Comments

1. Ron wrote:

   Please Clinton supporters vote for McCain because Obama dissed your candidate and does not deserve your vote.

   We need to stay in Iraq longer. We need to go after Iran while more troops are killed in Afghanistan. We need to drill more in U.S. to lower gas prices.

   Vote for McCain - Obama is not ready to lead.

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 7:25 am ¶

2. Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

   Ron’s sarcasm was almost missed if not for the “while more troops are killed in Afghanistan” clause.

   Honestly, I didn’t even watch last night’s remarks. Why?

   A) I know who I’m voting for and I don’t need any further convincing. Plus, I preferred to watch Big Brother and Cosby Show reruns.

   (As an aside, I’ve found the interracial dating / marriage elements on that show to be quite interesting. First, Ollie and April. Then, finding out that Libra’s husband is white. )

   B) I’m a chicken about potential disasters. What in the hell does that mean? Well, I’m the person who flips the channel away from an ice skating event just as the skater leaps because I don’t want to see the actual fall. I look at the floor and try to mentally take myself elsewhere when I am in a room while someone is giving an embarrassingly awful speech. I can’t watch the bad auditions from American Idol because I just feel so bad for them.

   In many ways, that’s the way I viewed last night’s speech coming in. I was so afraid that something utterly horrible would be said that I couldn’t watch. And it’s not just because it’s Hillary. I probably will avoid tonight and *ugh* Thursday just to avoid witnessing a potentially bad moment.

   I know that means I could miss something historic, but that’s what youtube, CNN, etc. is for. I need to know that there isn’t a disaster before I can watch.

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:43 am ¶

3. Tariq Nelson wrote:

   I think that the Obama team is running a poor campaign. I don’t see Obama getting much of a bump out of this

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:56 am ¶

4. different Ali wrote:

   I only really watched Clinton’s speech although I was walking in and out of the room while some of the other speeches were going on so I caught I couple lines of those.

   My random 3 thoughts:
   1 holy crap can we please stop mentioning god every 2 minutes? I know religion is important to a lot of Americans but seriously, what about the non Christians/deists/agnostics/atheists/etc.? There is nothing wrong with NOT mentioning god in every freaking speech!

   2 I like Obama, I like Clinton. Both of them (and their camps) have done some infuriating things throughout the campaign but overall they leave me more with a good taste in my mouth than bad. Is there any way we could merge the 2 and somehow get the benefits of both while leaving behind both their negatives, pretty please?

   3 I really should have turned off my TV right after Clinton finished her speech. I should have known better than to think the talking heads would wait til this morning before they started ripping into her again about how A: she didn’t do enough and therefore hurt the party, and B: she was too good and therfore hurt the party.

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 9:04 am ¶

5. cosmicsistren wrote:

   I didn’t watch hellary clinton last night because I think that she is a hypocrite. I was at the gym yesterday and I saw the new commerical from John McCain featuring H. clinton. She had praised McCain and said that he would make a fine president. Then she said the only experience obama has regarding foreign policy was a speech he gave in 2002. If he loses the election H.Clinton will have played a part in it.

   Can someone please explain to me what the obama campaign has done to the clintons to generate such bad feelings amongst both camps? Why is it that we are still hearing about Hellary when she didnt’ win the primary? How come noone has mentioned that Obama has helped Hellary with her campaign debt? That he has a link to her website on his but there is nothing about Obama on hers? Someone please help me to figure this out?

   I am so glad that I am registered as an independent.

   [Mod Note - Do not call Hillary “Hellary.” There is no need for that at all, and it will quickly derail this conversation. Further comments in this vein will be deleted. - LDP]

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

6. Mary wrote:

   I can’t believe all the time and energy that has gone into appeasing Hillary Clinton supporters, instead of ripping into Bush and McCain at every opportunity. Even Pat freaking Buchanan agrees! This is the Democrats’ election to lose, and they’re doing their best.

   I’m hoping Biden brings down the hammer tonight.

