Open discussion: Super Tuesday
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Well, looks like the race is still on between Obama and Clinton. What are your thoughts?
-
« Home
-
About This Post
- Written by Carmen Van Kerckhove
- February 6th, 2008 at 9:29 am
-
Categories
-
Subscribe to This Blog
-
About This Blog
- Racialicious is a blog about the intersection of race and pop culture. Check out our daily updates on the latest celebrity gaffes, our no-holds-barred critique of questionable media representations, and of course, the inevitable Keanu Reeves newsflashes.
Comments on this blog are moderated. Please read our comment moderation policy. Use the "for:racialicious" tag in del.icio.us to send us tips. See here for detailed instructions.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of New Demographic, a diversity education firm. Her perspectives on race and diversity have been featured on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, USA Today, and The New York Times.
She hosts the podcast Addicted to Race and blogs at Racialicious and Anti-Racist Parent.
You can reach her at 646.400.5270 or team@newdemographic.com.
- Racialicious is a blog about the intersection of race and pop culture. Check out our daily updates on the latest celebrity gaffes, our no-holds-barred critique of questionable media representations, and of course, the inevitable Keanu Reeves newsflashes.
Adrian wrote:
no more dynasties!
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 10:39 am ¶
Eccentric1 wrote:
Obama is running a very smart campaign. I’m convinced that the longer this goes, the more this contest will be decided in his favor. Go Obama! I liken this to Obama slowly pulling the legendary sword of the presidency from the stone of the electorate! Cue the rousing music that engenders the whispers and thoughts of Camelot as Ted and Caroline Kennedy look on with pride! Gather the knights of the Pentagon table… okay, okay, I’m getting carried away. But just a little.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
tasha wrote:
I think the MSM (mainstream media) has been writing Hillary’s obituary since Iowa. Between the constant attention paid to Hillary’s tear ducts, the hoopla over the Kennedy endorsements, and the incessant hyping of the incredible shrinking lead of Clinton in polls in key states such as California and Massachusetts, it’s a wonder she won any primaries yesterday, and yet look. Hillary took all the biggest prizes, including more delegates in Missouri, despite losing the popular vote. One website went so far as to post the results of the preliminary exit polling, in plain sight, while the polls were still open, which had Obama leading in New Jersey, Mass., and Arizona, but when all was said and done, Obama lost Mass. by 15 percentage points, and that was with the backing of Gov. Deval Patrick and Senator Kennedy. IMHO, Super Tuesday was very much a draw. Obama won more primaries, but not the biggest contests, and he’s still behind in the delegate count. I’m hoping that the MSM will take that into consideration and tone down their Obama rhetoric. In a lot of ways, what happened in Mass. and Cal. was shades of New Hampshire. It was like déjà vu all over again.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
Paul wrote:
Sadly, it looks like Obama’s done. Cliton has a massive lead in superdelegates and got the D machine going in many NJ/NY areas. She’s owed favors by people like Menedez and Spitzer. That means she has the power of their street money and questionable voting drives will be at her disposal. Plus, she has the party bosses (Norcross et al.) lined up in many states and in the Northeast, at least, that means a lot.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 11:23 am ¶
Chris wrote:
Poplicks has an interesting piece that looks at how the Asian/Pacific Islander and Chicano/Latino votes played a large influence in Hillary’s win in California, where voters chose her over Obama by a 3-1 and 2-1 margin respectively.
Link here</A.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 11:32 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
I am soooo glad my state votes next week. (And yes, I can vote in the primary.)
I will seriously interested to see where DC/MD/VA fall.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
gandalf mantooth wrote:
Paul
Was “Cliton” a Freudian slip?
Obama’s campaign is by no means “done.” He’s likely to run the table next week and the candidates will trade wins for the remainder as they did last night. The Super Delegates aren’t bound to their current committments and most of them are elected offcials who can be swayed by the vox populi and a few phone calls from politicians with national clout (I hear that Obama and Gore talk on the phone every couple of weeks . . .).
The campaign is likely to continue to the convention barring some surprise.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶
Claire wrote:
I was pretty shocked by how things shook out in California. But I guess my surprise makes sense — I’m a white 18-to-29-year-old and so are most of my friends, and that demographic went overwhelmingly for Obama.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:10 pm ¶
michael wrote:
Barack has a HUGE latino problem, that no one seems to want to address. They went for Hillary overwhelmingly in every state except Illinois, and even there he only won them by a small margin. He can’t win an election solely on the votes of blacks and “latte” drinking whites.
As far as spinning goes, both camps are adept at it, but Hillary bagged all the big states, and most delegates, so she must be feeling happy today. Her wins in California and Mass were great symbolic victories, and huge slaps in the face to Ted Kennedy and Maria Shriver. So much for that fabled “Kennedy mystique”. She trounced Obama amongst the democratic base (working class whites, women, latinos, etc). This fight is far from over though, as much as i’d like it to be.
Btw, I cast my vote for Hillary here in the great state of New York. I was more than happy to support the senator, despite assumptions from poll workers who clearly assumed I was fpr the “brotha”. Haha
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:36 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
tasha,
I think the media’s been anti-Hillary for sure, but on Faux News and CNN they’ve been giving her plaudits for last night’s showing, so maybe you should put that “coffin” theory of yours to rest.
