Bulletin: HRC will announce tonight that Obama has delegates for the nomination

Parent Cafe
101

<p>

</p>

<p>…not to be a glutton for punishment (yikes), but I agree with your post more or less in its entirety, but I would add that I do not believe that it was simply a matter of the AfAm community, such as we describe it in this instance, believing that Obama had become viable (thought that certainly helped). I believe that as they got to know him and he them that they began to identify with him and with him as a black man that understood their experience rather than as, say, a Harvard man or a brilliant man much beloved by the sophisticates, etc (some of the very things that appealed to people like, perhaps, you, which is to say highly educated and culturally sophisticated, a demographic he dominates). </p>

<p>I believe he encountered the same problem with a similar demographic later on in Ohio, Penn, WV and Kentucky. Only this demographic, identical in many respects to the AfAM demographic, was white. It is this later demographic that will, eventually, need to identify with Barack for him to win in Nov. It will take a good deal of effort. But it will be time well spent.</p>

<p>I do not think that the current coalition will be enough. </p>

<p>I believe he knows this and is addressing it in time…and time will tell whether he can close the gap. I do not think a running mate well have the desired effect. He needs to pull this off on his own.</p>

102

<p>Woodwork:</p>

<p>And I agree with you. He needs to win over the white voters in Appalachia. I read that for many miners, blacks were not remembered as victims of slavery but mainly as people who were brought in by mine-owners as cheap labor to replace them and render them jobless. Blacks, in other words, are associated with a history of economic decline for their communities. So Obama is hit by a double whammy, both as a black man and as a Harvard man. It’s going to be tough.</p>

103

<p>Marite, You don’t come across as lecturing. </p>

<p>I think it is important to dissect the information put out there by the media, and the role they play in shaping the perception of certain groups in the country. My vies on the Republican Party has been shaped by the negative portrayal of the party by the media, and at some point, I have asked myself the question; why would anyone want to be a Republican? I think I was kind of happy, because I was a member of the Democratic Party, and I felt that the more bad press the Republican party got the better. I realized recently that the Democratic Party is not as progressive as it has been portrayed by the media, in fact, they are no better than the Republican Party. </p>

<p>The media have become a very influential part of our society, and it is imperative for us to call them out when they are not being objective. Why are they not reporting the statistic on men voting for Obama because he is a man? I believe they want to create this narrative down the line if Obama loses the general election about how racist America is. Already, some Obama supporters (and the media) are portraying Hillary voters as racist, and they are only supporting Hillary because she is white. This is not going to help race relations in the country.</p>

<p>It has taken me some time to realize that, the members of the Democratic party are no more progressive than the Republicans, they have been able to put on a better show with the help of the media.</p>

<p>The media have totally lost credibility.</p>

104

<p>There is a lot of misplaced animosity in this thread. </p>

<p>I am not a racist in any way. With Hillary gone, I would have preferred to support Obama. His nomination should bring us into the post-racial era and realize Martin Luther King’s dream, to be judged on the content of one’s character not the color of one’s skin. </p>

<p>The question is who would make a better president, Obama or McCain. </p>

<p>If I could find anything in Obama’s resume or his record that makes me think he wouldn’t be weak on Iran I would support him. I cannot. All I could find is rhetoric. It’s also not clear to me that walking away from Iraq won’t leave another 100,000 dead Iraqis. I was against the war, but the damage has been done. We are helping reduce the violence there and bear some responsibility (the Iraqis themselves for sure need to step up too) for getting this right. I sure don’t want to be there for 100 years, but we have the play the cards we have. </p>

<p>With Obama, the only thing there is to look at is his rhetoric. He doesn’t actually have any record on these issues. He actually has less of an actual record on ANYTHING than any prior nominee of any party as far back as anyone can remember. He has less of a record than McGovern. </p>

<p>Hillary and McCain both have long distinguished records though perhaps controversial within their own party. They are both proven problem solvers and have occasionally taken positions that have cost them. They both work with problems not ideologies. Hillary’s vote to authorize the war clearly hurt her, but I still think it was the right vote, and I think she should and could have defended it. McCain’s efforts for campaign finance reform are going to hurt him and limit his own ability to wage his campaign. His efforts to solve the immigration crisis by offering a path to residency and citizenship have hurt his standing among law and order republicans. Both efforts are honest, valiant and bipartisan efforts to solve real problems. In terms of Iran, I don’t think either Hillary or McCain would back down and capitulate, and neither one would have been tested like Obama will be if he is elected. Iran has proven (look at Lebanon) that it will test the resolve of the West to see how far they will go. Will Obama be up to that challenge? Who knows? I don’t have any reason to believe that he will. As McCain pointed out, he has never taken any position that might hurt him politically. He has never gone against the majority of his party. He will meet with Ahmadinejad, who reads from the Hitler playbook, with no credible leverage and will appear weak. </p>