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 9:52 am ¶

7. napthia9 wrote:

   There’s a good piece over at Media Matters comparing the behavior and participation of past runners-up at the DNC to Clinton’s behavior this go-round; and finding that while Clinton is more supportive of the winning nominee than her predecessors, the media only presents evidence supporting the narrative that Hillary is to the DNC/Obama campaign as Godzilla is to coastal cities. It’s interesting to see how the media manages to make negative smears about Hillary reflect badly on Obama too.

   The focus on Hillary supporters now voting for McCain seems equally odd to me. I know it happens, but I wonder why Hillary-supporters who aren’t voting now, or are voting for McKinney never seem to be mentioned. The Hillary-turned-McCain narrative supports a lot of narratives about this election, but not only does it obscure McKinney’s candidacy (who seems like the natural protest vote for Dems, and is a solid candidate herself), the sheer stupidity/racism exercised by many Hillary supporters voting for McCain makes it nearly impossible to notice any reasonable qualms some Dems/independent might still have about Obama. And this in turn makes it difficult to assuage these fears. Even when the Obama campaign trys, the media can’t let it go out without a thousand pundits saying that it doesn’t mean what it says.

   I don’t much understand the use of political conventions, so I haven’t been watching, but I do find it strange that a.)nothing important is decided or discussed at convention, and b.)no matter what goes on at the DNC, the media seems to talk up the negatives. (Even to the point where Karl Rove is apparently qualified to criticize Michelle Obama’s patriotism. And Michelle Obama probably does more for the US on her day off than Karl Rove did in twenty years!)

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 9:53 am ¶

8. cosmicsistren wrote:

   @LDP - Whether I use and e or I what difference does it make? You are quick to comment on that but not answer my questions? I think you are overreacting. The tone of my post wasn’t meant to derail the conversation. Give me a break!

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:06 am ¶

9. different Ali wrote:

   Here’s the article I think napthia9’s refering to
   http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005

   Definitely worth the read.

   Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:07 am ¶

10. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @comicsistren -

    Maybe you haven’t had to moderate multiple conversations in which there are both HRC supporters and Obama supporters on the same thread spitting at each other because someone wanted to be cute and say some shit like shrillary or insuinate that Obama is a fucking wifebeater, or start pulling that Obama bin Laden bullshit but I am fucking sick of those conversations and I am not having it.

    You threw your questions out to the room - I am letting the room respond.

    But you’re out of line. I said stop, and you will stop or you won’t comment here. Simple as that.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:10 am ¶

11. different Ali wrote:

    @Mary, this is from a commenter at Shakesville that I think explains your point better than I could express:
    “Because once your favored candidate loses, the reasons you didn’t support the other candidate do not suddenly disappear. People who assume that getting over Clinton’s loss will automatically mean supporting Obama also assume that anyone who doesn’t support Obama just hasn’t “gotten over it.”"
    Personally, I think the Obama camp can easily multitask the two (winning over ambivalent Clinton supporters and ripping into McCain) quite nicely if they only tried.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:18 am ¶

12. RJG wrote:

    What’s really obnoxious is that I can see Democrats losing this election because of petty infighting.

    We have anti-Obama Democrats nicknaming Obama “Obamanation” (hurrhurr), we have anti-Hillary Democrats nicknaming Hillary “Hellary”, “Hitlery,” (hurrhurrhurr), and somehow the best both of these shining examples of maturity can do for McCain is go “WELL HE’S OLD YOU KNOW”

    I mean shit, can’t we at least all get together and call him McCan’t or something? Guys? Gals? Anyone?

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:33 am ¶

13. RJG wrote:

    @different Ali:

    But, really, a lot of the reasons Hillary supporters are saying they don’t like Obama isn’t because of anything he did. It isn’t even for anything he didn’t do. It’s because Hillary lost and that’s unfair because she should have won and the states she agreed to have not count didn’t get counted and they were robbed of their person winning and WE’LL SHOW YOU GUYS ARRRRRGH.

