... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    YOU GET IT!!!  I support what you said 100%!!!

    Parent
    I feel like a traitor... (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:37:55 PM EST
    ...every time I go into this discussion. So many people believe that both Clinton's race-baited, that Bill Clinton said that Obama's campaign was a "fairy tale". I just read somebody saying that on Politico, fercryingoutloud. I hate that so many people have been misled. I hate that the lies are so widespread that many people voted based on believing them. But mostly I hate that a good man and woman, and a number of their friends, were slandered during this campaign and nobody bothered to speak up for them.

    Parent
    Today our local paper who supported Obama (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40:16 PM EST
    called on Obama to heal the rifts in the Democratic party. This is the letter I wrote to them
    Dear Editor:
    Kudos to you for your editorial putting the responsibility for healing the rifts in the Democratic party where it belongs, on Senator Obama.  The mainstream media is determined to make this a food fight, which does not do the Democratic Party any favors.  On the other hand, Senator Obama and his campaign repeatedly heaped scorn on the Clinton Presidency saying ..."that people fell through the cracks during the Clinton and Bush years."   Statements like that along with the race baiting of some in his campaign is a major problem the Senator needs to deal with.  The DNC must also deal with the undemocratic caucus system that allows voter disinfranchisement and unequal vote totals to "selected' candidates.  I am waiting


    Parent
    Obama's worst enemies. (none / 0) (#103)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    His supporters! (supposedly).

    Who knew.

    Wow.

    Parent

    Sirota has declined (none / 0) (#166)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:39:54 AM EST
    He has gone from being a person with a marginally different point of view, which he wrote about online, into a blowhard who seems to think that negativity and outlandish opinions will garner him fame.  Yup, that seems to be working.  I find now when I occasionally check out his columns, hoping to see the old Sirota at work, it's just drivel.  Another voice strangled by its own success.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    you know that Sirota basically dislikes everyone, including Obama.

    Sirota's early work hugely influenced my perception that Senator Obama was a quasi-progressive. I still think that Sirota was ahead of the curve on that call, based on what we've seen lately.

     

    Parent

    Quasi? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:29:51 PM EST
    Try "psuedo"

    Parent
    Perfect! Thank you :) N/T (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:30:37 PM EST


    Parent
    10 comments jthomas (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    Reminder: new commenters (those less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  You're at 22.  Thanks.

    Parent
    I may need to take (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Iphie on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    another media vacation until both conventions are over. Try to see the major speeches and then block out the rest. Too much blithering and not enough thinking is making my head hurt.

    The people who are (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    continuing to make this convention about the Clintons are people like David Sirota.  The Clintons are supporting the nominee.

    Look in the mirror, Davey.

    Get the hook.

    Sirota is a bigger narcissus... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    ...than Bill Clinton.  one day he'll fall in the lake looking at his own reflection.

    I mean seriously--Obama chose Joe frikken Biden as his consiglieri.  Biden is Mr MBNA and chop Iraq into three Republics.

    Could the Obama devotees please just let bill be Bill. Pleaaasseeee.  Just drop it already Davie.

    Parent

    Obama said that he was looking for (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    someone who didn't have a big ego. Well his judgement on this one is not very good.  Biden is on most Sunday morning talk shows, he blathers on and on, often calling out someone and then turning around to vote for them (C.Rice).  The shoe fits, Biden does have a big ego.  Pity.

    Parent
    Sirota is a typical media nut (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cards In 4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    looking for a new angle on the news.  Hey, I know! I'll call Bill Clinton a racist.

    Clinton may  be a lot of things but racist is not one of them.  

    How do people as dumb as Sirota even graduate from 8th grade.  

    Parent

    He must be addicted (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    to the ego boost he gets from his fan mail.  I bet they all tell him what a manly man he is for taking on the Clintons.

    Parent
    As I promised in a previous thread (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    to say about anyone who keeps pulling this crap, after all Clinton has said and done for Obama, here is my message to Sirota:

    @@##$%^&&!@#~!~~!

    Which translate to:  You have issues with your mother and/or other women.  Get help.

    And until then, get off the internet toobz, Sirota, unless you really want to continue embarrassing yourself and your candidate.

    Parent

    What, Sirota neglected the other memes? (none / 0) (#59)
    by sharmajee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    That Hillary will do anything to cause Obama to lose so she can win in 2012?  Or, that Bill will do something subtle during the speech to sabotage the entire Dem Party?   Will Sirota be happy if Hillary moved to another planet or should she go to another galaxy altogether?

    Parent
    I have made note (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by suki on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    of all the people spouting this horses##t and they will never have ANY credibility with me again.
    probably a long list (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:19:07 PM EST
    I know mine is

    Parent
    It's easier to make a list of the ones who aren't (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST
    I lost track some time ago of people who have remained rational during this primary. The moderator's of this site are among the annointed. Joan Walsh. I'm sure there are others, if I really work on it.