<p>It seems our choice involves choosing Obama and risking a nuclear Iran, and choosing McCain (while there is still a Democratic congress) and risking conservative judges. I find the first risk unacceptable, and the second unlikely since McCain has shown time and time again that in solving problems, he doesn’t intentionally antagonize the Democrats. He is very conservative though, and I don’t look forward to voting for him, but the alternative just doesn’t work for me. </p>

<p>I think that once we all calm down, many Hillary supporters will reluctantly agree with me.</p>

105

<p>I was initially very excited about Obama (Hillary was my first choice), but after I did my research on him, there is no way I can vote for him. He has done absolutely nothing to indicate that he can change anything. He has not changed anything in his political career (if you exclude getting a sweetheart deal from Rezko to help him move to a better place of abode, so that Rezko can stick it to the low income residents in his housing projects).</p>

106

<p>That was extremely well said, ClassicRockerDad, imHo.</p>

107

<p>Tega:</p>

<p>I’ve never trusted the media to report things accurately and I don’t trust polls. There ARE people who have come across as racist or sexist (both pro and con particular candidates). How many is difficult to say.</p>

<p>I was heartened by Obama’s work with Republican Sen. Coburn (with whom he’s had a somewhat odd relationship) </p>

<p>

[TheHill.com</a> - Rivals Obama and McCain work together behind scenes](<a href=“http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rivals-obama-and-mccain-work-together-behind-scenes-2008-06-04_2.html]TheHill.com”>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rivals-obama-and-mccain-work-together-behind-scenes-2008-06-04_2.html)</p>

108

<p>CRD, Obama may not have to worry about Ahmadinejad.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahmadinejad is currently under domestic political attack, which will make it difficult for him to play geopolitical hardball in coming months. Ali Larijani–formerly Iran’s National Security Chief–was recently elected speaker of the parliament. Larijani resigned as chief negotiator on nuclear issues in October because of perceived disagreements with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s approach to the negotiations. </p>

<p>Larijani’s election is also viewed as a rebuke from parliament and some of the senior clergy over Ahmadinejad’s handling of the economy. Iran’s economy has not improved in the face of high oil prices. The country is experiencing skyrocketing inflation.</p>

<p>Many believe Larijani will use his disagreements with Ahmadinejad to launch his own presidential campaign next year. Larijani is on the same page with Ahmadinejad about Iran’s right to pursue nuclear technology, but he believes in greater dialogue with the West. It will be interesting to see what happens.</p>

109

<p>That is a different scenario. In that case </p>

<p>Obama will meet with Larijani with no credible leverage and will appear week. </p>

<p>Larijani’s less in your face strategy toward the west is probably better for concealing their true ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. It worked great in Pakistan, India and Israel. It may now be working in Brazil for all we know. </p>

<p>The problem with a nuclear Iran is that nuclear deterrence only works if the adversary actually minds getting nuked. We just don’t know if the leaders of Iran view nuking Israel as worth the price of getting nuked back. They just might.</p>

110

<p>

THis is a very interesting point, Marite. I’ve been thinking about VP choices a lot and you’d think that Jim Webb would be the person most able to reach that group, but I wonder how he’d play otherwise. I’ve read a couple of his books and a lot of his other writings, and think he’s really just insightful and smart. But here’s the thing: Jim Webb identifies himself as a proud son of the confederacy. He also will explain in great and well-considered detail how that term doesn’t necessarily mean what conventional wisdom says it does, but is his respect/reverence a deal breaker? His book “Born Fighting” presents the POV of the 90% of white southerners (of which I have some in my own family tree, lest this be seen as an attack) who didn’t own slaves or defend the institution. I guess the question is, can people be patient enough to actually listen to Senator Webb and hear what he has to say? Of course, there is the female thing, but that’s another thread entirely!</p>

111

<p>Electing any person as president involves taking a risk. Even re-electing an incumbent involves a risk. I agree that the risks of electing Obama and McCain are different, and that reasonable people can evaluate them differently. Personally, I find intolerable the risk of four more years of policies similar to those of the current administration, but I do recognize the different risks that electing Obama poses. Perhaps McCain’s town hall debates really would help people to think about these kinds of issues more rationally.</p>

112

<p>Webb could be a good choice. He seems to fill the gap. OTOH, he often comes off as a bit angry. His tome speaks to this: “Born Fighting”.</p>

<p>I think that in this sense Obama already suffers with Michelle: to the uncommitted she often comes off as a bit harsh, if not angry, even if, as always, brilliant (which cuts both ways).</p>

<p>I’d go for the running mate with happy feet. One that believes the futures so brigh thy’ve gotta wear shades.</p>

<p>As a rule, I believe voters are already well aware of how bad things are, such as they are, and they want someone who knows how good “they are” (identifying with them) and how good things are going to be (their unrealized potential) with a nod towards the snarling fools that are holding up their happy.</p>

<p>In short, I am not sold on Webb. Though he does help to lock down Virginia, which may be necessary to the new math.</p>

113

<p>On social issues, Webb comes across as very conservative. I don’t think he’d win over Hillary supporters.</p>