And a note on how you think last night was like NH, I worry if you mean to say Clinton teared up again and somehow got votes out of it. I worry if you think somehow Obama was polled to beat Hillary by double digits in SEVERAL polls in the same state. (he was not) I worry if you feel that just by holding onto SOME of the states Hillary previously had 20 pt. leads in, somehow Hillary came out on top. (That’s some new math I’d say)
It’s been well-reported that early voting was a HUGE factor in California at least and dampened much of Obama’s climb in the polls. That does not mean he wasn’t strong in the Feb. 5 voting, he was. I think you’re right and wrong on who “won” or if it was a “tie”. It was a tie in the sense that both sides can spin it, as you and I are doing, any way they want, and they’ll be using the facts. Clinton won the big states and a great share of the delegates, meaning she beat back in some of her states, the key ones for her, the Obama surge in a way and showed she and her coalition are not rolling over for Obama. On the other hand, Obama won MORE states, cut into her lead in many of her base states, made her nervous and he made what even a week prior looked like a cakewalk into what the Clinton campaign will celebrate as a tie.
That, to me says Obama accomplished an amazing amount and he has a lot of caucuses coming up this month. He’s done very, very well in caucuses, has as of now more resources (i.e. cash) and a seemingly better organizational strategy for caucuses, so, and Paul you can get in on this too, I think you need to look at the upcoming elections and then come back at me and tell me why the USS Obama will go down after last night.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶
Paul wrote:
Sorry about the “Cliton” gaffe. Was writing between classes and missed it. The superdelgates may not be bound to any candidate, but they many are bound to the machinery of the Democratic Party. They owe favors to Clintons and Clinton supporters or otherwise fear the wrath of Bill and Hillary. Look at how Bill came after Teddy for endorsing Obama. Many superdelegates will go Clinton as a measure of self-preservation.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
michael,
Saying Obama has problems getting the Latino vote, while true, help to underscore the problems Clinton has with reaching black voters. In fact, Obama’s reach with Latinos and whites is growing, as I believe, more people around the country get to know him.
I mean, how do you account for him winning in Idaho as well as Connecticut? Kansas as well as Illinois? What of winning in Colorado? North Dakota? Minnesota? Alaska? What of performance in New Mexico? These must be accidents, right?
He’s got a favorable map ahead, but it’ll be a hard slough.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
I think its going to the convention undecided, and this is where the superdelegates will come into play. Over at the WAOD blog they have an excellent analysis of what could happen if say Obama and Clinton are neck and neck in delegates won through primaries and caucuses–but superdelegates (ie democratic party elite) decide to go for Clinton–will the democrats be shooting themselves in the foot with black, latte drinkers (?), independants and under 30 voters by seeming to “fix” the nomination for an insider. Moreover what will happen if Clinton is the nom and possibly loses to McCain. How will the dems recover if the cost of a clinton nomination is alienating segments of the base and potential new members to the democratic fold.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶
MNC wrote:
I’ve been watching this entire thing with such anxiety (and I’m so annoyed with myself for being anxious).
Not to diss anyone’s choice of candidate, but what always troubles me about Hillary supporters is how much they overlook about her 35 years of experience.
Let me be clear, I am an Obama supporter, but I am under no illusion or Kool-Aid delusion that he is the second coming.
I completely understand that he is a part of the mainstream political machine as is Hillary and it’s highly unlikely that really progressive change will come out of either campaign.
BUT, in Obama I do see someone who gives me the hope that a lil bit of a progressive bone could come our way simply because he has given me no reason to believe that he is not an ethical/trustworthy human being.
The hope that he inspires in me comes from the fact that on his record of experience there is no pattern of playing voters, his constituents or his supporters greasy to serve his own interests.
While the Hillary Clinton’s 35 year record is littered with dirty deals done dirt cheap, disloyalty to a list of those she claims to want to serve and protect, and a whole host of other patterns of behavior that give me little faith in her ethical capabilities or her honesty full stop.
So while there is sexism to be sure, I find that she’s done nothing to engender (no pun intended) my trust in her or the privilege of my vote.
This is why it sickens and saddens me that once again voters go to the polls with very limited knowledge of whom and for what they are voting.
Even more troubling is the fact that the Democratic party has played us all for fools with this superdelegate business.
The so called “peoples party” has in effect told its people that they can’t be trusted to “pick” the “right” candidate (and judging by the presidencies we’ve co-signed on in recent history that may or may not be true) so we have a bunch of elite Washington insiders to do it for you.
This is why I know that Hillary Clinton will sleaze away with the nomination-which would be really upsetting to me.
Yet, the one shred of positivity that would come from a sham decision like that would be that those who disagree with the superdelegate’s dictate will seize the opportunity to rise up and create a viable third party.
It may be a pipe dream, but at least all this hope that Obama has inspired won’t go for naught.
That’s just my personal 2 cents and I mean no disrespect to HRC supporters.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
Eccentric1 wrote:
Not that this will necessarily dash all the semi-gloomy commentaries about Obama’s chances, but he is currently in the lead for total delegates (yes, we still don’t know where the super delegates will fall yet). New Mexico is still too close to call. Go Obama!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶
Eccentric1 wrote:
People all over the world (everybody),
Join Hands (and testify),
Join the ‘O’ Train,
The ‘O’ Train!