    Parent
    Craig Crawford late of MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    Haven't seen much of him or Wes Clark on that network once Olberman got CDS.  I am sorry to see Dan Abrams get dumped.  He had these two guys on now and then. Ooops!

    Parent
    I finally understand (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    Once the Clinton wing is banished, everyone else will be in the same sinking boat. UNITY!

    And the Clintons will be trying to save them. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    Throwing them lifeboats from the shore, doing their best to save a party that shot itself in the feet.  Perhaps that's how the holes got in the boat?

    Parent
    "Shot themsselves in the feet"? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by themomcat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    NAH. After this I think they have shot themselves in the head.

    Parent
    I never thought I'd see the day. (5.00 / 20) (#9)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    The president once fondly called "the first black president" due to his unshakable commitment to civil rights is now casually called a racist by members of his own party.

    Disgusting, shameful and completely unacceptable. I could care less about its impact on Obama's election. Inserting this vitriol into our party has dehumanized its strongest living leader and made a mockery of the actual sacrifices made for civil rights, in addition to trivializing the term "racist" to the point that the word itself is robbed of its true meaning.

    It was truly one of the most (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    shameful things of the entire campaign.  

    Not only was it disgusting, to those of us who do care about civil rights and equality, it left a feeling of "Why even try if they are going to treat you so badly in the end?"  

    To me, it's like calling a philanthropist a cheapskate after he's given away all of his money to your charity.  

    Parent

    I agree, and the worst thing is (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by SarahSpin on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    I can't get people to see it!  I had to take on a whole group of people today on this topic.  Their stock response is that Hillary ran a negative campaign.

    Bill and Hillary come off the campaign with half the party believing they are racists and THEY are accused of being negative.

    I'll vote for Obama, but it will be the absolutely most lukewarm vote I've ever cast for a Democrat.  

    Parent

    Last year I got into a slug fest with (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:06:01 AM EST
    someone on the DK when I cited the Bill Clinton economic accomplishments during his terms according to the LA times. After ripping Bill Clinton up one side and down the other he came back and apologized for venting. He said his disappointment with Bill was because Bill could have done so much more. It  sounded to me like some invest too much in mortals and expect miracles.  

    Parent
    "could have done so much more" (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by sj on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    I can't believe either of the Clintons have any blood left.  No matter how hard they work or how much they do they "could have done so much more."  

    I am ashamed.  I have, in the past, sometimes felt that way even knowing that -- at least before GWB -- this isn't a dictatorship where the President governs by fiat.  

    There isn't a political leader alive who shares my priorities right down the line.  I know to look for one who shares my ideals.  I guess it's a measure of their intelligence, perserverence and other abilities to assume that they "could have done so much more."

    But still.  I am amazed that neither one has said "Enough! Take care of your own problems."

    Parent

    I took myself off a committee (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    with much new committee work to do.  I had to pick one.  I picked one about promoting multicultural curricula.  I'll keep doing my courses on the topic, but I really don't want to deal with the crap on this political topic.  And I know it would come up.

    Parent
    Sorry: the point being (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    is this What Obama Really Wants?  And His Minions?  And I know my reluctance to continue to engage for a while is not mine alone.

    Maybe it will be safe for Women And Other Living Things to engage again in the fight for us all sometime soon.  This, too, is up to Obama as the leader on this issue now, since his speech on race.  He wanted the discourse, he got it.  It's not going well.

    Parent

    I don't have a problem with (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM EST
    engaging, but I don't think I'll be as enthused as I once was.  Maybe that's just something that comes with age?  

    Anyway, I still think that the Clintons and the Clinton supporters have all been insulted enough this campaign season.  


    Parent

    and that sums up why many dems (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:04:53 PM EST
    won't be voting for obama no matter how the campaign and media try and spin it. the bill is in the mail and payment is due in november. now senator you can get the bill reduced or forgotten if you would really show a sense of unity, however!

    Parent
    Sean Wilentz Is Much Worse (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    His anti-Obama screed at Newsweek is the work of a real enemy, still consumed with bitterness over his lost opportunity to play Arthur Schlesinger. http://www.newsweek.com/id/154911/page/1

    You think? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    Why? Is Obama having trouble holding his supporters?

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    Missed where Wilentz called Obama a racist.

    Parent
    Sean Wilentz (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    Of course not, but Wilentz is one of a group of former Clinton supporters who, in contrast to Senator Clinton, can only spew venom. To what end?  How, exactly, can he claim the mantle of liberalism?

    Publius has an excellent post; I commend it:  http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/the-continuing.html

    Parent

    You, then, as well as Publius (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:14:46 PM EST
    confuse the role of a historian with the role of a journalist.  Historians are supposed to make judgments.  They just make clear their assumptions.

    Journalists are not supposed to make judgments unless in editorializing, and if so, they also are supposed to clarify their assumptions.

    See the textbooks that teach both crafts.  I have.

    Parent

    A lengthy op-ed (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    blasting Obama is taking on the role of an opinionated critic.

    That an opinion piece in Newsweek meets the definition of peer-reviewed scholarship would be surprising....