    A lot of Hillary supporters are at least acting like they’re just mad Obama won, so they’re refusing to support him to show support for Hillary, who they believe can still win via some kind of convoluted write in vote.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:40 am ¶

14. Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

    “I know it happens, but I wonder why Hillary-supporters who aren’t voting now, or are voting for McKinney never seem to be mentioned. * * * [I]t obscure[s] McKinney’s candidacy (who seems like the natural protest vote for Dems, and is a solid candidate herself)…”

    I hope this doesn’t come across the wrong way, and if it does: “my bad.” I think Hillary’s voters that will now go to McKinney aren’t mentioned because McKinney isn’t mentioned.

    Then we turn to why McKinney isn’t mentioned. Well, aside from the possibility that she (like Ralph Nader) can play a spoiler by taking just enough votes to arguably replay the 2000 results, McKinney (like Nader) is irrelevant.

    Are McKinney or Nader (or others ) valid candidates with legitimate points of view? I’m not sure it matters because they simply cannot win. They could probably announce that they have the solution for the war, the economy and cancer ready to roll out when they are sworn in. It wouldn’t matter. I don’t think McKinney’s candidacy is obscured by the media’s failure to discuss her ability to pick up Hillary voters. I think her candidacy is obscured by the fact that she simply cannot win because she is not running as one of the two main party candidates.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

15. Cuppachica wrote:

    I’m beginning to think that a lot of these so-called Hillary supporters who keep saying they are voting for McCain are just conservative plants being used to distract from the real issues. They are the equivalent of the “swiftboat” people from the 2004 election. It is really disappointing to see how the media and how other democratic politicians have spun this whole issue into a “Obama needs to work harder to win these voters back”, when the fact is that these people were never going to vote for Obama in the first place. And most of them were probably not going to vote for Hillary, either.

    People seem to have forgotten the fact that in many media markets, republican/conservative voters had been encouraged to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, so that she would win the nomination, because they thought that Hillary was such a polarizing figure (and that her attachment to Bill Clinton would be such a problem) that she would surely lose a general election against John McCain.

    Also, the Clintons’ and some of their political behavior is still serving as a huge distraction in the race. Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell, and others are still making critical comments about Obama on the record, yet it is somehow solely Obama’s responsibility to “unite the democratic party”.

    While I do think that Obama needs to make some changes in his approach now that we only have approximately 10 weeks left in the campaign (like getting down to specifics on his economic plan), his fellow democrats need to stop sabotaging his campaign, put their personal grievances aside, and get with the program.

    Michelle Obama’s speech was nice, but it’s sad that she had to give that speech, instead focusing on the issues. That just goes to show how racist this society still is… when the wife of a presidential candidate has to give a speech during the convention explaining to everyone that just because she and her family are black, they are human, too.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:44 am ¶

16. Ron wrote:

    I just want someone to be graphic and vivid and tell me why a John McCain administration is not better than a Barak Obama administration.

    Mr. Obama has failed to get across why people should vote for him instead of McCain.

    I predicted this would happen because like usual the Democrats cannot get themselves together.

    I think this is a direct result of the multiplicity of divergent interests.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 10:45 am ¶

17. iman wrote:

    I think this whole idea of bitter Clinton supporters has been disproportionately blown up. It makes good TV to have a delegate crying for what could have been with Hillary. I thought Hillary’s speech was perfect - and so did Spike Lee and I can’t imagine a tougher critic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7583552.stm). Maybe I am being naive and gullible but I really believed her this time (as opposed to her last major speech when she suspended her race). There was real emotion and I loved that she took (in my opinion) a stronger feminist stand and included the issue of race - for instance, by making a reference to Tubman, she positioned herself as an heir to both the abolitionist/civil rights movement and the feminist one and this has been the missing link in her campaign I think. You could just see the disappointment on the pundits’ faces when they realized that she had not given them much to criticize and I was happy when one of them (I can’t remember her name right now) pointed out CNN’s eagerness to find the one weeping Hillary supporter and use her in the beginning of their segment.