<p>He’s also a very smart man who wants to be able to say and write what he thinks. The VEEP job would not suit his temperament. I’ve read, however, that being a senator is exactly his cup of tea, allowing to stay in politics, speak his mind, and continue writing if he wishes.</p>

114

<p>“His tome speaks to this: “Born Fighting”.”</p>

<p>Have you read it? It’s not an angry book at all. Proud for sure, but not angry. I think Marite (below) hit the nail on the head, but I enjoy vetting the prospects here on CC!</p>

115

<p>I think Webb could be a great choice, but if he’s out (or not interested), then I think an equally smart choice has to be Richardson. (Some say a ticket with two minority candidates can’t win, but it seems to me that someone who won’t vote for two, won’t vote for one, either). It would get conflicted Latino-Hilary backers to take a look at staying Dem, could bring in some Western votes, and they (Obama/Richardson) seem to have a good rapport.</p>

116

<p>Although I’ve criticized Colin Powell, elsewhere, maybe he would be a good VP for Obama. He’s respected by many, is a centrist, and has foreign policy and military experience. What’s more, choosing him might mollify the people who think Obama will get assassinated to prevent a black man from becoming President. (I’m kidding. Kind of.)</p>

117

<p>

Carter? Clinton? Bush43? What were their “records” on anything relevant to the Presidency? Or to anything else, for that matter? The “experience” meme fascinates me. In fact, the only recent Presidents with actual, relevant experience were arguably Bush41 (former Vice-President and holder of cabinet-level positions) and Nixon (Veep + 6 years as Senator and congressman). You can give some points to Reagan, although he lacked any national level experience whatsoever, because he was a governor of a large state (in which being governor is a significant executive position, unlike Texas) but even then, the issues a governor faces aren’t much of a template for the presidency. “Voodoo economics”, anyone?</p>

<p>Marite, your well articulated post was very helpful. I think a lot of the current Sturm und Drang among Dems is the response of “positive” voters to those who say that they voted for Obama in the primaries but would never vote for Clinton in the general election, and vice versa. As a “positive” Democratic voter who orients along issue lines, I’m baffled by those people. I could understand if, say a black Republican were to say, “I’ll vote for Obama because he’s black, but if h’s not the nominee I’ll vote Republican.” That makes sense to me; same thing with Clinton and her “core” supporters - older women. (Hierarchy of positives.) But it seems that that should be a small group. Some people seem to be asserting that the number of “defectors”, for lack of a better word, will be large, and composed of traditional Democrats. As to why that should be true… well, that’s an interesting question, and gives rise to consideration that some of that group are “against” voters. Which leads to - against what? A lot of it seems to just be lashing out in disappointment at the person who is seen to have snatched away “our turn.” If so, that’s a pretty petty basis for casting a vote for someone who has pretty much stood for the opposite of what the candidate we supported stands for, IMHO.</p>

118

<p>I don’t think it should be all that perplexing, if one takes the time to carefully read ClassicRockerDad’s posts here. And also if one considers that some people are actually independent voters, who take into account when choosing a candidate many factors beyond color or gender, such as personal qualities of character (all three lack here, imo, so weighing the pros and cons of the candidates here has been no picnic), as well as the various issues, each of which each person has a right to prioritize for themselves. I hope “against voters” and “positive voters” do not mutate into the new code words here.</p>

119

<p>Actually, I have not read Webb’s book, which I hear is very good. </p>

<p>I did however read David Hackett Fischer’s revelatory book, “Albion’s Seed,” some time back, which touches on some of the same material albeit not from the perspective of the Confederacy and its non-slave owning foot soldiers.</p>

<p>This year, we took our son to Gettysburg on Memorial Day with the hopes of impressing upon him some of the distinctions made by the men that died for slavery while fighting for states rights…and of course to stimulate his interest in US history on one of the most astounding battlefields in history.</p>

<p>In any case, the book as I understand, makes quite a bit of the lower class whites of Scottish heritage (e.g. the “racists” Dems in WV, Penn, Kentucky, etc) and the transformation of their culture in the South via Jacksonian Democracy and the rise of the modern Democrats and the Republicans later transforming in ways that accommodated their “folk-ways” to use his phrase. </p>

<p>Very sympathetic and empathetic to that culture that is so often branded racist as if this is their very reason for being.</p>

<p>I am sure this would all tie in well to the point Marite was making.</p>

<p>Still, I do not think he would be a good VP. As someone else said, he’s a #1 guy, not a #2.</p>

<p>Edwards, it seems to me, is the obvious choice. Especially if there is much thought given to pleasing Hillary’s constituency without insulting them.</p>

120

<p>Ilsa:</p>

<p>I hope so, as well. I was just trying to explain the presumed roles of racism and sexism in the selection by Democrats of Obama or Clinton, two candidates whose policies have repeatedly been described as quite similar.
There are other reasons to be against either of them, just as there are reasons to be for either of them.</p>