    Parent

    It doesn't blast Obama (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    It raises some questions, gives some context, asks for some answers from the candidate.

    Parent
    Excuse me, but publius' (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by tree on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    screed is a joke. Anyone who has to put up a picture of Grampa Simpson to make his "point" is not laying out a well-thought out and reasoned critique. Anyone who tells you you only have to read page 4 of Wilenz' four page piece in the very third sentence of his own "critique" is not offering an honest and intelligent viewpoint.

    I could go on and list quite a few glaring holes in publius' piece but why bother? This is one of the negatives of having your own blog. It often gets filled with the ditto-heads and no one gets adequately critiqued on their own writing, so they don't have to do any real critical thinking and support their own writing. Historians do. Most bloggers don't (present blog excluded).  

    Parent

    I am confident (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    that Wilentz is every bit the unhinged, substance-free partisan as Paul Krugman.  I know this because the reactions to their writings seem remarkably alike.

    Parent
    90% emotional rhetoric, 10% poor logic (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:05:11 PM EST
    That's a bad mix, and it makes for a really lame post.

    Parent
    Michael- did we read the same piece? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    Wilentz' criticism of Obama is hardly "venom." Wilentz is a highly respected historian with valid criticisms. I guess your view is that anyone who does not bow at Obama's feet and would dare to criticize "the one" is sheer evil. BTW-if you and all the other die hards continue to expend most of your energy on Clinton hatred and attacking her supporters(Obama has yet to earn our votes),you are ensuring a mccain victory.

    Parent
    Wilentz (none / 0) (#108)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    as far as I'm aware was never an outright Clinton supporter. I may be mistaken.

    Parent
    Staunch Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:05:46 PM EST
    And a staunch supporter of Bill, going back many years.....

    There is no pretense even of objectivity.

    Parent

    He's been pro-FDR for years (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:07:53 PM EST
    No pretense of objectivity.

    "Objectivity" doesn't mean, "agrees with what I think".

    Parent

    It was a hatchet job (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    As I described above, he criticized Obama for not having the accomplishments that other Democrats had achieved after years in office....Very unfair and dishonest....

    He wrote a couple of conclusory lines about the campaigns of a couple of other Democrats but did not describe those campaigns in detail.  FDR campaigned on balancing the budget, JFK on the missile gap....not liberal positions by any means....

    And his disdain for the bottom up organizing of Obama, echoing the worst on the right for doing so, was truly wierd.  He does not like organizing or involving people?

    He had no positive suggestions at all.  He labeled Obama a failure just like Carter....That was it....Conservatives will cite this article with glee--and I am sure he knew that.  It was an article designed to hurt Obama.

    A very dishonest article...

    Parent

    Conservatives who haven't read the essay (none / 0) (#141)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    like you, maybe.

    I think Carter did a lot of good stuff in FP, but the country didn't at the time.  Pointing this out is being objective.  Pointing out that Obama's rhetoric is often like Carter's is being objective.  Calling that out of bounds is being - well, never mind.

    Parent

    Never said it was out of bounds (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    It was a one-sided blast at Carter...

    Carter had foreign policy accomplishments...The treaty between Sadat and Begin--which has held for a generation......The hostages did come home before Reagan had a chance to exercise any power....

    And he cut off military aid to the military dictatorhsip to Guatemala....

    Carter is ridiculed because he lost an election to Reagan, not usually because of his specific  policies.  His energy policy was correct.  On economics,  his appointment to head the Fed was Paul Volker, who broke the back of inflation after Reagan took office....Reagan had nothing to do with it--even as the conservative monetarists would concede.....Wilentz's view of Carter is simplistic...Carter achieved a lot--just not re-election. Wilentz criticized him on his malaise speech--that was a failure of politics not policy.  


    Parent

    I thought it (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    was a fair but critical piece. Obama doesn't have the accomplishments of other candidates we've run.

    Obama has set up the Carter narrative by himself. He is running for Carter's second term not Bill Clinton's third.

    Parent

    Would you mind pointing out a quote from (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    Wilentz' article that makes you call it a "screed"?  I'm totally serious about this.  I just read it, and I honestly don't know what you find so troublesome about it.

    Parent
    Its not a screed.... (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    ...its just a mind-numbingly boring exercise in pendantry combined with a treatment of Obama that reads like alternative perspective fiction.

    He goes on at length about previous democratic presidents to no discernable impact.  And his advice concerning bears a closer relationship to John Gardner's treatment of Beowulf in Grendel than it does to any concrete consideration of Obama's strengths, weaknesses and potential.

    Parent

    To be fair, Hillary probably asked him (2.00 / 0) (#74)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    to write something positive about Obama, and this was the best he could do in good conscience, i.e. say that Obama is basically Jimmy Carter, but maybe, just maybe, he won't be quite as ineffective and won't doom the Democratic party by the time he's through with it the way Carter did.

    I don't fault him for being loyal to Hillary, who is being loyal to a party that doesn't feel the need to be loyal to her.

