When All You Have Is A Victim Complex…

Professional race pimp and nutpicker extraordinaire Lanny Davis frets about criticizing Obama without sounding like a bigot. You have to admit that it’s a pretty creative way for Davis to maintain the coveted victim status.

Meanwhile normal people manage to do it all the time. Honestly, if you look at a guy and can’t think of a single criticism that doesn’t sound racist then maybe you are a little racist.






110 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab says:

    Is America Ready For A President That Eats This Much Fried Chicken?

    What? It’s a legitimate concern!

  2. 2
    bootlegger says:

    When I heard the Repubs were conducting secret focus-group research to test out various attacks I damn near gagged. If you have to test whether or not you are crossing a line maybe you shouldn’t go in that direction in the first place.

  3. 3
    Marchalette says:

    Is America ready for ‘Guess Who’s Coming to the State Dinner’?

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    ZOMG YOU SAID PIMP I SUSPEND YOU FOR A WEEK.

  5. 5
    DougJ says:

    The Clinton supporters remind me more and more of Republicans. They really do. I feel betrayed that I’ve spent fifteen years backing these people to the hilt.

  6. 6
    Jake says:

    I’m sure Mr. Davis is equally sympathetic to people who oppose the Senator from New York.

  7. 7
    Neal says:

    Well, you know they can’t use the trusty old “he’s got a black baby” to much effect with Obama…so I think that leaves these fucks out of ideas.

  8. 8
    Billy K says:

    Sucking up to John by calling him “normal?”

    Lame.

  9. 9
    4tehlulz says:

    I think John just demonstrated why “normal” would not be an adjective I’d associate with him. :p

  10. 10
    Dug Jay says:

    Well, here’s an investigative story on Obama from the Times of London.

  11. 11
    Tim F. says:

    When I heard the Repubs were conducting secret focus-group research to test out various attacks I damn near gagged.

    That at least is not such a big deal. Politicians focus group damn near everything up to and including what brand of wetsuit to go with during their private trysts.

  12. 12
    4tehlulz says:

    Take that shit to Hillaryis44 Dug. They will make you their king.

  13. 13
    Tim F. says:

    Well, here’s an investigative story on Obama from the Times of London.

    You’re certainly right that the story doesn’t make anybody look racist. A bit John Solomonish maybe.

  14. 14
    myiq2xu says:

    If you want to do dishonest hackery Tim, go to work for FOX News or MSNBC.

    Davis was saying that it’s hard to criticize Obama without being accused of being a bigot.

    Just like it’s virtually impossible to repond to the unrelenting attacks against Hillary without the Media, Wingnuttia and the allegedly “lefty” bloggers crying that we’re “playing the victim card.”

  15. 15
    Tim F. says:

    Davis was saying that it’s hard to criticize Obama without being accused of being a bigot.

    I know what he said. Davis worries that Obama supporters will play the exact same race pimp victim card that he did for Joe Lieberman, and I think that’s hilarious.

  16. 16
    TheFountainHead says:

    Well, here’s an investigative story on Obama from the Times of London.

    You know, I read these Rezko articles every single time someone publishes one, and so far I haven’t seen a single one that legitimately links the corrupt antics of Tony Rezko with the Obama home purchase. In life we come across and interact with many characters, some of whom are completely aboveboard in all their dealings and some who are not. Some may be on the up and up with you, but perhaps not so much with others. At the very worst you can say, “As a politician, Obama should have been aware that Rezko was an unsavory character with whom he should have cut all associations with. Even then, I’m not sure you can impugn Obama’s integrity because he knew and sought the advice of a man who made poor decisions in other aspects of his business dealings.

    Shorter: This is DUMBER than Whitewater as near as I can tell, and that’s saying something.

  17. 17
    Cyrus says:

    Thanks for the link, Dug Jay.

    A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

    Both Mr Auchi and Mr Obama say they have no memory of meeting each other. But, according to a source, the two may have had a brief encounter at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago where Mr Auchi’s visit was being honoured with a dinner attended by the Governor when Mr Obama, coincidentally in the hotel, dropped in.

    That’s it. That’s the news. Rezko, in addition to the other stuff he’s accused of, also got a loan from a British billionaire man with previous convictionsIraqi. And that Iraqi apparently never met Obama, but “a source” says they were in the same room once. The other 12,000 characters (very rough estimate) are just rehashing familiar, and inconsequential, Rezko stuff.
    Everyone in the Democratic Party would be as happy as a rat with an endorphin button if scandals and personal attacks against our candidates were no worse than this. Do you know where this would be considered a scandal? Candyland.

  18. 18
    Socraticsilence says:

    my- that’s a good thing, its about time the dbl standards started to work fro us against the GOP (look after Wille Horton, Swift Boats, and Gay Marriage Amendments) if it exposes the Repubs for the unreconstructed dixiecrats many of them are then so much the better

  19. 19
    norbizness says:

    John Solomonism has infected the Times of London!

  20. 20
    zzyzx says:

    I keep looking for the scandal in Rezko and I keep failing to find it. If it can’t be explained in a 30 second ad, I’m not scared.

  21. 21
    Halteclere says:

    If Mr. Davis was smart, he’d just switch to calling Obama a woman. So Obama can still be tarred without resorting to racist dog whistles.

    Until someone called him on that BS also.

  22. 22
    4tehlulz says:

    Do you know where this would be considered a scandal? The New York Times.

    Fixed.

  23. 23
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    So the Times spends three pages on shit and and third-degree accusations just to bury this:

    The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.

    But they don’t say how they couldn’t afford it.

    /yawn/

  24. 24
    Digital Amish says:

    Listening to the news this morning (can’t remember specific program, could have been wingnut radio or cable news) I caught the meme that the Republicans are worried. Worried that Obama presents the problem of not allowing them to be racists without sounding racist. Gotta admit, it is a sticky problem.

  25. 25
    CFisher says:

    Well, I can think of a couple of things you could probably attack Obama on:

    1. No prior executive experience (of course, Senator McCain might not want to bring that up as a negative.)

    2. He’ll grow government. (Oops… I guess Bush already did that too.)

    3. Higher taxes. (Hmm… Higher taxes or sustained yearly deficit spending. I wonder which one wrecks the economy more at this point.)

    4. More government involvement with health care. (Shoot. Bush did that too. Damn it.)

    Uh…

    His middle name is Hussein? (No, that sounds racist.)

