It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

Race Bait
SEATTLE - On the West Coast, we are the deepest of blue state America. We have ditched our badges of tribal politics for a post-racial era. We can break the padlocks of prejudice, and why not?
That's what we tell ourselves.
But recent experience shows that campaigning with color is fraught with peril - even in the most liberal of precincts. As Senator Barack Obama may soon find out, it's O.K. to make history, to allow people to feel good while making history, to be an abstraction. But it's quite another to be "the black guy."
For a while, it looked like Obama could be the rare African-American leader whose race was nearly invisible - and he may still be. He's post-Civil Rights, Oprah-branded, with that classically American blend of a mother from the heartland and a father from a distant shore. And after that Iowa victory speech, people felt something had passed into our collective rear-view mirror, without actually saying what that something was.
Now it looks like every mention of race - from the overblown dust-up with Senator Hillary Clinton this week to the calculated comments comparing him to Sidney Poitier - is bad for Obama. A victory in South Carolina, with its heavy black vote, will be seen as one-dimensional...


But race and gender will follow these two to the end. Conservatives believe Obama wouldn't even be a top tier candidate were he not black - a reach, to anyone who has seen this once-in-a-generation politician on the campaign trail...

Quote:

Now it looks like every mention of race - from the overblown dust-up with Senator Hillary Clinton this week to the calculated comments comparing him to Sidney Poitier - is bad for Obama.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/race-bait/index.html

Regarding Butrflynet's posting of Karl Rove's comment of election strategy:

Nothing unexpected.

Nothing that I would consider "ugly."

I take it the quotation marks around "that woman" were the posters additions. A bit thin skinned don't you think? If this the extent of expressed sexism that is generated by the Republican campaign, it's not much to inspire teeth gnashing.

Wrong assumption. It was a cut and paste directly from the source, no editing.

Somewhere a Dem political strategist has laid out their talking points, albeit perhaps not publically. I think it would be safe to assume they will include things that might sting Republicans. They may even actually be ugly:

When you find it, be sure to post it here too. I'd be interested in reading it.

Valid:Play up questionable ties Rudy has had with corrupt politicians
Ugly undercurrent; Raise the image of an Italian with inevitable mob connections

Valid: Question the extent to which Huckabee would allow his religious beliefs to inform his policy decisions. He brings it up and so it's fair game
Ugly undercurrent: Raise the image of a rabid theocrat who would outlaw abortion and throw all gays in jail

Other ugliness that has and could continue to come out:

Rommney the weird Mormon
Thompson's "trophy wife"
McCain's age

The point is that there is a myth held dearly among Dems that the Republicans have an Attack Machine and the Dems do not.

Wrong. It was posted as a head's up of the upcoming issues to look forward to in the General Election. Nothing more sinister than that.

It is this myth that encourages them to believe that the Swiftboaters were despicable Republican dobermans, while fabricating facts on Bush's National Guard record was just sloppy reporting by an unbiased media and not so bad since we all know the story was true anyway.

So far the primaries for both parties really haven't been all that ugly, but that could change as things get tighter. The general election will certainly be tough, and probably at times ugly

Even if someone could come up with an accurate list of each party's ugly tactics that showed Republicans' outnumbered Dems' two to one, this would not mean the Dems run clean campaigns.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Regarding Butrflynet's posting of Karl Rove's comment of election strategy:

Nothing unexpected.

Nothing that I would consider "ugly."

I take it the quotation marks around "that woman" were the posters additions. A bit thin skinned don't you think? If this the extent of expressed sexism that is generated by the Republican campaign, it's not much to inspire teeth gnashing.

Wrong assumption. It was a cut and paste directly from the source, no editing.

My mistake. I redirect my comment to the source.

Somewhere a Dem political strategist has laid out their talking points, albeit perhaps not publically. I think it would be safe to assume they will include things that might sting Republicans. They may even actually be ugly:

When you find it, be sure to post it here too. I'd be interested in reading it.

Not particularly looking, but if I run across it I will be sure to let you know. Until then I will continue to assume it has as much or more bite than Rove's.

Valid:Play up questionable ties Rudy has had with corrupt politicians
Ugly undercurrent; Raise the image of an Italian with inevitable mob connections

Valid: Question the extent to which Huckabee would allow his religious beliefs to inform his policy decisions. He brings it up and so it's fair game
Ugly undercurrent: Raise the image of a rabid theocrat who would outlaw abortion and throw all gays in jail

Other ugliness that has and could continue to come out:

Rommney the weird Mormon
Thompson's "trophy wife"
McCain's age

The point is that there is a myth held dearly among Dems that the Republicans have an Attack Machine and the Dems do not.

Wrong. It was posted as a head's up of the upcoming issues to look forward to in the General Election. Nothing more sinister than that.

I don't doubt you and apologize if I unfairly swept you into my statement. Nevertheless the myth is held close to the hearts of many Dems. The Clintons have used it with great regularity and very many of their supporters and others agree.

It is this myth that encourages them to believe that the Swiftboaters were despicable Republican dobermans, while fabricating facts on Bush's National Guard record was just sloppy reporting by an unbiased media and not so bad since we all know the story was true anyway.

So far the primaries for both parties really haven't been all that ugly, but that could change as things get tighter. The general election will certainly be tough, and probably at times ugly

Even if someone could come up with an accurate list of each party's ugly tactics that showed Republicans' outnumbered Dems' two to one, this would not mean the Dems run clean campaigns.

"She has a very, very strong base among the Democratic primary voters -- first and foremost among voters who have real needs, people who may not have health care, people worried about losing a job, people who know someone serving in the war, people in the working and middle class, people whose lives really depend upon having the kind of champion and advocate that Hillary represents," Penn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661_3.html

HS
............ I posted the fact that while in the Illinois house he didn't vote 130 to 160 times even though present and you defended him.

..........part of the crooked Chicago Daily machine imported from another state to run in Illinois. ........

mysteryman wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

And Hillary had to rig the vote in NH to get the victory.
How else can you explain the vast difference between the pre-election polls and the actual results?

Are you kidding? You mean you don't know? Pay attention.

All of the pre vote polls had Obama winning by anywhere between 6 and 12 percent.
Yet Hillary won the vote.

Allof the polls had Kerry beating Bush,and when that didnt happen you were one of the first ones to cry foul.
You accused Bush of all kinds of illegal actions to win, and none of them were true.
So, there had to be some kind of illegal actions from Hillary's campaign for them to win despite all of the polls.
Unless you are willing to admit that the polls could have been wrong, but then you have to admit that the polls that showed Bush losing in both 2000 and 2004 were also wrong.

Are you willing to do that?

I dont think you are.

Time to look in the mirror. Are you saying that in 2000 and 2004, the difference between the polls and the election outcome just meant that the polls were wrong - no fraud needing to be involved - but that when the outcome differed from the polls now in NH, it means that Hillary must have rigged the vote?

You are doing exactly the thing you're accusing Roxxanne of, just the other way round. If Bush outdoes the polls, the polls must have been wrong, while if it's Hillary who outdoes the polls, it must have been fraud.

Quote:

"She has a very, very strong base among the Democratic primary voters -- first and foremost among voters who have real needs, people who may not have health care, people worried about losing a job, people who know someone serving in the war, people in the working and middle class, people whose lives really depend upon having the kind of champion and advocate that Hillary represents," Penn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661_3.html

The "other guy" is Mark Penn. And he's decided that his client, in order to get elected, has got to destroy Obama - whose support among the above-mentioned voters is becoming overwhelming. Race? Drugs? Religion? Support for enemies of the U.S.? Inexperience?

Penn is trying them all in turns, waiting to see what sticks <G>

High Seas wrote:

Quote:

"She has a very, very strong base among the Democratic primary voters -- first and foremost among voters who have real needs, people who may not have health care, people worried about losing a job, people who know someone serving in the war, people in the working and middle class, people whose lives really depend upon having the kind of champion and advocate that Hillary represents," Penn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661_3.html

The "other guy" is Mark Penn. And he's decided that his client, in order to get elected, has got to destroy Obama - whose support among the above-mentioned voters is becoming overwhelming. Race? Drugs? Religion? Support for enemies of the U.S.? Inexperience?

Penn is trying them all in turns, waiting to see what sticks <G>

And her campaign also tried to suggest that if Obama became president it would invite an attack from Al Qaeda. What happened to all the folks who deplore Bush using fear to advance his political goals?

Also note in Penn's comment that he refers to "people without health care." All of the Democrats, not just Hillary, are trying to make not having health insurance with not receiving health care.

Not at all.
I have said many times on here that I do not trust or believe in polls.
I am a firm believer in the fact that polls are often wrong.
They can be worded so they have someone saying that Hitler was a benefit to the world, depending on how the question is worded.

I am saying that those who believed the polls in 2000 and 2004, then cried foul when Bush won are now having no problem with the fact that Hillary beat every poll.

So, if those same people cried foul and accused Bush of wrongdoing when he won the Presidential elections, why are they not doing the same thing about Hillary?
After all, none of the polls had her winning, and yet she won.

HS
As long as there are people like you who refuse to contemplate anything bad about Obama he docent have anything to worry about. I posted the fact that while in the Illinois house he didn't vote 130 to 160 times even though present and you defended him. But none of you have commented on the fact that he is a part of the crooked Chicago Daily machine imported from another state to run in Illinois. He has been associated with some people who are now being investigated. But like Bush nothing will stick until after the election. The electorate in this country have been brainwashed into believing that an attractive face and a feel good speech is all thats necessary to make a good president. One would think after Reagan and the two Bushes we would know better.

And her campaign also tried to suggest that if Obama became president it would invite an attack from Al Qaeda. What happened to all the folks who deplore Bush using fear to advance his political goals?

Also note in Penn's comment that he refers to "people without health care." All of the Democrats, not just Hillary, are trying to make not having health insurance with not receiving health care.

I think this article from The Nation expresses my concerns here pretty clearly:


excerpt...

Barring an Edwards upset, the Democratic Party is going to nominate either a white woman or a black man as its presidential candidate. This is indeed a testament to how far we have come. Still, it wouldn't take much innuendo and truth-twisting to turn Barack Obama into the Muslim Al Sharpton--surely no more than it's taken to turn Hillary Clinton into the lesbian Lady Macbeth. That's why it's crucial not to get into an oppression sweepstakes. If the campaign becomes a competition between race and gender--Frederick Douglass versus Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as one New York Times graphic put it--the winner on election day will be whichever white man the Republican Party nominates



the whole article (its not long)...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/pollitt