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 3:32 pm ¶
Vic Damone, Jr. wrote:
There are still about 500 delegates out there.
I think we need to look at what’s ahead:
Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconsin (what’s left in February) are primed to favor Barack Obama.
That’s 599 delegates with a good chance for the popular vote in those states to favor Barack 60/40 over Hillary.
The questions will be Ohio and Texas. If the Obama swell continues and he can close in those races, maybe even win them, he could pull ahead.
BTW, I hate the idea of superdelegates.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 4:04 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
It was the Latino vote in California that helped put Clinton over the top. She won 64% of the Latino vote. And I believe they were 29% of the total California (dem) vote. Blacks and Asians were 8% of the total vote. Obama received 80% of the Black vote. I got these numbers last night, so they may be flawed.
I think it should be noted that the term “Latino”, much like the term Asian, describes a huge and diverse populous from many different countries that speak mainly Spanish and Portuguese. We all know that, but I think it bears stating the obvious again, because there is a divide amongst Mexicans and Blacks in California, but maybe not between Blacks and Latinos on a national scale. I think the vote in California only underscores what Obama would have to do win the Mexican-American vote.
Does it surprise anyone that Obama lost Massachusetts? I think that historically, while being a Dem state, it is known to be a racially divided state.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 4:23 pm ¶
tasha wrote:
@Collin
Oh, so that’s why Hillary won New Hampshire. She cried. Never mind that nationally, Hillary is the favorite among women, women who accounted for the larger share of voters in New Hampshire. Let’s also dismiss the fact that NH, or I should just say New England in general (considering Hill’s win in Mass.) has always been friendly to the Clintons and John McCain. But no, no, no, Hillary won New Hampshire because she cried. How convenient. If you’re trying to insinuate that Hillary’s tearing up in Conn. was some sort of calculated ploy to drum up votes, well then shame on you. This is exactly what I was referring to when discussing the attention paid to HRC’s tear ducts. Her wiping tears out of her eye, during her law school visit, shouldn’t have made the news in the first place. When grown men cry at the Superbowl after having won a football game, it’s poignant and touching, but God forbid a woman shed tears after being introduced at her alma matter by a childhood friend. I thought you Obama supporters were supposed to be such, enlightened, out of the box thinkers (whoops, positive stereotype), and yet here you are Collin, resorting to sexism just for the sake of shilling on his behalf. Well, good for you.
And please don’t pretend that you didn’t know exactly what I meant, in regards to my New Hampshire déjà vu remark. The MSM, particularly the AP and Reuters have been tolling the death knell on Hillary’s campaign and churning out articles right and left about Hillary’s narrowing lead, the supposed weight of Obama’s big name endorsements in California and how the Kennedys were going to deliver Massachusetts; when in reality, the Mass. election day count reflected polling numbers from before Teddy and Caroline’s endorsement. People are starting to get hip to this blatant media bias. This is the second time that the media has blown Obama’s chances in key states out of proportion before the primary. I was watching MSNBC last night, and even Tom Brokaw admitted to the media being mistaken in its conventional wisdom about how Obama would fare in the delegate rich states. Maybe you’d be more inclined to believe that, if instead of Brokaw, such election analysis came from Dan Rather.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 4:23 pm ¶
Mireille wrote:
I spent the entirety of last night at Busboys and Poets in Arlington at an Obama event. The Mayor of Alexandria showed up and gave a couple of words and then out of no where Jim Moran showed up unannounced. He might have just wanted a vegan sandwich, I dunno, but they did talk him up on the platform to say a short something. Apparently, he wasn’t going to say anything because he “hadn’t talked to Hilary yet” but he was going to hold a press conference or go to an event or something today and he was ‘glad you came to support this particular candidate.’ And then he…left.
It was a very good night, a great mix of people, wonderful energy and food.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 5:13 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
Wow. Some folks on this thread need to read a newspaper.
1. Obama won the most delegates.
2. Obama won the most states.
3. Obama has more money.
4. The primary calendar, with MD, VA, and DC coming up, favors him immensely.
5. Obama’s “Latino problem” is overhyped. He picked up a much larger percentage of the Latino vote yesterday than in the past, and will likely pick up more when given a chance to pitch to them. The fact that he picked up a large majority of Latino voters in Ill. suggests that his real problem isn’t racism among Latinos; it’s name recognition.
6. Hillary isn’t done, but last night was a tie. Which given that her opponent was down like 20 points in most polls a week ago, isn’t very good.
7. Obama’s “Jewish Problem” is also bullshit.
8. Did anyone notice that Obama got 40% of the vote in Hillary’s HOME STATE?
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 5:36 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
dna,
nytimes is saying hillary has more delegates (845/765 hillary/obama)
did i miss something?
and speaking of home states, i was surprised to see that hillary got 33% of the illinois vote. that was a surprise. obama’s good performance in ny didn’t surprise me.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 6:03 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Here’s my take on Obama and the Asian American vote.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 7:15 pm ¶
gandalf mantooth wrote:
Obama’s campaign has been floating their own delegate count to the media outlets and dna might be seeing that. In reality it’s just as valid as anyone else’s because numbers are all over the place. The only thing they have in common is that they show the race is air tight.