    Uh…

    His white mommie was obviously a Commie to marry a black man. (Shit. That sounds racist too.)

    Uh…

    Oh, I know. He wants to talk to the scary brown people before he lobs bombs at them! (Wait. What do you mean ‘That sounds reasonable?’ Dammit!)

  26. 26
    John S. says:

    Davis was saying that it’s hard to criticize Obama without being accused of being a bigot.

    People can get all bent out of shape over perceptions of racism or sexism (Obama said ‘period’, the misogynist!), but unless they have pretty compelling evidence, it sounds hollow and empty. Davis is whining about attacking Obama and being accused of a being a bigot becasue that’s precisely the fucking angle he wants to take, and he laments that.

    As Tim pointed out, one can attack Obama without worrying about being accused of bigotry – provided that their attack isn’t based on racist stereotypes.

  27. 27
    myiq2xu says:

    I know what he said. Davis worries that Obama supporters will play the exact same race pimp victim card that he did for Joe Lieberman, and I think that’s hilarious.

    You mean Holy Joe, Obama’s “mentor?”

    That explains South Carolina

  28. 28
    Zifnab says:

    Everyone in the Democratic Party would be as happy as a rat with an endorphin button if scandals and personal attacks against our candidates were no worse than this. Do you know where this would be considered a scandal? Candyland Alabama.

    Tell that to Don Siegleman, who is spending a few years in the state corrections facility because his friend donated to one of his favorite charities. DKos has extensive write-ups on the absolute insanity of the case, but needless to say we’ve got a man who’s done more time for less crime.

  29. 29
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Just like it’s virtually impossible to repond to the unrelenting attacks against Hillary without the Media, Wingnuttia and the allegedly “lefty” bloggers crying that we’re “playing the victim card.”

    And someday you’ll learn that there are other things in life other than “responding” to every schmoe with a wal-mart computer and a borrowed wi-fi connection.

    Oh, and BTW, you meant “counter-attacking”, instead of “responding”. Us Pony-Fluffers like it when people stick to either owning-up or clarifying. I, myself, am not too enthused by the idea that the President is “the one most prepared and focused to– WAIT, WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY VOICE?? OH IT’S ON NOW MOTHAFUCKA!! HOLD ME BACK!”

  30. 30
    Digital Amish says:

    I read these Rezko articles every single time someone publishes one, and so far I haven’t seen a single one that legitimately links the corrupt antics

    That shouldn’t matter. Read Erick’s Redstate post yesterday complaining that Obama’s name wasn’t tied to the corruption indictment closely enough even though he’s not involved.

  31. 31
    myiq2xu says:

    As Tim pointed out, one can attack Obama without worrying about being accused of bigotry – provided that their attack isn’t based on racist stereotypes.

    Yeah, when the Big Dog said that Obama’s story on Iraq was a “fairy tale” that was a vicious attack based on a racial stereotype, right?

    Good thing Obama called Mr. KKKlinton on that. Just like he called out Hillary KKKlinton when Drudge published a photo that had been circulating for weeks.

  32. 32
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh, and BTW, you meant “counter-attacking”, instead of “responding”. Us Pony-Fluffers like it when people stick to either owning-up or clarifying. I, myself, am not too enthused by the idea that the President is “the one most prepared and focused to—WAIT, WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY VOICE?? OH IT’S ON NOW MOTHAFUCKA!! HOLD ME BACK!”

    Go watch your new “Justice League – The New Frontier” Blu-ray DVD

    You know you bought one, don’t lie

  33. 33
    libarbarian says:

    I think Secret Asian Man said it best

    Long story short: people who are obsessed with race think that everyone else is …. obsessed with race.

  34. 34
    Jen says:

    Yeah, when the Big Dog said that Obama’s story on Iraq was a “fairy tale” that was a vicious attack based on a racial stereotype, right?

    Good thing Obama called Mr. KKKlinton on that. Just like he called out Hillary KKKlinton when Drudge published a photo that had been circulating for weeks.

    Perhaps you could link to Obama doing these things?

  35. 35
    Asti says:

    Well, you know they can’t use the trusty old “he’s got a black baby” to much effect with Obama…so I think that leaves these fucks out of ideas.

    How about “he’s got a white mama?”

    Just curious. I’ve wondered if/when Repubs are going to start in on the mix marriage parentage thing.

  36. 36
    myiq2xu says:

    I read these Rezko articles every single time someone publishes one, and so far I haven’t seen a single one that legitimately links the corrupt antics

    I recall when Rezko’s name first came up in a debate (by Hillary, responding to a negative attack by His Holiness) and Obama said he had only done about 5 hours work for “this man.” (I did not have sex with “that woman”)

    They had been friends and associates for years, and Rezko financed Obama’s start in politics. Suddenly he was “this man” and Obama acted like he barely knew him.

    In criminal law we call that “conciousness of guilt.”

    Remember when Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay was indicted? George Bush said “Ken who?” even though he spent a good part of the 2000 campaign using the Enron corporate jet.

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    Perhaps you could link to Obama doing these things?

    Sure thing big guy, just give me a few minutes. Don’t disappear.

  38. 38
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Go watch your new “Justice League – The New Frontier” Blu-ray DVD

    You know you bought one, don’t lie

    no no, close though. It’s “How to please your Man orally”, on Blu-ray.

    I’m so excited about being a Pony-Fluffer!

  39. 39
    Jen says:

    I’ve wondered if/when Repubs are going to start in on the mix marriage parentage thing.

    NRO took care of that. Hint: it means he’s a Communist.

    Seriously.

  40. 40
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I recall when Rezko’s name first came up in a debate (by Hillary, responding to a negative attack by His Holiness) and Obama said he had only done about 5 hours work for “this man.” (I did not have sex with “that woman”)

    They had been friends and associates for years, and Rezko financed Obama’s start in politics. Suddenly he was “this man” and Obama acted like he barely knew him.

    In criminal law we call that “conciousness of guilt.”

    Remember when Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay was indicted? George Bush said “Ken who?” even though he spent a good part of the 2000 campaign using the Enron corporate jet.

    Jesus, myiq, we all know you’re a lawyer. So, if you’re going to use legal terminology to borrow authority, we’re going to demand you lay the foundation for a case against him.

    Can you?