    Parent

    It was a laundry list (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:48:26 PM EST
    of all alleged Obama faults....after listing all the great things other Democrats did after they had held office.  That was unfair.  Compare campaigns to campaigns....Wilentz set up a very high bar, asking Obama to compare himself to the record of Presidential accomplishment after years in office.  But that is how you do a hatchet job--you set up a very high standard, a standard that applies only the one you want to torpedo....

    Wilentz had nothing constructive to say....

    He blasts Carter who had a good foreign policy.....The hostages were returned, and we had no reason to go to war over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...Carter was not good at politics....Carter's human rights records was good and saved many, many people.

    It was a hit piece...

    Parent

    And calling Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:17:32 PM EST
    implying Bill Clinton is/was a racist is pathetic.

    I am not going to recall all the documented things Bill has done for minorities including people like Richardson and Brazille and others; or all he the humanitarian work he is doing for Africans because anyone who care about truth and can read already knows it.  

    But hey of the Obamabots are still going to insist the Clintons are racists, then they need constant reality checks.

    Parent

    Read the essay again (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    "after listing all the great things other Democrats did after they had held office"

    Just plain failure to read the article.

    "It was a hit piece..."

    It's a mild questioning of Obama's experience, positioning, and campaign.  A hit piece says, "The Clintons are racist."  It doesn't say, Obama needs to run more on policy.

    Parent

    "Mild"? (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    I simply do not agree....

    Why bring up what FDR and Truman and JFK and Clinton did after taking office?  He compared them and their accomplishments to a candidate.....That is how one stacks the deck against someone....

    Parent

    He is a fine historian, one of the tops (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    in the profession, and he has written several essays recording what has gone on in this campaign with the eye and mind and methodology of a historian.

    As I read this, that is all I see again.

    If you see something different, you might be advised to first check on Dr. Willentz' reputation and record.  Experience actually matters in some jobs.

    Parent

    He's wrong re McCain and the dollar bill (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    but otherwise it's an anodyne essay.  Well, ok, tricking the reader into thinking Jimmy Carter's words are Obama's is a bit nasty if one supports the latter blindly and inconsistently dislikes the former.

    Parent
    Carter gets a bum rap (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    His human rights record was peerless and save lives.

    Parent
    Jeez, look up "inconsistently" n/t (none / 0) (#142)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I lived it (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    Carter saved lives in Central America....

    Parent
    What? I think it was a thoughtful (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:22:34 AM EST
    article. You can't stand that Obama was questioned on things he should be questioned on.  Really you are a kool aid drinker.

    Parent
    one person's "screed" is another's (4.50 / 4) (#36)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    exercise in telling uncomfortable truths.

    I thought Wilenz's essay was excellent and I hope the Obama camp considers his points rather than sending out the cavalry to shoot the messenger.

    Without the working and middle class, the Democrats will not win. Obama is going to have to convince these voters that he more knowledgeable and more competent and is more focused on their interests than McCain is.

    Parent

    There is no time for that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    sadly for obama and the Dems.

    brazille made a media manifesto about getting rid of the working classes. She's since been shut up to some extent but the attitude she displayed was uuurrrgghhh.

    Parent

    But how do you get to unity... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    ... without shooting the messengers? Let's be reasonable, here.

    Parent
    yeah "screed" is an unsustansiated (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    superlative. I was offended by Clyburn.   And I didn't mind seeing Clinton beaten in SC or Iowa.

    Parent
    Wow...can we call it (5.00 / 15) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    Clinton-baiting yet?  

    I'm starting to get the feeling that it's really driving some of these people around the bend that no matter how vile and vicious they are, no matter how low they go, no matter how many times they try to push the buttons, Hillary refuses to take the bait.  Refuses.  Just keeps saying as loud as she can, to whoever will listen, that the most important thing is to put Barack Obama in the WH.

    Guess they're waiting for Bill to explode - and of the two of them, I think he is more likely to be the one who gets hooked into defending himself and his wife.  Don't let them do it, Bill!

    It ought to be obvious the way it seems the media are covering the Clintons 24/7 (was that a frown?  a fake laugh?  What did that mean?  Where's a Democratic official who can tell me the Clintons want to wreck the convention?), that it is they - the media - who are not only making it about the Clintons, but practically begging for there to be "trouble."  They don't want unity - unity is boring.  They want drama!  And if there isn't any, by God, they'll make some!

    [rolling eyes...again]

    I have decided that any hopes for unity (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    would have increased if the convention had been canceled. All I've heard is, wait until the convention, we will be unified and headed toward victory in November. I swear, I'm getting angrier now than I was in the primary.


    Parent
    It's kind of like the VP selection (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    fiasco.  The Obama/Pelosi/Daschle thing thought that everything would be fine by now...that people would "get on board" automatically despite being disrespected, and despite the fact that the leadership isn't even bothering to stand up for Democratic principles anymore.  Now, it's suddenly the end of August, and nothing of the sort happenned.

    They are in a panic, it seems to me.  Maybe if they pray hard enough things will be ok.  Perhaps that's why they invited all those evangelical ministers to the convention.