Paul
You aren’t reading between the lines. 1st, what Kennedy coming out for Obama shows is that the “elite” of the party no longer fears the Clintons. Granted, Kennedy never did — he owes them nothing. Others, like my Cong, Jim Cooper have come out early and they may have an axe to grind. Meanwhile, Gore has remained silent for a long time and may well stay out of the primaries. That doesn’t mean he isn’t active.
Sen Clinton’s win in Mass isn’t a slap in the face, it’s what was expected. She’s been ahead there the entire cycle. Kennedy coming two weeks out wasn’t going to make a 30% turnaround, but it did cut into her lead significantly, that’s undeniable.
As far as experience goes, the only politicians who can claim to have the proper experience for being President is someone who has been governor of a state with a large diverse population and varied industry. Neither candidate has that.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 7:25 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
tasha,
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
1) For someone as indignant as yourself, I’ve got a real bone to pick with you for not even getting my damn name right. It’s Colin, with one “l”. That’s not difficult, is it?
2) About the tearing up: The truth was that in both instances, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York had a lead, saw it being whittled down in the polls, and for whatever reasons cried, and then regained her advantage, although this time it was NOT the same advantage as in New Hampshire.
You can say “for shame” until your face turns blue, but I don’t see how it’s irrational to believe she could’ve made a political calculation that something that seems to have worked out for her once in NH, even if the first time was an accident, that it’ll work again in CT. I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize people for sexist remarks, and I’ll take responsibility if I am being irrational and sexist here. I just don’t see proof that I am, and your reply didn’t give any reason for me to think I was.
Your point was evidenced by an analogy involving grown men crying after the Super Bowl, contrasting that with a heated presidential primary where a politician cries due to the stress of the primary and importance of the election. To be sure, it’s a flawed analogy.
I don’t think there’s much to gain for any athlete by crying after the event is over, and crying in sports from what I know doesn’t get an athlete any advantage anyway. And for the record, I don’t know of anyone who sees crying after a football game as either poignant or touching.
In politics, however, I think crying can be used, since public perception is a much, much greater factor in anything a politician may call “success” for themselves, to great effect. I think crying before a primary, where emotions are already high, a primary where identity politics had just recently, as in days earlier, begun to flare up and become very important, is most likely an accident, but still could have a large effect on large swathes of the electorate, in part by eliciting a critical reaction that would help push undecided women voters to her stead.
There is a difference in the circumstances and outcomes surrounding crying in both cases and to suggest we should compare them as though such situations were the same is illogical.
3) About the media’s role: Your thoughts on New Hampshire, and consequently Super Tuesday seem to ignore the fact that several polls within a couple days of the actual primary, showed Obama with a large lead in NH and a strong surge in every recently polled Super Tuesday state. Those include polls that Reuters and CNN and other large media conglomerates did NOT coordinate and finance. Unless you think that somehow these channels are controlling all the polls in the country, including the Field Poll in California that recently showed an Obama comeback before Super Tuesday, then maybe it’s not one big media plot against Sen. Clinton. If the polls seem to agree that Obama has a lead or is surging, then maybe when the media talks about the race, they should say that. That’s like if Clinton has a growing double digit advantage in almost every single state and they call her “inevitable”. I don’t think see where that’s the media “blowing Obama’s chances out of proportion”.
4) About the rebuke of the Kennedy name: The meme that CA and MA were tests of the Kennedy name make some sense in a way, but don’t take the context into consideration. I think there’s no doubt Obama leapt up the polls in the past week, but against the early voting he encountered in many states, there was an advantage he needed at least another week or two to try to climb over to even cut even with Clinton in her key big states. That’s less a rebuke of the Kennedys (I don’t see why Clinton Democrats would rebuke the Kennedys) than it is a function of time and name rec. advantage that has been a hallmark of the Clinton campaign.
Other than the first point, I don’t think I got TOO inflammatory, tell me what ya think.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 9:24 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
Wendi,
Clinton has more delegates. Last night, Obama won more delegates.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 9:41 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
gotcha. the delegate bit is frustrating to deal with as each site has a different number (as some are more frequently updated than others or predict more hurriedly than others, etc), so it’s easy to get confused. at the time i went to bed last night, they still didn’t know how to call cali, so today was spent trying to catch up via varied news sites.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 10:05 pm ¶
Paul wrote:
Tasha,
Everything the Clinton’s do is calculated to win support or garner more money. Look at Hillary’s recent loan to herself. Bill does some very sketchy lobbying for a uranium speculator in Kazakhstan. Bill makes nice with the Kazakhstani dictator, probably promising some tit for tat should Hillary win. Then, the speculator donates a large sum to Bill’s foundation. Suddenly, flush Hillary takes out a loan to finance her bid for the White House.
As to her crying, Bill did it all the time when he “felt our pain.” It worked for him and it worked for her in NH. It’s no shame to suggest that they will pull any Atwaterian scam to get the power they want.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 10:46 pm ¶
Laretta Jackson wrote:
Colin,
The reason your comment about Clinton’s crying is sexist is that, unstated or not, the idea is that she won female voters with it. Hidden in this is the idea that women are incapable of voting based on issues and that they vote solely based on their emotions. If changing women’s vote was not what you were implying, then I apologize, but that is how the MSM spun the two incidents.