    Because with the information I’ve seen, it’s barely circumstantial (admitting, though, that I know very little about practice of criminal law). But how about it?

    Did Obama misappropriate political funds to purchase this “mansion”; or did Rezko purchase it for him, concluding that Obama received illicit property?

  41. 41
    myiq2xu says:

    Perhaps you could link to Obama doing these things?

    Calling out Hillary for the Somali picture

  42. 42
    TheFountainHead says:

    In criminal law we call that “conciousness of guilt.”

    Here in reality we call that reality.

    If someone throws a grenade at you, you move away from it.

  43. 43
    myiq2xu says:

    Playing the race victim card in South Carolina:

    RUSSERT (1/15/08): In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this story-line. And true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina—four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race. In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

    OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say.

  44. 44
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Calling out Hillary for the Somali picture

    Yeeeeeah… that’s not good. That’s Obama camp whining.

    MYIQ! LOOK OVER THERE!

    /steals news article out of myiq’s hands/
    /runs away/

    It never happened! lalalalalalaican’thereyou!

  45. 45
    myiq2xu says:

    If someone throws a grenade at you, you move away from it.

    Pretending that you barely know someone who has been your friend and benefactor for years is moving away from a grenade?

    More like a rat deserting a sinking ship.

  46. 46
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Playing the race victim card in South Carolina:

    RUSSERT (1/15/08): In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this story-line. And true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina—four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race. In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

    OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not

    say.

    That one’s not as bad as the Somali reaction; he’s walking it back. Note that I’d give Hillary some points back for walking back mistakes.

  47. 47
    myiq2xu says:

    Because with the information I’ve seen, it’s barely circumstantial (admitting, though, that I know very little about practice of criminal law). But how about it?

    People who learned the law from television misunderstand “circumstantial evidence.”

    If you go to sleep and the ground is clear and dry but it is covered with snow when you wake up, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed. You didn’t see it snow, but you know it happened.

  48. 48
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If you go to sleep and the ground is clear and dry but it is covered with snow when you wake up, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed. You didn’t see it snow, but you know it happened.

    I get that, but I’m in NYC and people are saying it snowed last night because there’s powder on the ground in Trenton. I wouldn’t call bullshit, but there’s still a link missing, no?

    Just because Obama’s dick-of-a-friend took in money and didn’t report it doesn’t funnel straight to “Obama is an ass”

  49. 49
    Shygetz says:

    And now for another exciting episode of “Democrats Eating Their Own.” In this episode, we’ll discuss whether the abandonment of political baggage makes you a savvy soldier dodging explosives, or a disease-laden rodent fleeing disaster. Let’s watch.

  50. 50
    myiq2xu says:

    That one’s not as bad as the Somali reaction; he’s walking it back.

    He “walked it back” after his campaign got busted pushing the “Clintons are racists” meme.

    But he wasn’t running a negative campaign because the media says so.

  51. 51
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    He “walked it back” after his campaign got busted pushing the “Clintons are racists” meme.

    OK, so he doesn’t get that many points back. Admitting you’re wrong before anybody notices is the right thing to do and classy. Admitting you’re wrong after someone notices _is still the right thing to do._

    Same rule still applies to HRC. She’d benefit from actually admitting she was wrong. Her wish to redo the Iraq vote was a wise admission in my eyes.

  52. 52
    TheFountainHead says:

    Myiq, I’m kinda loathe to engage with you on this, because I’ve seen where this usually ends up, but I’ll exchange fire with you for a bit.

    Regarding your sinking ship metaphor, I’m not sure what your point is. Rezko IS a sinking ship, true, but you have yet to prove that Obama was on that ship. In the US court of Law there is no such thing as “Guilty by Association”. Prove to me that Obama was on the ship and took part in putting the holes in it that sinks her, and I’ll grant you your metaphor. I still think mine is more apt. Especially as it’s rather similar to what Clinton said when the picture of her and Bill and Tony Rezko surfaced.

  53. 53
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Do you know where this would be considered a scandal?

    Blogs for Victory (nee Blogs for Bush)!

  54. 54
    Krista says:

    As Tim pointed out, one can attack Obama without worrying about being accused of bigotry – provided that their attack isn’t based on racist stereotypes.

    Yeah, when the Big Dog said that Obama’s story on Iraq was a “fairy tale” that was a vicious attack based on a racial stereotype, right?

    Mm-hm. And when Obama said “periodically”, that was a sexist attack.

    Both sides have supporters who are as sensitive as aeolian harps to anything that could possibly be considered racism or sexism. And both sides have supporters who are dishing out racist or sexist comments. So if we’re going to be judging the candidates by what their supporters are saying, then we could go back and forth all day on which side has more assholes.

    And the answer is: John McCain has more assholes as supporters. Let’s not lose focus here.

  55. 55
    The Other Steve says:

    Ok, Dug Jay and myiq and all the others. I want you to read this article and then take a vote. This is totally unrelated to Obama. It’s about Minnesota’s now Lt. Gov. and a piece of property she sold to a developer in 2000 for six times the market value shortly after pushing through a bill that funded a highway be built near the property.

    Here’s my question:

    How do you regard Molnau’s actions?
    A> Inappropriate
    B> Unethical
    C> Outright fraud
    D> Coincidental

    Cause, I gotta be honest. I’m not sure myself. I know that part of town like the back of my hand. And she’d been pushing that highway for a long time, but we needed a new highway. The existing one goes along the river, and is landlocked to only two lanes. So everybody understood the need of a new highway to reroute traffic. Furthermore it’s a nearby suburb and has had tremendous growth over the past 15 years. So given that this area was being developed, and her family had owned the land for like 80 years, so it’s not like she was property speculating. Did she do anything that a normal citizen wouldn’t have done?

    I say it’s a toss up.

  56. 56
    myiq2xu says:

    Just because Obama’s dick-of-a-friend took in money and didn’t report it doesn’t funnel straight to “Obama is an ass”

    That’s why they call it “money laundering.” The goal is how to move “dirty” money from point A thru a washing machine at point B and then to point C(andidate) where it can be spent.

    From FDL:

    Add to that this golden oldie from the Chicago Tribune.

    Nowhere was Obama’s ability to navigate Springfield’s subcultures on better display than at The Committee Meeting. That was the code name for Wednesday night poker games attended by about a dozen lawmakers and lobbyists. Obama was a regular, and his stingy betting became a running joke with those at the table.