    And as for the purpose of the DNC - granted most of it consists of near rabid delegates hopped up on cocktails, but I think it’s a great morale builder. At the risk of sounding trite, I admit to being incredibly moved by Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama (& her adorable kids!) and Hillary & Chelsea. Just seeing these people with such different backgrounds sharing the same stage and in support of the same cause is really inspiring.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 11:23 am ¶

18. Celeste wrote:

    I personally can’t understand all this hating on Obama. I could maybe understand if some wife-beating/raping asshole like Mister from the Color Purple just got nominated. But he’s really not. The idea that these people would rather have McCain in office for whatever reason (easier to run against in 2012, maverick, white..etc) has me baffled. The reponse from these PUMA people is reminding me of Missy Anne from Roots.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 12:22 pm ¶

19. napthia9 wrote:

    @different Ali: Yes, that’s the article. Thanks!

    @Jus Plain Ole Me:
    I agree that the main reason McKinney isn’t getting a lot of coverage is because she is a third party candidate and expected to play the spoiler role, at best. It’s precisely because McKinney is in the spoiler role that I think she should be getting more coverage than she is.

    In the past two or three elections, the Green Party candidate has gotten attention for nabbing potential Dem voters, regardless of whether or not they’ve ever had a real shot at winning. But this go round, the media is talking about McCain as if he is both the Dem spoiler and the Rep choice. As Cuppachica points out, it’s not given that many of Hillary+McCain supporters were ever going to support the Dem nominee no matter who it was; whereas if there’s one thing we know about the Green Party platform, it’s that it strongly appeals to people with progressive values who feel that voting for the Dem candidate is voting for the lesser of two evils. There certainly are Dem Hillary supporters throwing their votes to McCain out of spite, but one wonders if their numbers are exaggerated to fit a narrative, and if the media manipulates the trend by failing to mention McKinney. Regardless of whether or not she can win the presidential election, it’s misleading to leave McKinney out when talking about where disillusioned or unhappy Dems will be taking their vote.

    @Cuppachica: Something to mule over in addition to the “Republicans voting Democrat b/c of Machiavellian plan” theory: I knew a few conservative women who sincerely got excited about a viable female candidate and were willing to jump party lines for that. They had little enthusiasm for the Republican field during the primaries, but I notice most of them grew fonder of McCain as the weeks went on, so it’s hard to tell who they would have voted for in a McCain-Clinton election.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶

20. JD/ formerly J wrote:

    I think the MSM as an enterprise is about money like everything else in this country. People want to sell papers. Ratings matter. This is less about objective reporting than it is about generating MTV Real World Drama. Apparently, the public has shown itself to be more interested in WWE style political commentating than reflecting the possibility that there are Hillary supporters who recognise that Obama’s policies are 98% the same as Hillary’s whereas McCain are the polar opposite. Real feminists care that McCain can call his wife a ‘cunt’ in the presence of others. That he is okay with gender inequities in salaries. Those women are there. Not all in Hillary-land are PUMAs

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶

21. JD/ formerly J wrote:

    I mean of all the women on the floor CNN chose to interview the bawling lady crying for Hillary. If they meant to shape the narrative a different way they could have shown someone else who had decided to vote for Hilary after all. They chose not to. They know what they are doing. This is not about the truth. This is about what is exciting.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶

22. Nadra wrote:

    Cuppachica:

    “That just goes to show how racist this society still is… when the wife of a presidential candidate has to give a speech during the convention explaining to everyone that just because she and her family are black, they are human, too.”

    I completely agree.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶

23. atlasien wrote:

    “I just want someone to be graphic and vivid and tell me why a John McCain administration is not better than a Barak Obama administration.”

    Here’s an attempt.

    McCain elected:

    – Abortion made illegal. Any woman who can’t afford to go to Canada for an abortion has to have the baby or get an illegal one.
    – Tax burden falling much heavier on the middle class. Growing divide between rich and poor, slum towns versus walled enclaves, leading to a society and economy paralleling Brazil circa 1990s.
    – Humane and environmental catastrophe along border due to massive fence.
    – Social services increasingly privatized and handed off to predominantly evangelical Christian charities, who restrict their aid to only the right kinds of believers.
    – I could go on… but a McCain administration would also mean a terrifyingly high chance of starting WWIII, in which case none of the above would matter, we’d be too busy scrabbling for food and trying not to die of radiation sickness on our way to climb that fence so we can flee into Mexico.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 1:39 pm ¶

24. Mary wrote:

    McCain’s jokes about “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” and murdering them with cigarettes is eerily reminiscent of Bush’s mockery of Karla Faye Tucker.