I also wanted to comment and see if anyone else felt the same way about Obama support as I have been feeling. I have noticed that white Obama supporters seem all too happy to announce their support. As a white woman, I feel like people constantly notice an Obama button I have and make some comment about how much they love Obama. It’s rather unsettling though. I can almost always sense an undertone (that I am expected to reciprocate) of “Look how not racist I am since I am supporting a black candidate.” It worries me a bit about what an Obama win in November would mean. This article did a good job of describing all of Obama’s faults and mentioned that Obama’s election might be used as proof that racism is dead.
http://www.theroot.com/id/44630
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 12:49 am ¶
Paul wrote:
Claiming that no women voted for Hillary because of her “cry” is just as ignorant as claiming that no men vote against her because she challenges traditional gender roles. I imagine the proportions are similar and have heard many over 50, white women claim that Hillary new emotionalism makes them feel sympathy for her. The electorate is not rational; therefore it is folly to ascribe logical behavior to it.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 7:59 am ¶
tasha wrote:
Yes Paul, everything the Clintons do is a calculated ploy, even that coughing fit Hillary had during that pre-primary news interview. She knew that each hack would spike her approval ratings among women, seeing as that we’re so easily swayed. (Gimme a break!) And that’s another thing, people only want to admonish the Clintons for being shrewd political operators when it suits them, often in an attempt to set up this false dichotomy between Clinton (evil, hench-wench bent on world domination) and Saint Obama come down from on high (cue the gospel choir). Politicians, in general, make calculated moves, not just the Clintons. Your reluctance to include Obama in your remarks about politicians who plot and scheme, speaks volumes about your conditioning. It begs the question whether or not you would automatically think Obama to be sincere should he cry, (since according to you, only the Clintons would stoop to such depths), and if so, why? And why is it so hard to believe that Hillary’s campaign is strapped for cash? Were you as skeptical when McCain admitted the same last year, or when John Kerry had the same problem in 04’? Seriously, you ought to check out Stanley Fish’s NYT piece on “Hillary Haters,” cause I’m not finding much evidence in your posts to substantiate your vitriol towards this woman. I think you’re just hating.
@Laretta
That’s exactly how the MSM spun it. You know, just the other day, I was on Jezebel, and they featured a post on Hillary’s “Conn. crying episode,” and spun it as a “Oh no, Hillary cries again” scenario, without putting the event in its proper context, knowing good and well, that most people wouldn’t click on the source link to read the full story, and sure enough, people took the bait, and Jezebel is supposedly a feminist website.
@Colin
You wrote a lot, and I’m busy right now, so, later . . .
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 9:02 am ¶
Paul wrote:
No evidence for dislike of the Clintons?
a. They bombed innocent Sudanese to try and
draw attention away from Bill’s Monica
situation.
b. They took illegal contributions from Hsu and
the Chinese government.
c. They misused Linda Tripp’s personnel file,
which cost the DoD half a million dollars.
d. They passed NAFTA.
e. They supported Three Strikes.
f. They demonized welfare recipients like
Reagan.
g. Bill has used racial codewords like Reagan,
Nixon, and the Bushes.
h. They kept sanctions aganst Cuba and Iraq
rather than engage with theleaders of those
states. These sanctions hurt innocent people
within those states.
i. They created a culture wherein any question
of their policy equates irrational hatred and
mean-spiritedness.
Yes all candidates engage in mudslinging, but the Clintons sink toe Rovian/Atwaterian depths and do so only to enhance their personal power.
It’s a shame you can’t see past her gender.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
Paul wrote:
Tasha,
I never said that I didn’t believe that the Clinton candidacy was strapped for cash, I said look at its probable source. It seems to me that you are a Clinton apologist and will in no way ever acknowledge that they have ever done anything wrong. People like you enable their sleaziness because you serve as a bleating chorus that seeks to shout down anyone who challenges the Clintonian vision of reality. Rather than argue the merits of the Kazakhstani story, you call people haters and cast aspersions.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
*ahem*
Moderator Note:
Things are getting heated, I see. While nothing has happened yet, I will caution commenters to make sure that you are attacking the person’s argument and not the person.
Paul, you’re dancing on the edge. I let that comment slide, but please stick to the arguments that you are making so well. Words like “bleating chorus” and “sleaziness” tend to be inflamatory.
Tasha –
The MSM, depending on what you’re reading, also has it out for Obama. Watching the SuperTuesday coverage through CNN, Yahoo, Salon, and WaPo, it was clear they were pro-Hillary. The media spin is quite shitty, but it spins both ways.
Also, caution for you: accusing people of sexism for being pro Obama is not cool. Do not assume that because someone is pro-Obama it means that they hate Hil based on gender.
Okay, back to the fight…
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
just to add to paul’s list re: Bill Clinton…
let’s not forget the Defense of Marriage Act (more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)
and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell)
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
MNC wrote:
Thanks to those who lifted the Debbie Downer tone of my post-it’s just hard not to see the writing on the wall when even the most intelligent people are so dogmatic that they won’t even criticize their respective parties.
I think it’s our duty as citizens to be skeptical of ALL politicians. If we don’t hold their feet to the fire, then no one will.
