Obama '08?

None whatsoever. I was offering the benefit of the doubt. :wink:

27.01.2008
Best Line of the Night

From Matt Yglesias:

After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too.

--Isaac Chotiner

Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:12 AM

TNR

or just taking the bait... unable to exercise any control.... :wink:

Bingo!


With so much bait floating around here, I'm thinking of opening up a bait shop.

I used to love fishing, but haven't for decades!

<Tico grabs his popcorn and settles back into his easy chair ...>

No fish in California?

Heh. One for the sig lines thread :wink:

I hardily agree with anyone and everyone who has commented that this is a very interesting race - likewise the Republican race.

Usually the interest runs out by or after SC. Not this year.

I think it's unfortunate, but I think it is true that Obama would be in better shape, in terms of his overall goal of winning the nomination, if the distribution of his support between black and whites was a lot closer to 50-50 --- even if he finished a close second to Clinton.

It is clear to anyone who cares to look through unfiltered lens, that the Clintons' campaign strategy has been to accentuate Obama's identity as a black man. The mere fact that he received such a high percentage of black votes in SC, when not that long ago blacks in SC were wondering if he was "black enough," is testimony to the success of their strategy.

I appreciate that there is an underlying assumption here that could be considered racist: blacks tend to vote in a monolithic fashion for a black candidate. I think though that the facts bear this out rather than it being an impression based on sterotyped assumptions. I should add though that given the history of the African-American in this country such a trend is logical, and doesn't imply group-think or even an inherent racism of its own.

Certainly, Obama has shown in prior primaries and in SC that he can appeal to white voters. If he could not, he probably wouldn't have a 750+ "page" thread dedicated to him on A2K. It is the fact that he does appeal to white as well as black voters that has reinforced his appeal among many white voters. He is seen as being able to transcend the racial divide in this country, and truly represent everyone. Ironically, I think that it was this very appeal that, early on, led some blacks to wonder if he was "black enough."

Bill Clinton dismissing an Obama win in SC because Jesse Jackson won in that state twenty years ago is a nakedly racist tactic. Jesse Jackson was a "black candidate," in a way that Obama has deliberately tried not to be.

One has to imagine a meeting among close Clinton political insiders, where nothing is off the table and anything can be said, during which their current strategy was formed:

Using the race card will in and off itself drive black voters away from the Clintons but towards Obama, but it will sharpen his identity as the black candidate, and when the primaries are over, who will black voters choose in the general election? Clinton or the Republican?

This tactic will repel a number of white voters, but not as many it will lead to the sense that perhaps Obama is not the cross-race candidate afterall.
In any case, the ones who will be disgusted by the tactic would most likely have voted for Obama anyway.

For whatever reason, Latinos in America favor white candidates over black ones. The Latino vote is as important as the Black vote. Identify Obama as black and the voting statistics say Clinton gets the Latino vote.

It is a risky strategy because it has the potential for driving some Democratic voters away from Hillary in November, but the nomination must be won or there will be no November race for the Clintons, and besides they can count on very many Democrats holding their noses and voting for Hillary rather than allowing a Republican in the White House for 12 consecutive years.

All of these issues and aspects of their strategy has had to be discussed and accounted for. The Clintons are just too politically sharp for it to be any other way.

The degree of cynicism implied by developing a strategy that depends upon racisim to be successful is astounding, but that it has been developed by Democrats with the help of "The First Black President of America," explores new depths of the term.

If Obama should win the nomination, Clinton apologists will offer that as evidence that the strategy that I've described never existed. Perhaps they will be right, but more likely it will be because it didn't work.

Will it work? I hope not, but I saw, on TV, this quote (paraphrased) by a professed Obama supporter:

"I was for Obama because I believed he was for all Americans, but then when I saw Ophra was a spokesperson for his campaign, I realized he was really running to represent blacks."

This is an utterly stupid comment, and, obviously, it only reflects the stupidity of one person (who may or may not have ever intended to actually voted for Obama), but if it has any resonance in minds that would never actually express it, Obama is in trouble. This is the Clinton strategy.

As much as I have admired Obama's eloquence and been impressed with his ability to inspire, I have always felt these were insufficent qualties to elect a person with no experience or proven record to the presidency. He is going to be hard pressed to maintain his appeal of trancendance in the primary battles to come, and without it, what is he?

Talking of bait and taking it...


After you, Sir, after you. That should give me, oh - perhaps a lifetime. I know that it doesnt mean much to be less of a smug ass than you are being, but I'll take it.

For sure, and good news it is.


Right. The media love any kind of contention - they dont have a particular hard on for playing up race, just for playing up anything they can jump on. And right now, in the Democratic primary, the numbers bear out that race and gender are among the most influential determinants - especially given the relative lack of major differences of opinions on substantive policy. Chiding them for doing their sensationalist thing is right on; telling them it's been enough about those issues already is silly.

<munch ... munch>

sad.

That would be because turnout overall was 61% women, 39% men. That's pretty typical for Democratic primaries. In Michigan, 59% of Democratic primary voters were women; in both Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, it was 57%.


Thanks for the inside insight, but my girlfriend used to live in Greenville SC, so no need really.

Wasn't this a pretty recent phenomenon?

I, possibly the only one, would like to see LOTS more contention, both inter and intra party. I'd like to see Hillary and O'Bama and Edwards as well as the Huckster and Rudy and Mitt and McCain get into some real hair-pulling, name-calling, fisticuffing. I would like to see all this with the hope that the voting universe even a2k posters would start to sift though all the crap/lies/distortions for glimmers of truth. Shake the trees a bit more and perhaps some of the monkeys would drop more coconuts covering their asses. It's just my thought but lordy lordy wouldn't it be nice if posters here and across the US of A would stop their prejudged positions long enough to assay some truth?
Factcheck.*** might become the most used url on the web. (ok, well everyone already knows I'm a liberal but it's always possible others might also be interested in reality checks)

Obama will unite the country in the same manner that Jesus united the worlds religions.

I've said a few times I don't like the messianic thing.

I don't think it's a good enough reason NOT to support him, in and of itself, but I get the hesitation.

entirely too much koolaid. try home brewed beer instead.