    Neither man takes human life seriously. If you aren’t one of “the right people,” not only do you deserve to die, but Bush and McCain reserve the right to laugh while you do.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶

25. JD/ formerly J wrote:

    lol..atlasien…cross the border we built ourselves to escape into Mexico….that was a good image
    Did anyone see the PUMA that Larry King interviewed after Senator Clinton’s speech? I fear that so much effort is being expended on these women that we will not have time to go after the Repubs and the independents.

    I am sorry I dont know if these people care to be reached….If they can’t see that the economy is hurting and their male family members are soon to be shipped off to Iraq or wherever else McCain can start a fight then let us leave them to it…

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶

26. A. wrote:

    I want to marry Keith Olbermann.

    He told a whole lot of these white women who want to vote for McCain because they’re still butthurt about Hillary that, basically, McCain is everything that they stand against, and that they were never for Hillary in the first place if they’re that petty.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶

27. Broom wrote:

    Did anyone catch Jimmy carter’s interview? (with his bright red terminator eyeball?) well, he is the first person I have heard say without any hesitations or qualifying statements attached that once Obama is elected to the white house, racism is over. Period. The commentators asked him to clarify and he said black president = no racism. This is what I am afraid for, in line with the myth of progress our country continues to cultivate. But like Dead Prez said, “don’t let Obama put us to sleep- We’ll still be saying fuck uncle sam”

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶

28. gatamala wrote:

    Michelle Obama’s speech was nice, but it’s sad that she had to give that speech, instead focusing on the issues. That just goes to show how racist this society still is… when the wife of a presidential candidate has to give a speech during the convention explaining to everyone that just because she and her family are black, they are human, too.

    This made me sad too Cuppa. If people can’t see her humanity at this point, then there is no hope for them. I will no longer acknowledge the suffering of people who will not accept the humanity and American-ness of blacks.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:40 pm ¶

29. Free wrote:

    Tonight, the roll call votes. Hillary will be in nomination against Barack. And Bill should be at Mile High Stadium on Thursday as a show of respect, (sorry, Bill but you ARE NOT the Nation’s first black President).

    @Cuppachica - People seem to have forgotten the fact that in many media markets, republican/conservative voters had been encouraged to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries

    Yeah. I’ve been wondering about that McCain ad with the former Hillary supporter endorsing McCain. Truthful? Someone should investigate.

    Michelle Obama’s speech was the burden of transcending race. She had to swallow her truth to regurgitate nonsense. She was restricted to defending the Robinson/Obama family roots and patriotism by rehashing those tired ass cliches of work-class white America. I know that’s what she had to say, it’s politics, but where is the politics of change, of hope? (scanning the horizon).

    One of the talking heads envisioned Michelle as more of a Laura Bush first lady. In other words, she’s gonna keep her place. *SIGH* ‘Aint she a woman too?

    Re: Hillary Clinton’s speech. Her speech was a lot of Me,Me,Me,Me, with two saving graces: she asked her supporters if they were in this for themselves or for something greater outside of their own self-interests and the slogan, No Way, No How, No McCain. I hope they contemplate.

    @ different Ali - Yes, I too am tried of all that praising god, and although I support Obama, the theocratic aspect of his is candidacy as well as the FISA vote are troubling. But I’m not surprised by all this religious pandering since there has been a secret theocracy influencing the U.S. government and political processes for centuries. If you haven’t already, read The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet. Hillary’s a member. Here’s a free excerpt:
    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

30. mahsi b. wrote:

    Michelle Obama’s speech saddedned me, not just because she had to make it to prove she wasn’t a militant abw (angry black woman). But because she basically marginalized herself as just a wife and mother.
    It saddens me that she minimalised the very thing that makes her such a great role model for young black women, the fact that she is an educated accomplished women, who is great at her career, just so she can placate mainstream America/ white working class voters.
    I think what threatens faux news and the like are that she isn’t what they expect, not just from a black first lady, but any first lady– independence, passion, and wit. I just think it’s worse for her than it was for Hillary because she already has to fight against the black women stereotypes.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:21 pm ¶