That said, I suggest that we flood the DNC inboxes with protests against the use of Superdelegates and force the Democratics to embrace true progessive policies that serve the people.
If they won’t do it, then we will mount an effort to create a viable third party by all those sick of the politricks of a 2 party system.
Please read this short piece on Superdelegates from slepton.com, do your own research and decide if you’d like to join me in letting them know how you feel.
The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
February 06, 2008
Barack Obama’s stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people – who were mobilized and organized – participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here’s the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
“Huh?” you say. “vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo.”
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 “super-delegates” – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern’s landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was “out of sync with the rest of the party,” Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a “sort of safety valve.”
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state’s caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word “change” is being bandied about, isn’t it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
I just sent my protest:
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
Paul wrote:
LaToya,
Sorry about that. Got carried away. Won’t let it happen again.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
oh and sorry, just to add, though, hillary is running and not bill…
i recognize that they are (obviously) affiliated, but she would be running things, not bill, so i think it’s important that we not muddle the two (even though i just listed some of clinton’s homophobic legislation lol)
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
Laretta/tasha,
I see what you mean, and I apologize for being so offensive. I’ll try to stay honest without going into such harsh generalizations about women or any other group of people. I want you to understand I do not think of the voters as stupid, I may be naive in that sense, but I really think especially in this election, we’re getting so much information that we’ve got it coming out our ears and noses and Democrats are undecided because the positions between the two candidates is so amazingly similar and the people are reticent of that fact.
That said, I still don’t see how my criticism can’t be considered. My thought is that such a critique is no different from saying Barack Obama uses coded language or a different accent to reach out to African Americans, or that Sen. Edwards played the white male card to try to allure white male voters. (duh!)
The way I see how people may have voted in NH as they do all over the world is often based on something I learned in school called “online processing”, where a person makes basically a tally of good and bad things about each candidate and votes for the person who’s more or less on top. I do not see what’s unreasonable about saying there were a large number of women voters and probably some men voters, too, let’s be real, who thought of the crying as well as the media reaction to the crying as the straw that broke the camel’s back, not THE ONLY ISSUE, but the deciding issue. Do you see me now? It’s not me saying Hillary voters are stupid, it’s me saying why haven’t we looked at the possibility that Sen. Clinton could be calculating that this would work?
Lastly, your idea that I do not critique the Obama campaign is wrong, at least about me. I admit fully that I cannot totally resist neither his dynamism nor his appeals to my identity as a black man. It’s tough and I’m not totally objective. That being said, I read up on him and I know about the deceptive Harry and Louise mailer, I know about Jesse Jackson, Jr’s silly, childish, unhelpful comments, I know about Rezko and I know about the Reagan comments. I critique Obama on these and more in private and public, so it’s not accurate to say I’m not critical of Obama.
I will probably stay more critical of Clinton as I have seen more of her that I do not prefer than I would’ve liked, from racist tactics to misleading characterizations, from voting for Iraq to voting for the context for a war with Iran, from taking lobbyist money to saying she’d do it again, there are things I cannot stand about her, but she is by no means the only person I am critical of. If me being very critical of Hillary Clinton because she’s DONE THINGS to make me critical of her is wrong, please tell me.
NOTE: I do believe Hillary is strapped for campaign cash, but that’s not something to be proud of. It’s not unheard of, but either way your campaign needs more money to keep pace with Obama’s.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶
tasha wrote:
Latoya, I apologize if you or anyone else understood my remarks to mean that voting for Obama is inherently sexist, but that was not my intent. I never said nor implied such a thing. I responded to Colin’s and Paul’s remarks about their contentions regarding the alleged power of Hillary’s tears over the female electorate and dared speak out about the anti-Hillary media bias.
With all due respect, is it possible for you to moderate this discussion without bias, yourself? You reprimanded me because of what you thought my ideology/rationale (pro Obama =sexist) was, yet you only chided Paul for peppering his argument with certain “inflammatory” phrases; but now look at what he wrote at end of his list of generalized censures in his third to last post, “It’s a shame you can’t look past gender.” That remark was more inflammatory than any “sleeziness” or “bleating chorus.” I have yet to give any reasons why I’m pro-Clinton. All I’ve done is discuss sexism and media bias. So why is Paul permitted to assert that the only reason why I’m pro-Hillary is because we have gender in common? You and I both know that you would be livid, if I were to give a rundown of Obama criticisms and end it with a phrase insinuating that the only reason why you’re pro-Obama is because you can’t see past race.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Tasha -
I asked you to be wary of accusing others of sexism because of this comment, addressed to Colin:
“I thought you Obama supporters were supposed to be such, enlightened, out of the box thinkers (whoops, positive stereotype), and yet here you are Collin, resorting to sexism just for the sake of shilling on his behalf. Well, good for you.”
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 2:38 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
I think that it is great that we are all so incredibly passionate about our respective candidates. I think it bodes well for the future of politics and political involvement for this country and the younger generations.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, on some level, however deep, the more liberal minded, less-war mongering leaders of this nation, need to control our govenrment. Are we going to get someone who pleases all of the people all of the time, no. But conspiracy theories aside, I think that now, more than ever we have to be critical of politicians without losing sight of the goals. I would hate for John McCain to march into the White House on the back of liberal hatred toward one another. What I am seeing on this website and others does not give me hope that we would all throw our support behind “whoever wins the nomination”.