    Parent

    I asked on an earlier Thread (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    if the Democratic Leadership has ever had to literally BEG their Base -- their BASE! -- to please, please, pretty please support the Nominee ... please?

    I'm not as familiar as some of you are with past Conventions and the like, but has there ever been a situation like this?  Where nearly half of the Base is sitting this one out and those "in charge" (I say, with a smirk) are so clueless, so tone-deaf, so ... out of touch this late in the game?  That "Hope" is a game plan -- as in they hope Dems vote for their guy?

    It just seems incredible to me that the Dems are having to beg their Base to vote for the Nominee and their Base is basically responding "nah, not this time".

    Parent

    IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    the last time we went through this was 1972. McGovern was great until he wasn't. He had legions of young people who were obnoxious and turned lots of voters away from him. Nixon called them the "silent majority" that would be heard at the polls. He was right. There may be another silent majority this time too. People who are going to take their anger out in the polls.

    Parent
    Today has been a fiasco (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    for sure.

    Parent
    By Design (5.00 / 13) (#75)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    At a certain point isn't it difficult to keep writing these things off to incompetence?  

    They chose Biden, chose to announce him only two days before the convention, chose to not quash rumors it was Hillary, chose to make it unclear whether there will be a roll call vote and how it will be staged (which only fuels conspiracy theories and bitterness), chose to have their only message to non-Obama supporters be "get over it", chose to needlessly reassign Clinton votes in Michigan to Obama, etc., etc.

    At every opportunity when the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party could've taken actions to make Clinton supporters feel better and unite the party, they've failed to do so.  So perhaps this is what they want?  This is the important part - driving the Clinton base from the party or into submission.

    If people keep acting a certain way and keep getting the same results, at some point you have to think those are the results they want, no?

    Parent

    BDB, I think it can be both. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    Yes, there are many in the party whose priority it is to destroy the Clintons and drive out the Clinton wing of the party, and they gleefully latched on to (or promoted) Obama as the anti-Hillary.

    And, the Obama campaign, which I imagine actually does want to win, was foolish enough to think that they could ride the CDS/misogony train to victory.  And, of course, they still might succeed. Although, even if they do, their incompetence is showing, and they will have alienated so many that they will have no mandate to do anything.

    Parent

    For cripes sakes, Sirota (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    Is it all about you all the time?

    I used to really respect Sirota because of his diligence on the issue of special interest money in politics. He had smart things to say about changing the system from the bottom up by electing good progressives at the local, county  and state level.

    But throughout this campaign season he has gone so far off the rails against Clinton AND Obama that he sounds like he has a personal axe to grind. I don't get it. Of course, I'm one of those who thinks the Obama campaign has been its own worst enemy lately, but that doesn't excuse Sirota's deliberate diviseness within the party.

    I was always critical of Bill when he was president, but even I can't see the sense in attacking the only two-term Democratic prez since Roosevelt. I'm thinking Sirota's 15 minutes are about up.

    David Sirota (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by eric on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    has really gone off of the deep end.  He must have ingested too much of the Obama true believer serum during the primaries.

    I don't know what is worse, that he actually believes what he says or that he is stupid enough to say it out loud.  Is he so lacking in self-awareness that he doesn't realize that, no matter what he believes, he is only hurting Obama by saying it?

    His tone is so nasty.  I can't help but think that for him, this is personal.  Or, is he one of those former republican's turned "progressive" like Avarosis and Kos?

    Worst enemies is right. Idiots more like it. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    History will look back quite unkindly on this entire episode.

    Keep it up, David (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:28:11 PM EST
    Is there a countdown site for when the MSM begins officially blaming Teh Selvish Klintons for Obama losing?

    On that site there also should be a digest of all the locations Hillary goes on the stump for Obama, all the times she defends him in the press, with an asterisk below it all saying exactly how much money Obama has donated to help her debt. (hint: 0$)

    Short Memories (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    How quick some people forget. I can remember (not that long ago either) when Air America and just about every progressive blogger was singing the praises of WJC when he took on Chris Wallace at Fox. He was the knight in shining armor that went into to the evil cave and slew the dragon. A true fighter that the party needed.

    Many who are most vicious about the Clintons (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    are not actually dedicated Democrats, even though they may be Obama supporters in this election. They're former Naderites (or even left of Nader), once-upon-a-time Perot nuts, daffy libertarians, temporarily disillusioned Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents who will probably end up going back to the GOP later, if not sooner.

    Wherever they are on the political map, they often are as inconsistent politically as the fellow who commented recently on TNR about the possibility of Obama naming Clinton as his VP -- "If he puts Hillary on the ticket I'm voting for Bob Barr!"

    one of the things I found.... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    ..astonishing about the CNN delegate poll that BTD previously cited was that 12% of the delegates used to consider themselves Republicans.

    I'd really like to know who those people are...

    Parent

    ...or who let them in. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    Is it that easy to be a former GOper and get into the Dem convention?