31. sahoo.coabrina olson wrote:

    WHAT ABOUT THAT “smootch: Obama gave Jill Biden?-after his speach-and than again he gave her a little too much in the line up–again a peck too much on the mounth. Thoughts anyone.. Could be weird for those southern’s to adjust to. He needs to watch that.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 1:31 am ¶

32. sabrina olson wrote:

    The “SMOOTCH” seen around the world. Not good I think–a little too unhibitated

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 1:33 am ¶

33. sabrina olson wrote:

    HELLO.. WAKE UP everyone…Biden is one minute focused on this [our] country and the next Georgia Russia. He gave me pause is all I’m saying…Same with Macain, well, don’t just tell me what I want to hear for now and than turn out to be a progressive expansionist and unrelateable president like Bush—focused on everyone else’s country [and enriching himself more than anyone]…Been there..Done that ya know. Signed Former Republican

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 1:40 am ¶

34. Aisha wrote:

    Broom

    I caught Jimmy’s MSNBC interview as well. I couldn’t believe he said that racism would be over. I’m so not looking forward to “well you have a black president so shut up” conversations.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

35. Princess wrote:

    Michelle Obama’s speech during opening night of the DNC was awesome in my opinion since she is not the presidential candidate. As she stated during pre and post-speech interviews, she wrote it and their team of experts helped fine-tune it.

    She further stated, this speech is pretty much what she has been doing all along on the campaign trail on behalf of her husband Senator Obama.

    Some of the post-speech questions and comments by the interviewers displeased me. Things like, “you reintroduced yourself” and “Did you actually write this speech?” Michelle Obama is a brilliant Harvard educated woman, attorney, business woman, excellent communicator and more. So, why all of the shock concerning her ability to create and deliver a great speech ?

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do and it’s important not to buy in to the MSM hype concerning the number of disgruntled Clinton supporters that will vote for McCain or even undecided voters. At this point most voters with a solid voting record know exactly how they will vote in this election.

    In essence, based upon what Americans decide to do as whole in November will determine the outcome. We will get the President we deserve.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 9:21 am ¶

36. Anonymous wrote:

    I will not be voting this year. I don’t think McCain or Obama are good for America.
    So I will not be voting this year cause frankly my dears “I don’t give a damn who wins!”
    So whom ever does win God please help us! we are going to need it.
    Ann

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 10:43 am ¶

37. Lyonside wrote:

    Ann/Anonymous: I accept someone not wanting to vote for either of the 2 main candidates. Do you know there are 2-3 other candidates for the top slot?

    But not voting at all? Regardless, please go out and vote anyway… for your local commissioner or mayer, for state offices, for reforandums, for purchasing open space, etc. There is more to voting than national elections, and often those local and state decisions are made with very few voter turnout, but with a greater immediate effect on you, Jane Citizen.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 10:52 am ¶

38. Mary wrote:

    How can someone live through 8 years of the Clinton administration, which were reasonably good if not perfect; and then live through 8 years of the Bush administration, in which we turned a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in history, suffered the worst terrorist attack on our soil, got involved in 2 costly and unending wars, made up a bullshit “Axis of Evil”, saw the cost of living skyrocket, unemployment skyrocket, the citizens of New Orleans left to fend for themselves after a catastrophic natural disaster, conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court, habeas corpus rolled back, corrupt assholes like Alberto Gonzales only hiring right-wingers for the Justice Department, etc. etc. etc….

    … how can you look at all that and tell me there’s no difference who wins?