That said, I think that if Obama is going to win, he needs the support of other ethnic groups, which he does not have to date. Most Latinos and most Asian groups are not supporting him. Many of the Asians and Latinos who are on the blogs, and who support Obama, think it’s because the have never heard of him and once they get to know him, then they will be far more open to voting for him. I don’t really believe that, but I will go with that for now. But if they are wrong, what does that mean for Obama should he win the nomination? Will most Asians and Latinos vote for McCain? And if Hill gets the nom, what does that mean for picking a running mate? Can she pick Obama, their heated arguing aside, given what is happening in the Asian and Latino communities?
Again, I think that it is awesome to get into the nitty gritty now, but I think that Clinton or Obama would be better than McCain. And a McCain Huckabee ticket? OMG!
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶
Jen* wrote:
Co-sign Michelle’s comment.
I have issues with Obama, no doubt, but if he gets the nomination, I’m voting for him. [unless something strange happens between now and then]
Passion’s great, but I would love to be able to have a united front [from the Democrats] come election time.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
Michelle,
I feel you that a McCain presidency would be a step in the wrong direction and despite my deep qualms about the two Democrats from a purely ideological point of view, I cannot think of a McCain presidency being anywhere close to better.
What we do not agree on are things like constituencies and how they’ll vote. I am curious as to why you think people within Asian and Latino communities won’t vote for Barack if he’s the nominee.
I think overwhelmingly they will. I think once Barack is better known to people who don’t have the time or patience to sit through debates and read blogs religiously, he’ll make a lot of inroads, like he has with many Latino communities and like he has with white voters across America. I believe that an America where a man with a father from Kenya, a white mother from Kansas, a man who lived abroad and throughout the United States, who has his identity questioned at every turn, an America that can still elect that man the President of the United States, I think that’s an America a lot of people of color want to believe in and I think if Obama can take some of the baby boomer vote, the working class needs to stay with him, and he can turn out the youth vote, then I believe that can be a winning coalition, even a progressive, mandate-forming coalition.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 4:34 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Colin,
I hope that you are right. But I live in Los Angeles and I think that Mayor Villariagosa (and the Latino Dem leaders) throwing support to Hillary was HUGE!
Anyway, I hope that you are right. If McCain wins, he has said that he will not withdraw the troops. That concerns me. Also, we talk about lack of experience where Obama is concerned, but the one thing I agreed with Romney about was that McCain doesn’t really know how to deal with a complex global economy, much less knowing how to right our increasingly fragile economy. I just hope that people are right about the Asian and Latino vote. That they will vote for Obama if he wins the nom. Or if he somehow (I SERIOUSLY doubt it) winds up with the VP nod. Personally, I think that Edwards would be the best choice no matter who wins the nom. It might be too early to talk about this….but it might be good to get these ideas percolating so that we are not playing catch up with certain key demographics come October 2008.
What could Obama do to better reach out to Asian and Latino voters? And, what has Clinton done in her 35 years to gain their loyalty?
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 5:07 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Just spotted this on Alisa Rodriguez Valdez’s blog:
http://alisavaldesrodriguez.blogspot.com/2008/02/mr-obama-latinos-knockinganyone-home.html
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 5:47 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
LaToya,
I just read that link and I read what Kai had to say about the Asian American vote.
After reading that, then I don’t know what to say about Obama’s chances.
Clinton peeps, if you want some good news, read those links. You will feel SOOO much better about Clinton’s chances.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
Michelle,
Not trying to nitpick, but I’m still trying to figure out why you feel Obama won’t get a majority of Asian-American or Latino votes (to say he won’t get ANY is an obvious exaggeration, so I’m going for what I think you meant) in the GENERAL ELECTION…What do you think? Like Kai said, I think bringing on more Asian-American staff would be one of the preliminary steps, but I still think he has a ways to go in getting people to know who he is as a candidate and what he feels on certain issues.
That will be tough due to the way the primary is shaking out, but I am much more encouraged about his chances in that department than I am in Hillary’s case where quite a many people know her and many intensely dislike or hate her.
Because of that predisposition Hillary has with many voters, I think it’ll be harder to win new voters than it would be for Barack, and I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics have alienated many of her black supporters as well, hurting her chances in the general election, since I believe it’ll be harder for her to win them back.
Either way, though, it’ll come down to organization and energy and I think Democrats will have more of it.
Posted 07 Feb 2008 at 11:15 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
There are many reasons why I think that Obama would have trouble getting the Asian and Latino votes in the remaining primaries and the general election (should he win the nom, or be the VP candidate).
1. After reading Kai’s post and Ms. Valdez’s blog post, it seems that his campaign has made a huge misstep. Getting those votes now, after the inroads that the Clinton campaign (and to an extent the Republican machine) has made, seems like a long shot. McCain seems to have a lot of support amognst the Latino community. And Republicans have traditionally had the Latino vote. This does not bode well for and Obama presidential bid.