    Parent
    The love of the first black candidate (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    is chronic among Nader voters.  But that is hopefully a good thing.

    Parent
    YIPES~!! (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    David Sirota is teetering on the brink of madness or has already plummeted off the cliff, plunging towards a grisly death of malicious gibberish!

    Why oh Why must they continue on like this?
    It's the worst, this whole perpetual Tourettes
    so many have been stricken with over the years.

    WOW! Well hey where is Obama (and or Biden) to say, "Cut this crap out!"? Honestly if only "The One" would step up fast and slap this down...

    A girl can dream!

    Like I said last night... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    After all the stand up things Hillary has done and said for Obama, I wonder how much support Obama will offer either Clinton.

    Obama could have called off the frothing CDSers any time he wanted to, if he had wanted to.

    Parent

    David Sirota (5.00 / 12) (#48)
    by vermontlaw on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:39:10 PM EST
    Let me get this straight, David.  The Clintons are white supremacists (that is what a racist is, right?)Yet the Clinton Foundation is entering into a  partnership with the Hunter Foundation to invest $100 million in Rwanda and Malawi over the ten years ; the Clinton Foundation brokered agreements that will enable African nations to purchase at an affordable cost medication to treat AIDS and malaria (which will save hundreds of thousand, if not millions of lives.)  What has Barack Obama done? He went to Kenya because a school was dedicated in his honor.  Not one penny of promised help was ever sent -- and the orphanage, which housed 44 children -- ten of whom were related to him, had to close. His grandmother lives in squalor.

    How about here at home?  The Clinton Foundation has been assisting small businesses in Harlem to operate better -- they have arranged for business people to mentor businesses.  The Foundation has also been assisting high school students get into college.  What has Obama done? Not improved the life of one person in Chicago's South Side.  All he did was help contractors get contracts that lined their pockets and still left the poor without decent housing.  Barack Obama has not made life better for anyone, much less anyone who is African-American.  The Clintons have.  If Bill and Hillary Clinton can be smeared this way -- anyone can be.

    DUDE? What is your Major Malfunction? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST
    ha ha...Hey VermontLaw forget "FACTS". Your obstinate behavior will be severely punished.

    FACTS are for LOSERS.

    Stop being so-very caveman. So super-Old School.
    Get off cyber space and get an iPod for Christsakes. Get two!

    Your "FACTS" are useless ;-)

    Yes Yes How so Right you Are and it's not like this information is HIDDEN.

    GOOD GRIEF, the Clintons haven't an iota, inkling, dripple drop of racism in their bodies and those mouth breathers KNOW IT. It's sickening to hear such rhubbish from so many people who we know damn well have brains and can "reason"

    Makes me wanna kill...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...


    Parent

    Sirota is deranged anti-Democrat (none / 0) (#96)
    by sharmajee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    He wants Obama to tell Clintons to leave the Democratic party extit stage Right. That last line says it all. Does team Obama want to win this election with one whole wing of the party severed?

    Parent
    Using... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Desired User Name on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    I think Obama "is just using voters" PERIOD.
    Not limited to variations of skin tone. He truly seems to be "All for One and All for One".
    And all one of that one = Obama.

    I'm shocked by most of his behavior and stunned that he hasn't used his platform to truly UNITE the people. So many throngs out there with ears PERKED and yet he only preaches to the choir...the choir assembled before him who already drool over every word and grandiose gospel. He could sway and swoon OTHERS, but it's like he thinks of "The Others" as only being some creepy weirdos on the TV show "LOST". And as it turns out some of THOSE "others" weren't so bad after all, yes? Okay, nonsense aside, seriously he was given a tremendous gift, a tremendous new platform and he squandered it by acting vindictive and dare I say it, immature. His message of CHANGE and HOPE
    became helium balloons and someone let their grip slip...poooooof, ballon go bye-bye and winds up in our trees and shrubbery!

    Too much of this campaign felt like High School Acid Flashbacks, minus the acid.

    Too many "clicks" and "cheerleaders" ...it's BS!
    AND WHEN OH WHEN will he turn this around? When.
    I'm fed up with the Dog-N-Pony Show! I want maturity and strength and determination and...

    Um, where's Hillary? :)

    OBAMA---you GOOF, c'mon, DO IT MAN, turn things around! Yes you can.

    Parent

    Stupid is as stupid does (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Lacy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:41:23 PM EST

       Sirota calls WJC racist because Sirota became a bigot himself about his preferred canidate, and hated the Clintons who stood in his way.

      Of course, that's only bigotry and dishonesty. It becomes stupidity when the likes of him essentially threatens the future of the Democratic Party with childish behavior.

    I agree with you, BTD. But what would I know? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    I'm a racist!

    Too funny, Mr. Sirota (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:43:15 PM EST
    You're free to write whatever you like of course, but maybe the way to make it not be "all about the Clintons" is to stop writing about them.

    Is nothing else happening in Denver this week?

    Seriously, you're like the guy who keeps looking for his dime under the streetlight because the light is better there, even though he dropped it somewhere else.