    I’m not telling anybody else how to vote. But I think “they’re all the same” is an argument that is absolutely false and not based in reality.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶

39. Squidfly wrote:

    Michelle Obama understands Politics, she understands the stakes. Her speech was well crafted,smart, and designed to quell the noise from a white owned, male media. The only thing Bill Kristol could say was “Tepid” Subtext; he was thrown for a loop. I think she’s phenomenal for her understanding of the landscape and it’s so much fun to watch her, because she knows what’s up, so does Barak. This whole campaign has been a referendum on the Obama’s, and could they stand the scrutiny? Which they have done. Her speech was the right speech for that place, and that time. The objective is to get elected and keep the focus on where it should be.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶

40. Colin A. B. wrote:

    Not voting, to me, signals cowardice. Intellectual cowardice. Either you read up, even a small bit, on the offices in your area and your country, or you roll up into a ball and sleep-walk your way through life as you complain the country is continually headed in the wrong direction. I say one should vote as a measure of bravery because once you vote, you are more likely to get involved than before, and you might be the crucial part of a movement that actually changes America and the world for the better. But, you’ll never know because voting and researching the election is just too gosh darn difficult.

    Sen. Obama and his campaign are too soft, but Biden is a good VP choice. He really does go to work on tearing down McCain, which, as a symbol, needs to be torn down. Brother Barack has to really draw a lot of distinctions, I would think, to get his message across, you know, that whole “I’m the guy who should be Prez” message, but I see this speech as being one of his harshest yet.

    I think Michelle’s speech was great, but the predictable coverage was so very sad. She “needs” to show she loves America? Really? That’s preposterous, except in America I guess.

    John Kerry and Hillary Clinton had some of the best lines, I think. “[John McCain] has to end the debate with himself” -Kerry AND “It figures that Bush and McCain would be in the Twin Cities because they’re getting awfully hard to tell apart.”-Clinton

    I continue to worry that I’m fixating too much on this part of the election (Obama’s bid) but I cannot resist the pull of history it seems. I don’t think Obama’s going to lose, but it is slipping away unless he swings back and hard. Oh well.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶

41. gatamala wrote:

    Not voting, to me, signals cowardice. Intellectual cowardice

    Bullshit! As folks have the franchise, they have the right or even the moral inclination NOT to exercise it. They DO however, give up the right to complain.

    After Hillary’s and her surrogate’s racially coded attacks in the face of my demographic’s [blind] loyalty, I could not vote for her. I feel that voting should be an affirmative act. I’m personally tired of voting against people.

    But I think “they’re all the same” is an argument that is absolutely false and not based in reality.

    I suppose it depends on WHAT you’re comparing. Outcomes, methods…in addition to stated policies.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶

42. bdsista wrote:

    to not exercise your right to vote IS intellectual cowardice and a lack of sensitivity to those of use whose parents (like mine) spent half their lives not being able to vote. It dishonors those who gave their lives so ALL Americans can vote, remember Goodman, Chaney and Schwermer? and Medgar? and? the list is endless!!! If you are not willing to do your homework and research the candidates, including the alternative/independant ones, then hell, emigrate and go someplace where you can’t damn vote and let someone else come in this country who gives a damn!
    @Broom, loved the comment, I almost got caught laughing loud at work.
    @Aisha, get ready for years of RACISM IS OVER!!! WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT!!! Never mind, its not Barack we deal with every day, its all the other Aholes, who are in denial and won’t deal with their stuff. Oh and new litmus test will be, “See I’m not racist, I voted for Obama”.
    I have watched this stuff faithfully for years and when I miss a speech I go online and watch it again. This truly is historic and the remaining King kids are speaking tonight, and I can’t wait to hear them. I thought the speech by the woman soldier injured in Iraq was very strong. I heard it on the radio coming home. Thank God for NPR. I only wish this convention came after the Republicans. I am still trying to figure out how to cover my two-car garage with a big Obama sign and not violate the housing covenants…..

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 3:02 pm ¶

43. kerrita k. wrote:

    hilary’s speech reminds me why she had my heart before the campaign turned (racially) ugly.
    -kerrita k.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶

44. JC wrote:

    I’m really happy to hear Hillary’s speech. I doubt it will change the mind of her hardcore white feminist fans though… a defeat for Obama means their girl will get another chance in 4 years. Doesn’t bode well for Obama.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶

45. Larettj wrote:

    While this election has many layers, we cannot overlook the fact that many of the phenomena discussed here are universal to most campaigns. The wife of a candidate RARELY/possible never really hammers out policy. Unless they have been intimately involved in the policy making process in their own lives, they do not have a platform to speak from. Michelle Obama is an incredible, very well-educated woman, however her relationship to Barack Obama is a personal one and it simply makes sense for her to speak to that. The fact that she has been portrayed as an angry black woman is horrible and troubling, but even if she hadn’t her speech would have been largely the same (perhaps with different implications, though).