    –snip–

    An exception to his disciplined routine was the poker game held inside the headquarters of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, the big business lobby whose legislative goals often were at odds with those of liberals like Obama.

    Handed a cigar and cocktail on the way in, players left a few hundred dollars richer or poorer. Obama played liked he legislated, “slowly, deliberately, cautiously,” recalled Jacobs.
    The ChiTrib doesn’t explicitly say whether he won or lost. And I am certainly not suggesting he lost. To the contrary, the segment highlighted, suggests he DIDN’T lose.

    One of the things that came out about Abramoff et al. was that they would invite Congress critters to play poker and wine and dine in a hotel suite that the lobbyist paid for, and then let them win. It was a way of passing money to them without leaving a paper trail. The Chicago events were hosted at the HQ of a lobbying organization, I think it’s fair to assume that the cocktails and Cohibas were provided by the hosts and the article makes a point of saying that he was a stingy better and a cautious player–directly suggesting that he seldom lost.

  57. 57
    The Other Steve says:

    The thing with the Rezko story. If someone can show to me that Obama passed a law, or did an earmark, or something which put government money in rezko’s pocket… you’ve got a story.

    Until then all you’ve got is a sale of property, which isn’t a crime last time I looked.

  58. 58
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Cause, I gotta be honest. I’m not sure myself. I know that part of town like the back of my hand.

    As well she should. It is the nature of good politicians to be very — or entirely — invested in the area they represent. But that’s always going to give incentive to sway judgment, and that’s going to cause disenfranchisement for some constituents, and some ruleset is required to force politicians to neutralize the impact of their investments.

    The ruleset is “ethics”.

    Answer is (B), minimum.

  59. 59
    John S. says:

    Mm-hm. And when Obama said “periodically”, that was a sexist attack.

    Ha!

    That was the first part of my comment that myiq left out:

    People can get all bent out of shape over perceptions of racism or sexism (Obama said ‘period’, the misogynist!), but unless they have pretty compelling evidence, it sounds hollow and empty.

    Sadly, myiq2xu has stooped to cherrypicking comments out of context in order to battle his own strawmen in order score points for Hillary.

    I can’t wait for this primary to be over.

  60. 60
    The Other Steve says:

    I’m convinced myiq is Darrell.

  61. 61
    TheFountainHead says:

    One of the things that came out about Abramoff et al. was that they would invite Congress critters to play poker and wine and dine in a hotel suite that the lobbyist paid for, and then let them win. It was a way of passing money to them without leaving a paper trail. The Chicago events were hosted at the HQ of a lobbying organization, I think it’s fair to assume that the cocktails and Cohibas were provided by the hosts and the article makes a point of saying that he was a stingy better and a cautious player—directly suggesting that he seldom lost.

    All of which is bupkis (and really reaching at that) unless you can also make some allegation that a.) money actually was filtered through these games into his campaign or b.) Obama worked against his constituents to pursue the interests of those lobbying him in such a manner. Well?

  62. 62
    myiq2xu says:

    Cause, I gotta be honest. I’m not sure myself.

    I don’t know all the facts but you lay out a prima facie case to justify a corruption investigation.

    Politicians and their friends have been getting rich for years buying and selling land next to government development projects. Just ask Denny Hastert.

    Sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. Usually, it’s shady as hell but you can’t prove anything because the participants were careful not to leave evidence.

    I remember an old line about political corruption where a politician tells a lobbyist: “We can talk money, or we can talk politics. But we can’t talk about them at the same time because that’s illegal”

  63. 63
    myiq2xu says:

    All of which is bupkis (and really reaching at that) unless you can also make some allegation that a.) money actually was filtered through these games into his campaign or b.) Obama worked against his constituents to pursue the interests of those lobbying him in such a manner. Well?

    Maybe the genuflecting media should look into this?

    Patrick Fitzgerald is working on it.

  64. 64
    myiq2xu says:

    I’m convinced myiq is Darrell.

    You better ask TZ about that.

  65. 65
    tBone says:

    You mean Holy Joe, Obama’s “mentor?”

    I wonder how Holy Joe felt when Obama backed Lamont in the general?

    Just like it’s virtually impossible to repond to the unrelenting attacks against Hillary without the Media, Wingnuttia and the allegedly “lefty” bloggers crying that we’re “playing the victim card.”

    If you’d “respond” to attacks on Hillary with anything other than trolling and whiny rants about how Obama is worse, people might take you more seriously. Just sayin’.

  66. 66
    TheFountainHead says:

    Patrick Fitzgerald is working on it.

    I have no fucking doubt. It will be more sound and fury, signifying nothing, I imagine.

  67. 67
    myiq2xu says:

    The thing with the Rezko story. If someone can show to me that Obama passed a law, or did an earmark, or something which put government money in rezko’s pocket… you’ve got a story.

    From the FDL article:

    Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

    Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.

  68. 68
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    That’s why they call it “money laundering.” The goal is how to move “dirty” money from point A thru a washing machine at point B and then to point C(andidate) where it can be spent.

    From FDL:

    In order:

    1.) You gotta get the money trail first. You know that.

    2.) That post was shit. The ChiTrib article says “Obama plays poker with other people in politics, mainly Dems”, and looseheadprop says “oh yeah, that’s where they all pass money under the table”.

    Aside from the unqualified accusation, you can hardly hide an illegal activity in another illegal activity. You’re doing it wrong.

    That aside: find me a poker game.

    You know, when I asked if you could lay a foundation, I wasn’t asking for you to imply that you could, because I’m accusing that the real act itself can’t be done. Show it all, or just say “I can’t yet”

    What the hell is so hard about saying “Conditions are unfavorable despite my plans to go forward”?

  69. 69
    myiq2xu says:

    Sadly, myiq2xu has stooped to cherrypicking comments out of context in order to battle his own strawmen in order score points for Hillary.

    I cite the source and paste the relevent part in my comments.

    That’s not exactly cherry-picking.

    Jeremiah 5:21 – Hear this, you stupid and senseless people! You have eyes, but you cannot see. You have ears, but you cannot hear.

    (I cited the source, so it’s not plagiarism)

  70. 70
    John S. says:

    From the FDL article

    If anything in that article was as nefarious as you seem to think, I assure you we would be hearing about it 24/7. And yet somehow, neither Clinton or McCain are attacking him on it.