    No one's forcing you to stand under that lamppost and whine about how bright it is.  Get a freaking flashlight, for heaven's sake.  Go write about what you think is the real story already, and stop blaming the Clintons because you can't leave them alone.

    When I read stuff like that..... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    ...I wish a had one of those diarrhea guns.

    Paging Spider Jerusalem! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    Where have all the real journalists gone?

    Parent
    Was He Just Lieing (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    When he said Clinton called Obama the "black candidate?"  Nothing in the link he provided proved it.  Please don't tell my about creative license.

    BTW, he embodies all that I hate about the left blogs and the media.  Nothing but pure trash.

    Scary (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by koshembos on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    Sirota writes abiut what he hears at the Obama bunker. That's scary, because it implies that Obama is still fighting the primaries. He'll surely lose 50% of Hillary supporters and is doomed to go down in defeat. Someone better wake Obama up before we are fighting in Georgia and Tehran.

    As my political son said: Sirota is simply not very smart. He may be BTD's friends; some of my friends are warm and dedicated individuals; they not all of them are very smart.

    The bunker mentality, as you put it (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:51:49 PM EST
    often has been a really bad sign for a campaign.

    If that's where the Obama campaign is, it's a sign of panic.  And at this point, with the convention being a real test of how well they can pull it together and come up with at least a pretense of wanting unity -- well, it's a bad sign and bad timing.

    Parent

    (Emil Jones is speaking on C-Span!!!) (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:01:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Calling out 'Uncle Toms' from the podium? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST


    Parent
    It could have been worse. (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    Someone relevant could have said that.
    No one relevant (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    would say something remotely like that  :-)

    Parent
    Obama's Worst Enemies (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by OxyCon on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    ...are also his most fanatical supporters. But it'll all be Clinton's fault when Obama loses.

    The Clenis made Obama lose. Not the fact that Obama was a weak candidate, and that his base is the same bunch of loony-toon losers who always guarantee Democrat losses by picking a long string of losers.

    Whenever Democrats lose, it's always because the fanatical, far left extremist part of the party selects the candidate, just as they did this time by acting as Obama's storm troopers during the caucuses.

    When Democrats voted and each vote was counted, they overwhelmingly chose Hillary. Obama got the nomination through caucus thuggery and by securing the AA vote by portraying the Clintons as racists. He doesn't deserve to step one foot in the White House.

    if obama loses, what happened won't (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:10:55 PM EST
    be forgotten, but he will. fame is fickle to say the least. where are they now? ever read that? it is full of folks who were all that once upon a time.

    Parent
    10 years from now (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by OxyCon on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    ...there will be a gray haired Obama living in a house with "Mini-Me", "Screech" and one of the "Back Street Boys" on that "E" network show for has beens.

    Parent
    But I was assured (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    that no one ever called Bill Clinton a racist!  It was just a strawman, they assured me!

    Sirota is a world class (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    egomaniac.  And yet that large ego bruises quite easily.  He did a whining piece on another blog about how he needs to leave because of the psychological damage it does to him when he is such a wonderful progressive and yet people dare criticize him.  Boo hoo poor David.

    He has CDS so bad it would be laughable except for the harm he is doing to the democratic party.

    All they need to do (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    Is hire him.

    but it's not worth the bother.


    Parent

    There's a scene in the movie "Signs" (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    They think some hoodlums are up on the roof and they decide to scare them off and the Joaquin Phoenix character tells the mel gibson character to act really angry.  

    now the mel character is a priest, he says "how do you do that?" and the Joaquin phoenix character says "I don't know, just say you're insane with rage."

    So off they go running around the house mel gibson shouting "i'm insane with rage."

    It's a funny moment in the movie, back when shyamalan would at least inject a mild sense of humor into his movies.

    I assure anyone who doesn't think so.  This comment is on topic.

    i am sick of the negative bs (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:12:13 PM EST
    that this whole campaign stirs up. it never ends. think about how joyful and fun a convention can be? exciting(at one time anyway). now?

    Here's another one - Amer. Prospect (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by catfish on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    This kind of logic is maddening. This American Prospect piece says:

    1. Historian Sean Wilentz recently said Obama has yet to express a cohesive foreign policy.

    2. Historian Sean Wilentz voted for Hillary.

    3. Ergo ... the Clintons and Hillary's supporters are creating unnecessary drama for the convention.


    Obama's worst enemy (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Jake Left on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:12:16 PM EST
    is himself. He cannot bend. He does not see the need to apologize or make the magnanimous gesture. He seems to think that seeing the other person's point of view and trying to understand is a weakness. He may make a better president than his campaign and his rabid fan base would indicate, but this is one trait that he shares with our idiot president - the inability to do the right thing.

    Lack of empathy (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:16:55 PM EST
    seems to be what you're describing and it's exactly like W.  Also generally one of the marks of a sociopath.

    Parent
    "Clintonism"? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:59:55 AM EST
    What exactly is Clintonism? Is it a philosophy? a political or economic theory? What is it?