    As for white feminists not voting in the election or not voting for Obama, this is unlikely. Frequently, in heated primary contests the strongest supporters of a candidate insist they will not vote in the election. However, this rarely happens. Southwell (1986) finds that turnout really doesn’t change regardless of the distress of nomination losers.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 7:05 pm ¶

46. Princess wrote:

    Political speeches aren’t the total picture in any election. Some of the best speeches in the history of presidential elections have been delivered by Senator Obama. However, Obama has demonstrated a strong sense of unity and he has also reached across Party lines.

    At this juncture, Senator Clinton’s speech may not persuade all of her “feminist” supporters to focus on unity. Unity among all ranks of the Democratic Party is greatly needed in order to achieve victory in November. This is the bigger picture.

    In my opinion, a defeat for Obama and the Democratic Party does not automatically mean Clinton will get another chance in 4 years. Anyone willing to jeopardize now for a chance at later may be forfeiting progress.

    Unity cannot simply be idle chit chat. Those in leadership must ask themselves whether or not they are a part of the problem or solution. Democratic Party leaders must raise the bar concerning true unity and lead by example.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 9:03 pm ¶

47. Sam wrote:

    This just shows what a deep thinker John McCain is and how he has taken “flip flopping” to a whole new level.

    I find it eye popping that John McCain would base his entire campaign on attacking Barack Obama”s “lack of experience” and how his surrogates keep trumpeting that “we don’t know who Obama is” and then choose a 44 year old first term governor, who’s political experience entails small town (population 9,000) local government. Until today, I have to think that 99% of Americans have never heard of her.

    We have heard of indicted Republican Senator Ted Stevens, from Alaska, who seems to be in the same GOP club as convicted senator Duke Cunningham …

    Mr. Mccain is grasping at whatever he can to stop the bounce he knew Obama would get from the convention. I read that six (6) confirmed GOP senators won’t even attend the convention in fear of association and that they bussed in people from all over just to get a 15,000 person audience in Dayton for the VP announcement. Obama drew 85,000 and had to turn away another 20,000 in Denver and drew a crowd of 200,000 in Germany … do you think the EU wants to see some change and the best the GOP and McCain can do is call him a “pop star”.

    It’s hard to be effective with such little ammunition and I don’t mean the type of ammunition John Mc Cain is so in love with.

    It’s a clear statement of desperation and is just baffling, not to mention enormously contradictory.

    Statistics don’t help either. Here is a 72 year old American, where average life expectancy is 75, with a history of cancer which required radical surgery, as well as other implied health challenges and Americans are supposed to get a warm and cozy feeling from Ms. Palin as our potential president? No way … level headed republicans can’t buy into this … I think Obamacons just got a big boost

    Ben Stein and team are really challenged now, what are they going to attack … McCain just eliminated the “experience” and “familiarity” card. His handlers / advisors have to be pulling their hair out.

    Mr. McCain is a patriot and appreciated for his service to our country, but he is demonstrating everyday why he shouldn’t be president … not to worry, he can still serve in the senate and if he gets tired, he can jump on his private jet and retreat to one of his homes, (not sure how many) oh yea seven (7) and everything will be OK.

    Thank you for your valuable time!

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶

48. napthia9 wrote:

    Just wanted to add, since I mentioned McKinney earlier, that Womanist Musings had an interesting post back on June 12 about McKinney as a ‘fallback’ candidate. I don’t agree with it 100%, but it’s interesting.
    http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/06/cynthia-mckinney-fallback-choice.html

    Re: DNC
    Upon hearing that neither major party filed in time to get their candidates on the ballot, I sort of wish the Dems had pushed the DNC back one week and pointed out how ill-prepared the Republicans were. Both candidates have been allowed on the ballot regardless of the rules, and it’s unlikely the Republican candidate would stay off the ballot in any case, but it would have been nice.

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 8:53 pm ¶

Post a Comment