    I wonder why that is.

    But then again, Rick Moran has your back, so maybe you’re on to something.

  71. 71
    TheFountainHead says:

    Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

    Uhhh, want to point to me where Rezko made any money (or anything) from Obama?

  72. 72
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    From the FDL article:

    And 3.) That quote says shit about Rezko, and treats Obama as an innocent witness. The CST article is offline.

    I’m still aware that to create a circumstantial case, you still have to connect the dots, and Obama has to be one of the dots.

  73. 73
    myiq2xu says:

    You know, when I asked if you could lay a foundation, I wasn’t asking for you to imply that you could, because I’m accusing that the real act itself can’t be done. Show it all, or just say “I can’t yet”

    Only truly stupid politician (like Duke Cunningham) would permit a provable link to corruption.

    Obama is far too intelligent to make that kind of mistake.

    Isn’t it strange how politicians’ wives and children end up in high-paying jobs (with little work to do) on corporate boards and in foundations and think-tanks?

    The whole system is corrupt and needs to be changed. But it’s ridiculous to act like Obama is somehow “different.”

    He is a product of Chicago “machine” politics and his rapid rise in the Democratic party took powerful friends.

    Expecting him to be pure and innocent is like looking for a virgin in a whorehouse.

    The same thing applies to Hillary.

  74. 74
    myiq2xu says:

    If anything in that article was as nefarious as you seem to think, I assure you we would be hearing about it 24/7. And yet somehow, neither Clinton or McCain are attacking him on it.

    Really strange about the media. Hillary called him on it (after he attacked her first) and the media blasted her.

    As for McCain, he’s not attacking Obama on it yet.

  75. 75
    p.lukasiak says:

    Tim, Lanny Davis is right…

    Its not that people criticize Obama without getting accused of playing the race card, its that a critic can never know when his/her words will be distorted to justify the accusation that the race card is being played.

    There are subjects that no one is even willing to discuss… like how how a whole slew of Obama’s victories are based solely on overwhelming support of black voters. Yes, Obama still does “well” among White Democratic voters, but when 78% of voters in Georgia say that race is not a factor, but 68% vote for a candidate of their own race (and similar numbers can be found in most states) the question of the electability of a black candidate needs to be discussed.

    But even raising that question is taboo….

  76. 76
    John S. says:

    Obama is far too intelligent to make that kind of mistake.

    Wait, I thought he was a naive waif who doesn’t have the experience to be president?

    You guys need to keep your talking points straight!

    (I keed, I keed.)

  77. 77
    myiq2xu says:

    And 3.) That quote says shit about Rezko, and treats Obama as an innocent witness. The CST article is offline.

    I’m still aware that to create a circumstantial case, you still have to connect the dots, and Obama has to be one of the dots.

    I live in California, it’s kinda hard for me to investigate.

    if you really cared about the truth you would look yourself, there is a ton of stuff online.

    I give you links and quotes and you brush them off because you don’t really want to know the truth.

    The Rezko trial will be interesting, but the timing won’t help Hillary, just McCain.

  78. 78
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Only truly stupid politician (like Duke Cunningham) would permit a provable link to corruption.

    Obama is far too intelligent to make that kind of mistake.

    Isn’t it strange how politicians’ wives and children end up in high-paying jobs (with little work to do) on corporate boards and in foundations and think-tanks?

    The whole system is corrupt and needs to be changed. But it’s ridiculous to act like Obama is somehow “different.”

    He is a product of Chicago “machine” politics and his rapid rise in the Democratic party took powerful friends.

    Expecting him to be pure and innocent is like looking for a virgin in a whorehouse.

    The same thing applies to Hillary.

    So you’re busy doing guilt-before-innocence, and we’re doing innocence-before-guilt.

    Nice. Explains a lot to me.

  79. 79
    Z says:

    Ok, folks, let’s sing along with Avenue Q:

    Everyone’s a little bit racist
    Sometimes.
    Doesn’t mean we go
    Around committing hate crimes.
    Look around and you will find
    No one’s really color blind.
    Maybe it’s a fact
    We all should face
    Everyone makes judgments
    Based on race.

  80. 80
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    if you really cared about the truth you would look yourself, there is a ton of stuff online.

    Uhh, dude, you want to show me something, then *you.* *show.* *me.*

    You can’t come into the room, say you have seen evidence, and then sit on the couch and wait for me to find it.

    I give you links and quotes and you brush them off because you don’t really want to know the truth.

    You’ve got a goddamn JD and you’re going to dictate to me that this tattered shit you pull off the Internet is “the truth”, when it’s your job as counsel to display the FACTS??

    I didn’t know law school had taken this route.

    Well, besides Liberty U. Law School.

  81. 81
    Z says:

    Um.. and last I heard Blagojevich was the ‘unnamed political candidate’ in the Rezco scandal.

  82. 82
    tBone says:

    when 78% of voters in Georgia say that race is not a factor, but 68% vote for a candidate of their own race (and similar numbers can be found in most states)

    All of those black voters in Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Washington, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, Connecticut and North Dakota really came through for Obama, huh?

  83. 83
    p.lukasiak says:

    Only truly stupid politician (like Duke Cunningham) would permit a provable link to corruption.
    Obama is far too intelligent to make that kind of mistake.

    which is precisely the point.

    See, its really hard to prove political “corruption”, but everyone knows it goes on all the time. All a politician has to do is say “I would have voted the same way” or “sure it wasn’t the lowest bid, but that company has far more experience”, or “sure it wasn’t the lowest bid, but its important to hire minority contractors” and they are off the hook unless you can prove the quid pro quo.

    And because everyone knows its so common, the minute someone closely associated with a politician gets indicted on anything, especially when the indictee has raised lots of money for the politician, and the politician has supported/advocated giving contracts to the indictee, its trouble.

    There is a difference between a simple “appearance of impropriety” and “appearance of impropriety with a crook.” Obama’s relationship with Exelon is the “appearance of impropriety”. Obama’s relationship with Razko is “appearance of impropriety with a crook” — and it doesn’t matter how many times he denies any impropriety, or how little proof there is of impropriety, its still going to be a big problem.

    I mean, remember Whitewater? It didn’t matter how many times the Clintons had been cleared in that, people demanded more investigations. And to Clinton haters, it doesn’t matter that even Ken Starr couldn’t come up with anything on Whitewater, despite the enormous sums he spent, and the people he put in jail — these people think that “the Clintons were too smart to get caught.”