    Perhaps... perhaps it is what made Clinton one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century. I wonder what Dark Lords are patting Sirota on the back saying, good job?

    Wrong: Toni Morrison called him that (3.66 / 3) (#22)
    by magnetics on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    without reference to the scandals.

    Here's the quote (none / 0) (#35)
    by robrecht on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear "No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and--who knows?--maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us."
    Link

    Parent
    Thanks for the quote; i stand corrected; (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by magnetics on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:28:56 PM EST
    but my intent is not changed; which is to say, I read Morrison as fraternal rather than confrontational (poorly expressed, but I hope you take my drift.)

    Parent
    sickened me then... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST
    ...sickened me now. How many lame people piggy-backed on the last Two term success the Dems ever had, and projected their own fantasies upon him?

    Parent
    I thought Sirota wasn't an Obamabot (none / 0) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    Guess I was confused - that's some excellent foaming at the mouth.  Sirota's happy Obama talked down NAFTA.  Um.  Ok, so he doesn't like NAFTA, and he haven't followed politics since the primary, but what does he have against the Dem brand?

    David has always hated the Clintons (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:14:46 PM EST
    He is writing his views.

    And I am writing mine.

    Parent

    Sirota must love McCain (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by kempis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    As you point out, McCain is the only one who benefits from this kind of irresponsible pot-stirring.

    I bet Sirota created a whole bunch of new PUMAs today with that piece.

    Parent

    Sure, but your views are internally consistent n/t (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:29:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, that's a new one for me. (none / 0) (#24)
    by suki on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    I'd love to see a link.

    Toni Morrison's 1998 Essay (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    Can be found here.  

    It has been stripped of its original meaning.  It was always about Clinton being treated like a black man in terms of the establishment looking to destroy him.  It has been rewritten over time by the white media as some sort of ode to racial equality.  A coincidence I'm sure.


    Parent

    Well, Toni Morrison changed her tune this year. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    In 1998, according to Wikipedia, she said it was because he "displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

    Earlier this year, during the primary season, she said that "I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race."

    However, the Congressional Black Caucus honored Pres. Clinton in 2001 and used the statement as a positive, with Rep. Johnson saying that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president."

    What I recall is his (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:45:40 PM EST
    response to the OJ verdicts.

    clinton paraphrase: I'm Amazed that blacks and whites saw the case so differently, lots of work to do.

    That was his instinct. a good summation of the reaction of the public moods. I've always thought he was America's only real  intellectual president in my lifetime.

    Parent

    AA response to the OJ verdict (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    was a shock to everyone I know.

    It should have been a wakeup call to Democrats.

    Now, we have the payoff of ignoring it...a racially divisive candidate/campaign setting racial politics and race relations back at least 20 years.

    It can only get worse now.

    Parent

    I loved Sirota's Progress report (none / 0) (#78)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    Then Obama the Uniter blew in town and I lost half of the people I used to trust and respect. Not even W caused me so much personal distress - and he stole two elections!
       What can I say? Sirota's meanderings are not too different from the B0bots' and in the end will have the same effect on us as McCain's "Passed over" ads.
        As someone who dearly wants Obama to lose, I welcome his efforts. Unbeknownst to him, we are working for the same goal, he and I.

    Obama mentor calls delegate "Uncle Tom" (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by swiss473 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    Wow, Obama really knows how to bring folks together

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/dnc/1125006,emilupdate082508.article

    DENVER -- The chief of Illinois' National Organization for Women chapter today called on Barack Obama's "political godfather" to resign immediately from the Illinois state Senate for calling an African-American Hillary Clinton delegate an "Uncle Tom."

    "That was a pretty horrible comment," said Illinois NOW president Bonnie Grabenhofer, also a Clinton delegate, who issued the demand for Senate President Emil Jones' resignation.

    Feminists who make up the Illinois Clinton delegate contingent at the Democratic National Convention were outraged to learn of today's exclusive Chicago Sun-Times report about Clinton delegate Delmarie Cobb's accusation that Jones directed the racially loaded slur at her.

    The flap comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Obama campaign, which is slumping in national polls and has struggled to bring Clinton delegates across the country into the fold.

    "I've never heard anything as awful or as sexist or as racist as to call her that for supporting Hillary," said Clinton delegate Gay Bruhn, another NOW member in Illinois who called for a public apology from Jones.

    I guess Emil Jones is going to be discarded like Wright, Meeks, Pfleger, Ayers, and all of Obama's other friends.

    Parent

    well, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by NJDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    he was just speaking at the Convention.   Must be more important than Rangel...

    thank for the link.  

    Parent

    He wqas on C-Span right now (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Man, you couldn't make (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    this sh!t up, it's so hosed.

    Parent
    Sirota is a moron and always has been (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    the liberal media really is as idiotic as the republicans always said.
    Hey, maybe David can write another bad book and promote it at dkos.

    I read the link (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    Your comments are quite predictable....

    Obama's Worst Enemies | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment