Obama Exposed As Black

While the origin was different, and while it may well not be the last such incident, I think this whole thing is definitely Obama's Swiftboating. I exerted so much energy in 2004 trying to point out the Swiftboaters' lies (here and elsewhere) -- I kept hoping that people would say "Oh, in that case, nevermind." Didn't happen. I'd back individual posters into a corner in one thread and then a week later they'd be back proclaiming Kerry's horribleness because of [insert Swiftboater lie here].

It just came down to whether they liked him or not. If they didn't, they used the Swiftboat stuff as a cudgel. If they did, they saw through the accusations.

sozobe wrote:

While the origin was different, and while it may well not be the last such incident, I think this whole thing is definitely Obama's Swiftboating. I exerted so much energy in 2004 trying to point out the Swiftboaters' lies (here and elsewhere) -- I kept hoping that people would say "Oh, in that case, nevermind." Didn't happen. I'd back individual posters into a corner in one thread and then a week later they'd be back proclaiming Kerry's horribleness because of [insert Swiftboater lie here].

It just came down to whether they liked him or not. If they didn't, they used the Swiftboat stuff as a cudgel. If they did, they saw through the accusations.

Very, very true.

<stifles>

blatham wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dlowan wrote:

PS I have no idea what riding dirty is, except I assume it to be some sort of moral or sexual pejorative term?

Slang for carrying drugs in your car. It was a popular song's title last year.

That's also true, bill, but clearly not the main referent in this portion of Wright's sermon.

Ok...so what IS it?

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:

While the origin was different, and while it may well not be the last such incident, I think this whole thing is definitely Obama's Swiftboating. I exerted so much energy in 2004 trying to point out the Swiftboaters' lies (here and elsewhere) -- I kept hoping that people would say "Oh, in that case, nevermind." Didn't happen. I'd back individual posters into a corner in one thread and then a week later they'd be back proclaiming Kerry's horribleness because of [insert Swiftboater lie here].

It just came down to whether they liked him or not. If they didn't, they used the Swiftboat stuff as a cudgel. If they did, they saw through the accusations.

Very, very true.

<stifles>

These things are never about convincing supporters, or changing the minds of opponents--they are about creating doubt n the minds of the undecided. We have people here who constantly say, in effect, "Supporters won't believe it, opponents won't believe anything else--so what?" That's a narrow, dualistic point of view. Many, many voters don't decide until late in any campaign, and it's arguable that significant numbers don't know whom they'll vote for the night before the election.

Smears are, or are thought to be, effective for that reason.

dlowan wrote:

blatham wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dlowan wrote:

PS I have no idea what riding dirty is, except I assume it to be some sort of moral or sexual pejorative term?

Slang for carrying drugs in your car. It was a popular song's title last year.

That's also true, bill, but clearly not the main referent in this portion of Wright's sermon.

Ok...so what IS it?

deb

Bill offered up the link to the slang usages of the phrase and he points to its appearance in rap as well (see these two)

But the video of Wright's sermon, given the physical gesture and the sentence spoken, makes it clear that sex was the main referent even given other allusions in the mix as well.
"Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' dirty,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xb7AVw_no0&feature=related
(ps...read some of those comments below the vid)

So, finn and tico get the sexuality part right. But their response to this is the intolerance of religious bigots for that which is different.

Worse, their bigotry slides right into anti-black racist sentiments and traditions with a 'rich' history in america. Fears of or discomfort with sexuality are a fundamental component in this history.

roger wrote:

I don't know, dlowan. If Obama wins in the general, he's apt to get a second term. If McCain wins, he just might be a bit too long in the tooth to go for another four, making McCain Clinton's choice should she lose the nomination.

That's a thought that just popped into my head, and may not occur to her. I wouldn't be surprised if she's capable of acting on such a thought if she thinks of it.

Yeah one cant help thinking something along those lines... like, if she damages him enough, even if he does end up getting the nomination, he might lose and then she can have a go at it after all in '12.

But aside from whether she'd really let egoism override partisan spirit (and shes got plenty of both) that way, it's just not a feasible scenario. If she really proceeds to keep on damaging him all the way to the Convention so that he wont be able to make up enough ground in time for the general elections to still win, she'll have destroyed his cred -- but also her own. [..] So then the question is just, how much hold on reality does her campaign still have? As the election race gets more heated and personal, all campaigns become prone to myopia, and losing campaigns suffer especially from losing sight of proportions. I think Hilary's got enough of a grip still to know that this scenario is a no-go, but who am I?

What Hillary's Thinking

In this video clipfrom Fox, Time's Mark Halperin argues that Hillary Clinton honestly believes Obama can't be elected, in part for "sensitive" reasons she can't explicitly state--which I take to mean race--and that she is duty bound to "stop" him from getting the nomination. Halperin says this view is based on his conversations with Hillary and her advisors.

Not a shocking theory but a more direct articulation than I'd heard previously.

Stickin'
There's been a fierce and now apparently fading argument over the last week over whether Hillary Clinton should drop out of the nomination race or, more pointedly, whether she's under some sort of obligation to do so. Not just in this race but in general I've always taken a dim view of people trying to muscle candidates to drop out of campaigns, usually on the basis of long odds or when it comes from insider pundit types pushing the idea that there's something undignified about keeping a campaign going after it looks like you probably won't win -- something I've never understood and don't agree with.

So when people have asked me whether I think Hillary should drop out I've said I don't think she's under any obligation to do so but that I do think, with her odds now this long, she should not be running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself.

But when I was writing out my take on her interview over the weekend with Post, I realized that I hadn't made clear enough in what I'd written, or even really in my own head, how much the two things are really combined.

As I said in that post, I don't think Hillary's claim that she's going to stay in the race through the convention in Denver is really about Denver, or staying through August or even till June. It's about keeping her troops motivated and confident so that she can keep in the game through April and May.

And here I think we see the pattern. Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity. And I don't mean that sarcastically. It really is. She's a powerful United States senator, former First Lady, etc. She wants to win. And if she's still in it she wants to run full bore with the money you need to run a serious campaign, the crowds, poll numbers, etc. She's not some Huckabee figure who's going to hang around with little chance of winning

It really is all or nothing. You've got to convince your supporters, donors and to at least some degree the media that you're really in it, and in it with a shot. Otherwise you face the classic problem of a cascade failure. Poor fundraising generates bad press stories, which depress turnout at rallies, which create more bad press stories and eventually no press stories, etc. It's no different from the precarious position any campaign faces when the odds aren't looking good.

And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president. (For example, the argument that the Clinton campaign now appears to be making to funders and the press is that Obama literally cannot win the general. And thus she's not only entitled but actually obligated to do whatever it takes to ensure that he's not the nominee.) Without making real progress on one of those fronts, the premise of the candidacy just becomes too difficult to sustain. And when that fails just throw up lots of nonsense about the popular vote in primary states or blue states or significant states, or whatever.

I think there are a lot of people who would actually like to see the race play out as long as neither candidate is going out of their way to make their opponent unviable in the general. But thinking over what I've said above, I'm just not sure how realistic that is.

--Josh Marshall

But there is a more immediate question facing her: As long as she is in the race, how will Clinton choose to win? The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama but what it is doing to her.

For all Democrats, the worst thing that has happened since January is the tarnishing of the Clinton brand. Clinton haters: Don't laugh. The truth is that when this whole thing began, the vast majority of Democrats -- including Obama supporters -- and a fair number of independents had largely positive views of Bill Clinton's record and Hillary Clinton's merits.

...

So, finn and tico get the sexuality part right. But their response to this is the intolerance of religious bigots for that which is different.

Worse, their bigotry slides right into anti-black racist sentiments and traditions with a 'rich' history in america. Fears of or discomfort with sexuality are a fundamental component in this history.

sozobe wrote:

While the origin was different, and while it may well not be the last such incident, I think this whole thing is definitely Obama's Swiftboating. I exerted so much energy in 2004 trying to point out the Swiftboaters' lies (here and elsewhere) -- I kept hoping that people would say "Oh, in that case, nevermind." Didn't happen. I'd back individual posters into a corner in one thread and then a week later they'd be back proclaiming Kerry's horribleness because of [insert Swiftboater lie here].

It just came down to whether they liked him or not. If they didn't, they used the Swiftboat stuff as a cudgel. If they did, they saw through the accusations.

Very, very true.

<stifles>

As I remember, the people claiming McCain "cracked" or had lost his mind due to being a POW, were working for the campaign of one GW Bush.

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

There is a significant difference between making up lies to discredit someone, and criticizing someone on what they actually said.

A 100-Year War?

The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.

There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.

FreeDuck wrote:

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

Of course it's a smear ... particularly if folks like you are going to claim he said anything resembling a "100 years war."

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

He referenced a presence in Iraq, similar to the presence we have had in Japan and Korea for the past 50-60 years. We've maintained a presence in Kuwait since we occupied it 17 years ago. McCain explained what he meant at the time he made his 100 years comment.

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

Of course it's a smear ... particularly if folks like you are going to claim he said anything resembling a "100 years war."

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

He referenced a presence in Iraq, similar to the presence we have had in Japan and Korea for the past 50-60 years. We've maintained a presence in Kuwait since we occupied it 17 years ago. McCain explained what he meant at the time he made his 100 years comment.

You'll note I didn't make a quote. I know very well what he said, and again, it's fair game to attack him for it.

FreeDuck wrote:

As I remember, the people claiming McCain "cracked" or had lost his mind due to being a POW, were working for the campaign of one GW Bush.

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

No, various groups and liberal talking heads are using that now as an attack on McCain. Bush's campaign spoke of McCain having a child out of wedlock.

The 100 years thing is a smear as it's being used as such.

Ah, so if it's "different," we ought to just allow it -- nay, condone it -- because its freedom of expression?

Yes it's true, I question whether a preacher -- white, black, magenta, or green in color -- ought to be humping a lectern as he does his best impression of a rutting Bill Clinton, or a porn actor, while delivering a Sunday sermon.

And you of all people, blatham -- who chastised me just the other day because you felt I was out of line with the majority of opinion in this country on a particular subject -- ought to realize that your belief that a religious leader should feel free to act the way the Rev. Wright did, is not a majority view ... and you should therefore realize your views on the subject are "irrelevant."

And for you to claim my "intolerant" view that does not condone sexual gyrations by ministers delivering religious messages in church, is somehow an "anti-black racist sentiment," is beyond the pale.
Putting aside the fact that my views on this subject have nothing to do with skin color, are you saying that such sexually explicit gyrations are a traditional and historical aspect of black religious expression?

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

The 100 years war thing is fair game and can hardly be compared to a smear.

Of course it's a smear ... particularly if folks like you are going to claim he said anything resembling a "100 years war."

Check your quote, and stop reading dailykos/huffingtonpost daily.

He referenced a presence in Iraq, similar to the presence we have had in Japan and Korea for the past 50-60 years. We've maintained a presence in Kuwait since we occupied it 17 years ago. McCain explained what he meant at the time he made his 100 years comment.

You'll note I didn't make a quote. I know very well what he said, and again, it's fair game to attack him for it.

On what points is it fair game to attack him, and whom is attacking him fairly on those points?

The attacks I'm speaking about are the one's claiming McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq, which is what you said, and which is a "rank falsehood."