  84. 84
    tBone says:

    There are subjects that no one is even willing to discuss… like how how a whole slew of Obama’s victories are based solely on overwhelming support of black voters.

    By all means, let’s discuss it. Let’s start with your definition of “a whole slew” and go from there.

  85. 85
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    See, its really hard to prove political “corruption”, but everyone knows it goes on all the time

    Oh fuck all of you.

    By your standards, myiq and p luk are now known shills. Because Hillary has been known to employ shills, and these people have made shill-like arguments before, and I’m just _too tired_, and p luk just lowered the bar a couple 100 feet. Therefore, they are now shills.

    I try to reserve judgment until I get hard proof (which pretty much never happens). I try very hard to be patient because I remain hopeful that I’ll be surprised and one of you will post something that changes the way I see things.

    But instead you want to go with “you all know it (despite the fact you don’t)”.

    Fuck it. You *want* to be hacks. I’ll stop asking you to show proof and I’ll just wait for you to get your act together. Until then, I’m just going to enjoy aimlessly trashing Hillary (until she learns to stop letting people trash her).

    Periodically!

  86. 86
    Z says:

    I mean, remember Whitewater? It didn’t matter how many times the Clintons had been cleared in that, people demanded more investigations. And to Clinton haters, it doesn’t matter that even Ken Starr couldn’t come up with anything on Whitewater, despite the enormous sums he spent, and the people he put in jail—these people think that “the Clintons were too smart to get caught.”

    Ok, so I had the impression, as a Clinton supporter you really hated the right-wing Whitewater nonsense. It was a non-story whipped into hysteria by Clinton haters. So now we have Rezko, a non-story whipped into hysteria by Obama haters, and that is magically OK with you? In fact, you are pushing the same story. For I while there, I at least thought you believed it, and I was just rolling my eyes at you. But after your last post, I have to wonder if you even care about truth or lies as long as your candidate wins.

  87. 87
    D-Chance. says:

    myiq2xu Says:
    Just like it’s virtually impossible to respond to the unrelenting attacks against Hillary without the Media, Wingnuttia and the allegedly “lefty” bloggers crying that we’re “playing the victim card.”

    Eh, it’s typical liberalism. Excitedly throw out you plan, try to infuse good karma in everyone… and when challenged, when someone stops to say “wait a minute, what about?”, go into conniptions.

    Just look at a previous thread where Sojourner claimed that Obama supporters were conducting a smear campaign against Hillary. ThymeZone challenged her to provide links or specific examples of those smears. Instead she freaked out, didn’t provide one point of fact, and stamped out of the thread screaming that she’d been “attacked”.

    Victimology is great for those operating on emotions instead of ideas and facts. Hillary and her supporters got overly emotional. Obama has largely succeeded by remaining calm and collected, even if some his supporters haven’t.

  88. 88
    p.lukasiak says:

    All of those black voters in Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Washington, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, Connecticut and North Dakota really came through for Obama, huh?

    well, in Iowa Obama got only 38% of the state delegates.

    In Connecticut, Obama won by four points… whites (82% of voters) split evenly (clinton 49% obama 48%, hispanics (6% of voters) favored Obama (Clinton 43% Obama 53%), and african Americans (9% of voter) overwhelmingly favored Obama (Clinton 24%, Obama 75%). CT is probably safe for Democrats, because ‘dog whistle’ politics will be less of a factor in this bastion of “northeast liberals.”

    And the fact that the Clinton campaign completely screwed up in the rest of the states mentioned above, and the Obama campaign put resources into those states to get their people to the caucuses, doesn’t tell us a whole lot about how the average voter in those states will vote in November.

    My concern isn’t that Obama will get no “white” support, just that in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan, race will be a factor that play a large role in how the campaign develops, and how much time, energy, and money will have to be spent in those states to win them.

  89. 89
    myiq2xu says:

    Just look at a previous thread where Sojourner claimed that Obama supporters were conducting a smear campaign against Hillary. ThymeZone challenged her to provide links or specific examples of those smears. Instead she freaked out, didn’t provide one point of fact, and stamped out of the thread screaming that she’d been “attacked”.

    I did though.

    Calling out Hillary for the Somali picture

    February 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Playing the race victim card in South Carolina:

    February 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    BTW – Has anyone seen Jen? I hope he didn’t disappear

  90. 90
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh fuck all of you.

    It’s “How to please your Man orally”, on Blu-ray.

    Lookin’ forward to tonight baby, so you can show me what you learned.

  91. 91
    myiq2xu says:

    From Bob Somerby:

    In the October 30 debate, Williams threw the evening’s first question to Obama. It was—surprise of surprises!—an invitation to attack:

    WILLIAMS (10/30/07): Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you. You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight. To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?
    And from that point, the chase was on. Russert and Williams staged what may have been the most remarkable debate in presidential history. The pair went after Clinton all night, with a long string of “opposition research” style questions—questions which were often factually bogus or grossly misleading. Persistently, they questioned Clinton about her bad character—then asked Obama and Edwards to comment. Midway through, things had gotten so absurd that Bill Richardson said he wouldn’t play—but Russert and Williams kept it up for two hours. One thing was clear from the Welch Boys’ display: If Obama wouldn’t go after Clinton, Russert and his trophy wife would.

    Afterwards, pundits lined up to say something baldly inaccurate. We always treat the front-runners this way, a long line of fantasists said.

    Let’s review. On October 30, Russert and Williams went after Clinton for two solid hours. We always treat front-runners this way, we were told. But omigod! For at least the first half hour of last night’s debate, Russert and Williams did the same damn thing—even though Obama is now the clear Democratic front-runner. They pounded at Clinton—then asked Obama to comment. Here at THE HOWLER, we watched the midnight re-airing of the debate—and, according to our notes, the first substantive question to Obama didn’t occur until 12:27. (Before that, Obama had only been asked to comment on Clinton’s answers.) And the questioning of Obama didn’t last long. At 12:31, Russert posed an overtly hostile question—to Clinton, of course.

    We Dems have a new front-runner now; we thought he was frequently brilliant last night. But the first half hour of last night’s debate was a virtual replay of October 30. Jack Welch’s “Lost Boys” were at it again. They were choosing our nominee for us.