2. The Mexican American community (which I am, in this context, separating from the larger Latino pop) is swayed by their own Dem leaders, and rightly so, may I add. Like I said, Mayor Villariagosa supporting Clinton is huge, huge, big, big! Almost all of the Latino Dem leaders in California (many of whom are Mexican) support Clinton and they support her in a big way. Now, in a general election, if they appear lukewarm to Obama, which I hope they won’t, their constituents will not vote for him. And, after such enthusiam for Clinton (maybe you didn’t see it, but I saw it here on my local TV), I think it will be hard for their constituents to believe that Obama holds the same promises and hopes for their communities. And I think that California is a really good indicator of what Texas would be like. Two huge states…he would need the overwhelming support of the Mexican American community to win those electorates.
3. I know that you have said before that people need to get to know him, but IMHO I think that at this point, if large groups of Asians and Latinos are just not going to watch the debates, or news shows, or read the papers, then how will they get to know him? And by the way I am only refering to what you wrote above
“I think once Barack is better known to people who don’t have the time or patience to sit through debates and read blogs religiously, he’ll make a lot of inroads, like he has with many Latino communities”
I know that having more Asians on staff will help him, and of course, having more Latinos on staff will help. But my concern, especially after reading the above blog, is that it might be too late. Will Asian and Latinos see it as “Ooops, I need your vote so let me backtrack because I am a sleazy politician and that is what we do!” Honestly, I wouldn’t blame them in the slightest.
4. There are lingering feelings of discomfort, distrust, dislike…whatever you want to call it, between Asians and Blacks and Blacks and Latinos (in some areas of the country). I list it last because I don’t think it is as important, but we can’t forget the very recent and ongoing arguements within the communities. Mexicans and Blacks in California and Texas. Koreans and Blacks in New York. I don’t want to belabor the point, but I think that it is a part of a much larger issue. If Obama gets the nom, then these are all things that we should consider.
Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
1. Democrats have traditionally had the Latino vote, over the past few election cycles, at least from 2000, if my numbers are right. (Bush got in the 40th percentile with Latinos, but even that level of support was astonishing to quite a many observers, so I have no reason to believe Latinos are traditional Republican voters or even postmodern Republican voters)
2. I strongly and respectfully disagree that Democratic Mexican-American leaders in California and Texas will find it hard to support Obama. Not only did Obama get endorsements of his own from this constituency, but there’s still no reason to think, from what I see, that Dem. leaders would think Clinton would deliver for them where Obama obviously can’t.
I also see them lining up behind him when they need someone’s coattails to ride. They want to be re-elected, and by big margins and with lots of money. To shirk such opportunity to gain seems to be frankly stupid politics.
3. Speaking events, townhalls, fundraisers, weekend coffees, not to mention word of mouth and various ads and literature. I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that people who might not be inclined to sit through a debate may be interested to watch a speech on the the Internet or read some Obama literature for a couple minutes or talk to an Obama staffer at the door.
Obama has more money, he’ll have a better ground game as well, and he’ll be able to have more people knocking on doors than Clinton and talking to people about Senator Obama’s positions and ideology.
The idea that Senator Obama hasn’t been trying to get the Latino vote and Asian-American vote hard enough is a fair thought, and I have no doubt some will feel that way, much as many black voters and disaffected liberals of all types will feel like Clinton is trying to backtrack if she tries to make the case that she needs their vote, too.
I still believe however, that people are more open than that to someone’s message and I know from experience that campaigns don’t have all the right steps all the time and so they HAVE to backtrack, every single election, to someone they for whatever reason didn’t hit. I think a lot of people understand this, they understand that any elected official is supposed to be a representative of the electorate and that means they must ask of the people how they wish to be represented and thusly there aren’t as many people saying, “You weren’t here from the start, why even bother now?”
4. There are long-standing issues between whites and blacks in this country as well. There are lingering concerns between men and women in this country, and those are real as well, but all a candidate can do is try to win as many of those people how they can.
I mean, it is quite evident that black Americans and Mexican Americans have very intense arguments and concerns with each other throughout the nation, and it’s true Korean Americans and black Americans have had similar disputes, but my point is that the numbers in the primary exit polls show that while Obama’s not doing EXCELLENT by any stretch, he’s getting better and better with many groups of Americans and where he campaigns and has offices on the ground, he runs very, very strong.
It’s a sign to myself that although the deep divisions in this country will NOT be healed by Obama, he as a candidate may be able to pull people on one side to the other, and that’s why I feel he’s a better general election candidate.
Posted 13 Feb 2008 at 12:21 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
Texas is coming up. If Obama is going to win Texas, or gain any ground, he has to win over a sizeable amount of Latino voters. I’m stating the obvious, but I for one, am sort of holding my breath and waiting to see what will happen in the Lone Star State.
You and I could probably continue to respectfully debate this particular issue for a very long time and nobody here is interested in that. We do agree on Barack Obama being an agent for change. I do believe that when you listen to the man, and you look at his record and history, you have to be at least a little (just a little) inspired and moved by what he could accomplish for our country. He didn’t just get my vote, he actually earned it over time. I believe that most people, regardless of color, will also be moved by the same things that I see in Obama.
But, Colin, we will see. So, go talk to people. Make sure they vote, and make sure they vote for Obama (especially if they live in Texas!)
Posted 13 Feb 2008 at 1:18 am ¶