    If there’s one thing HillShills and Obamaniacs agree on, it that Russert is a fucking tool.

    He’s the guy who can unify the Democrats.

  92. 92
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Lookin’ forward to tonight baby, so you can show me what you learned.

    I just left the HRC BDSM shop on 33rd. I splurged: I got “Hillary’s Golden Mandate”, a 9″ circumference, 10″ solid gold textured dildo with built in 5000V taser.

    Because I know you’ll take anything of Hillary’s all the way to the hilt.

    I’m going to show you what Hillary means by _healthcare._

  93. 93
    tBone says:

    My concern isn’t that Obama will get no “white” support, just that in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan, race will be a factor that play a large role in how the campaign develops, and how much time, energy, and money will have to be spent in those states to win them.

    Fine. Why not just say that instead of making a specious argument about how “a whole slew” of Obama’s victories were based solely on overwhelming support from black voters?

  94. 94
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If there’s one thing HillShills and Obamaniacs agree on, it that Russert is a fucking tool.

    I’d second you on that if 2000 some people didn’t simultaneously say “yeah, fuck that guy!” after it was posted.

    so: two-thousand-and-second!

  95. 95
    John S. says:

    Don’t worry about Florida.

    We’ll be going for Obama this year (provided he clinches the nomination). I guarantee it.

  96. 96
    p.lukasiak says:

    By all means, let’s discuss it. Let’s start with your definition of “a whole slew” and go from there.

    you’re right. “whole slew” is not right. Just Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, DC, Delaware, Alabama, Maryland, and Louisiana can be put into that column. In Connecticut, Obama’s margin would have been reduced (to 1 or 2%, instead of 4%) if the black vote had split evenly. Illinois was a home state victory that had nothing to do with race, In Virginia, Obama took the white vote by 5 points, and the Hispanic vote by 10 points. In Wisconsin he took the white vote by 9%.

    I actually had no idea how many of Obama’s primary wins were dependent upon overwhelming support of black voters. (I mean, I thought he won in all racial demongraphics in DE, MD and LA).

    And I would add, that equally important to discuss is “Hillary hatred” and gender — these could play as large, if not larger, role than race in the general election.

  97. 97
    p.lukasiak says:

    Ok, so I had the impression, as a Clinton supporter you really hated the right-wing Whitewater nonsense. It was a non-story whipped into hysteria by Clinton haters. So now we have Rezko, a non-story whipped into hysteria by Obama haters, and that is magically OK with you?

    No. Of course not.

    And if the Clinton campaign is using Rezko against Obama, I’ll be really pissed off (the one debate mention doesn’t count — that was a counter-punch after Obama went after her on “Walmart”). She should stay as far away from Rezko — not even send out the usual ‘I wonder how the GOP would play this in November’ email with the story at the bottom.

    And the reason why she should stay away from it is because she wants to keep her hands clean, in case this story really goes supernova before the convention.

  98. 98
    tBone says:

    Paul – thanks for treating the question fairly. I’m not denying that support from black voters was very important for Obama throughout the South, I just objected to the hyperbolic phrasing in your original post.

    And I would add, that equally important to discuss is “Hillary hatred” and gender—- these could play as large, if not larger, role than race in the general election.

    My gut feeling is the HillaryHtrz would far outweigh the unrepentant cracker voting bloc, which is one of the reasons I’d prefer Obama to get the nom.

  99. 99
    p.lukasiak says:

    I just objected to the hyperbolic phrasing in your original post.

    well, actually I do consider 8 out of 12 that we have exit polling on (8 out of 13, if you add Iowa) a “slew”.

    What was hyperbolic was stating a slew of Obama’s victories were based on overwhelming african american support. There is really only one state that fits that category…Missouri. In the rest of the states, while black support provided the margin of victory, that support didn’t need to be “overwhelming” to win. It was the “overwhelming” support that provided the huge margins in states like GA, MD, DC and LA, and substantial margins in places like DE, AL, and MD. (In SC, the margin was based on it being a three way race in addition to overwhelming support.) In most cases, “substantial” support (55-70%) would have been sufficient to create a clear victory.

  100. 100
    Fledermaus says:

    There are subjects that no one is even willing to discuss… like how how a whole slew of Obama’s victories are based solely on overwhelming support of black voters.

    yes . . . and?

  101. 101
    Martin says:

    Yes, Obama still does “well” among White Democratic voters, but when 78% of voters in Georgia say that race is not a factor, but 68% vote for a candidate of their own race (and similar numbers can be found in most states) the question of the electability of a black candidate needs to be discussed.

    It gets worse! I have undeniable evidence that every president ever elected received the overwhelming majority of their votes only from members of their own race! Shocking, I know!

    BTW, the electability of a black candidate doesn’t need to be discussed, it needs to be tested. But if you really need to know, the aggregate of the national polls show Obama beating McCain. Can we stop the handwringing over the black guy now and get on with the 21st century?

  102. 102
    Martin says:

    Oh, and I should add, could it possibly be that black voters nationally have been following Obama’s career for 4 years now where most voters have only known the guy for a few months, and latinos even less because their media is even more isolated? No, can’t be that…

  103. 103
    p.lukasiak says:

    But if you really need to know, the aggregate of the national polls show Obama beating McCain.

    yes, but general elections aren’t won by the overall popular vote. Its state by state, winner take all… and while Rasmussen’s polling says that if the election were held today, Dems would win in the electoral college, he also gives the GOP an electoral college lead in “safe” states of 168 to 154.

    Basically, all McCain has to do is win in all the likely and leans Republican categories, as well as the three toss-up states, and all he has to do is win Ohio again (which only “leans Democratic) or any combination of states adding up to 15 electoral college votes to have an electoral college majority.

    Leans Democratic: Iowa (7), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), and Wisconsin (10).

    Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Missouri (11), and Nevada (5).

    Leans Republican: Florida (27), Virginia (13).

    Likely Republican: Arkansas (6), North Carolina (15).

    Oh, and I should add, could it possibly be that black voters nationally have been following Obama’s career for 4 years now where most voters have only known the guy for a few months, and latinos even less because their media is even more isolated? No, can’t be that…

    well, the earliest polling I can find with cross-tabs for race at the moment is one from Survey USA from 11/9-11/2007 in South Carolina.

    Among blacks, Obama lead clinton 52-39% (Edwards 3%, remainder other/undecided), among whites, Obama trailed Clinton by 15%-55% (with Edwards at 17%, remainder others undecided).

    Clinton dropped to 19% in SC exit polls among blacks, while Obama jumped to 78% (Edwards to 2%). Among white voters, Clinton dropped to 36%, with Obama picking up 9 percent (to 24%) and Edwards gaining 23% to wind up at 40%.

    In other words, just about every black voter who was undecided or supporting other people, in addition to slightly over half of clinton’s black support, went to Obama.

    But only 1/4 the white voters who had been undecided, or supported other candidates, or abandoned Clinton wound up voting for Obama. The other 3/4 went for Edwards.

    Now of course, this is just based on one early poll, and one exit poll, but the fact that Edwards picked up no black support, but 3/4 of the “available” white support, says something was going on other than voters making decisions without regard to race.

  104. 104
    tBone says:

    What was hyperbolic was stating a slew of Obama’s victories were based on overwhelming african american support.

    That’s what I was getting at. Actually, what really set me off was “solely based on.”

    IMO, as more people become familiar with Obama, the less important the racial aspect becomes. Haven’t his demographics been broadening post-ST?

  105. 105
    Pb says:

    p.lukasiak Says:

    And if the Clinton campaign is using Rezko against Obama, I’ll be really pissed off (the one debate mention doesn’t count—that was a counter-punch after Obama went after her on “Walmart”).

    Which, you know, was itself a counter-punch after all that Reagan crap… Yeah, that was a pretty nasty exchange.

  106. 106
    Tax Analyst says:

    Uh, last time I checked the votes of black folks counted in the General Election, too. Don’t you think it’s just about the right time and the right place in the right election campaign to find out if America will elect a black, as in “not-white” President? If not now, when? If not Obama – who to me (and many others) seems a good candidate – he appears competent, capable, logical, and sensible…and perhaps even a tad inspirational – especially when compared to any and every Republican Presidential candidate of the past 40 or so years, well, then just who and what in the fuck black person is EVER going to be “good” enough to lead our country? Oh, maybe he’s not “safe” enough to nominate…because, you know, there will be backlash and some people will vote their fears. Hey, there will always be some people who vote their fears, the question is, do you want your choices limited by the fears of others? Don’t know about you, but I’m getting kind of tired of that tune. You want “safe”? Well, we have a whole drawer full of “safe” Democratic candidates. Al Gore was “safe”, remember? John Kerry, hell, he was a War Hero…how much “safer” can you be than that? Maybe, just maybe, we need to throw all that bullshit out and try and find the best person available in this primary and see if the voters can get past the ghosts and demons of the past and move into the future, because I’ll tell you what, we ain’t gonna live in the past in the four years following November 2008. You can try, but it just ain’t gonna work. If this nation votes to do that then the better part of the future will belong to others while we sit around with our collective fingers up our collective asses and reminisce about the “good-old days” when we didn’t sit around with our fingers up our asses. Fuck that.

  107. 107
    p.lukasiak says:

    IMO, as more people become familiar with Obama, the less important the racial aspect becomes. Haven’t his demographics been broadening post-ST?

    we’ll know next tuesday. The tell will be RI and VT, clinton is expected to win in RI and Obama in VT. Ohio should be interesting too. But there are too many Hillary haters in Texas for me to be comfortable with drawing any conclusions from that state.

    and its not like his demos were bad on ST… He didn’t get blown out anywhere but Arkansas, and (IIRC) his only double digit losses were in New York and Mass.

    (re: the “Republican for a day” phenomenon in Texas. One pollster has found that of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 and were planning on voting in the Dem Primary, about half were planning on voting for McCain in November — and the bulk of those were planning on voting for Obama on Tuesday. Plus, there was a Houston chronicle article the other day that said that 15% of Republicans planning on voting for McCain in Nov. were going to vote in the Dem primary to “get rid of Hillary once and for all.” I happen to think that 15% is way too high, but there has been a possible trend of stronger GOP participation in the Dem primary since ST — like in Wisconsin where 9% of the voters in the Dem primary were GOP.)

  108. 108
    Pb says:

    p.lukasiak,

    Plus, there was a Houston chronicle article the other day that said that 15% of Republicans planning on voting for McCain in Nov. were going to vote in the Dem primary to “get rid of Hillary once and for all.”

    IIRC, the statistic there was, 15% were voting for Obama in the primary and not planning on voting for him in the general. For Clinton, it was 6%, so of those voters, that’s a net 9% Obama, at least in that poll.

  109. 109
    Tax Analyst says:

    Let me just add that this is the perfect election for a “first” to occur…a Woman OR a Black man. I think the Republicans have screwed things up to a level that will allow many to get past whatever reservations they might hold for either – not everybody, but I think all but the most bent. Will the election be closer than it ought to be? I don’t doubt it and I do carry some concern about exactly what we will see on Election night. But now more than ever in my 57 years I see enough discontent with the status quo and I think that either HRC or Obama can win against McClain – short of running the most inept campaign since, well, John Kerry.

    Guess, we’ll see, won’t we?

  110. 110
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Ok, I am reading this and I note an anomaly:

    Billy K Says:

    Sucking up to John by calling him “normal?”

    Lame.
    February 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    4tehlulz Says:

    I think John just demonstrated why “normal” would not be an adjective I’d associate with him. :p
    February 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    I have to wonder how you can comment on something that is posted after your comment. ;)

    There is a good diary at Kos that actually takes a long view of the Clintons, and it is not very flattering. I agree with the overview, and I think that after the primary more Democrats might start thinking the same. In a way, I think that from Reagan onward, we have had successively worse presidents. I voted for Bill in ’92, but I could not do it in ’96 because he just was not a Democrat I could support. If anything, he was republican lite. The diary at Kos goes over this period, and I have to agree with the diarist that it is a fair assessment.

    If more people start to realize this, the gloss may be off of the Clinton years for good. I too was a defender of the Clintons, even though I did not vote for him in ’96. But now I know that the time spent arguing in support of him was really wasted time.

    Barack is something out of the ordinary, and I do not mean that in a MUP way. I don’t know if it is just what I wish to see, but when I hear him talk I have a feeling that he sees the big picture. Our country has been screwed up for far too long now and things are looking pretty grim ahead, and I am hoping that he have our FDR here.

    Hope. Damn, it has come down to that. We really have fallen, haven’t we?

Comments are closed.