Who has Harmed the Democratic Party?
By Deb Cupples on May 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM in Current Affairs
Children do it often. When they get caught misbehaving, they tend to point fingers in every direction except toward the mirror. When adults engage in such behavior, it inspires questions about their rationality and character.
As adults, we can all agree that any negative statement by any Democratic candidate against another Dem candidate during a primary could undermine the party’s ultimate efforts to establish unity before a general election.
That said, the DNC (and many media) seem to blame Hillary Clinton’s campaign as the one that advanced all the divisiveness. She certainly has said some negative things about Barack Obama. I admit it, and the media has been all over it for months, so I need not provide examples here.
Hillary is not the only one whose words (or actions) might have caused party division. Obama said and implied very negative things about his fellow Democrat, Hillary. Yet, the DNC (and many media) never really called Obama out.
The most recent example was on Friday, when the Obama campaign bizarrely made an issue of Hillary’s reference to Robert F. Kennedy. Preferring to start with less recent examples, I’ll get into the RFK non-issue later.
Starting in January, Obama supporters falsely called Hillary a racist after she acknowledged that Martin Luther King had needed a president’s help to turn his dreams into laws. Obama supporter James Clyburn lobbed implied racism accusations twice — just before the primaries in two heavily African American states (North Carolina and South Carolina).
That was downright harmful to the cause of party unity, but the DNC didn’t chastise Obama’s campaign. And Obama didn’t timely chastise his surrogates or supporters.
Actually, implied racism seemed to be an official strategy: evident from the Obama campaign memo listing instances of what it perceived as "racially sensitive" statements from Hillary’s campaign or surrogates. (HuffPo)
The memo became public in January, but the DNC didn’t chastise Obama’s campaign for divisively implying that his opponent (the party’s possible nominee) was a racist.
Starting in January, Obama falsely implied that he and his money were clean and that Hillary and her money weren’t. Before Indiana’s primary, Obama ran an ad making that false comparison –
despite news reports about Obama’s having taken money connected to oil companies, drug companies, and lobbyists.
Make no mistake: the message "I’m clean and my (Dem) opponent is dirty" did the opposite of promoting party unity. Still, the DNC was silent.
On Feb 4, Michelle Obama told ABC (Good Morning America) that she might not support Hillary if Hillary were the nominee. That was before Hillary’s comment about McCain’s experience.
In short, Mrs. Obama told millions of viewers that it was okay to not support the other Dem if her husband lost. This message undermined the cause of party unity –
yet the DNC didn’t chastise the campaign that she represented.
Nearly two weeks later, incidentally, Bill Clinton said this in Texas: "I’m for Hillary…. If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice" [i.e., Barack].
Then there’s the March 11 email (signed by Obama), which claimed that Hillary was attacking his supporters.
Crazy, I know, given that Hillary is seasoned enough to grasp that candidates lose when they attack their opponents’ supporters. Logic aside, the Obama campaign sent another divisive email containing a similar message on April 14.
Disseminating common-enemy talking points is a way to split a party, not unify it. Obama likely knew this and did it anyway. The DNC remained silent.
This brings me to the most recent example: the RFK non-story.
Friday, at an editorial board meeting, Hillary was asked to defend her decision to stay in the race through June. Her answer involved pointing out two historical primaries that had ended in June:
"’My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?’ she said. ‘We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.’ (NY Times)
It wasn’t a graceful statement. She should have said, "RFK was still campaigning in June of ‘68" (though someone might have found evil intent behind that, too).
Does anyone really think that Hillary meant to insult a national figure — who was also the father of three Kennedy children who have endorsed Hillary?
Given the context, I found it odd that Hillary’s statement created such a media frenzy — until the New York Times explained it:
"Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama…." (NY Times)
Ahhh. I should have known that Obama’s campaign had lit the fuse that caused this non-story to explode.
Did it matter that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly indicated that he is not offended? That Hillary apologized for her clumsiness? No and no.
Instead, multiple Obama-supporters in the media pounced on Hillary and used the statement as evidence of evil thoughts. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann implied that she was staying in the race just in case Obama is assassinated before the convention.
Update: Since writing this post, I’ve learned that an Obama campaign staffer actually sent an email to various media folks, pointing them to Olbermann’s video. (CNN) Yes, the other media could have found it on their own, but the Obama staffer’s email shows a clear intent to fan the flames of the non-controversy. And it worked: Hillary got 2 or 3 days of horrible coverage.
While the media (and Obama’s campaign) tried to pitchfork Hillary, the DNC remained silent.
I could go on with examples, but my point is this: Hillary’s not alone in deserving blame, because Obama has contributed a
good-sized share of the negativity and divisiveness that may ultimately hinder efforts to unify the party.
Moreover, the candidates aren’t the only ones who contributed to the party’s division. The DNC’s own leaders chose to act in ways that have infuriated many Dem voters. Below are a few of those actions:
1) Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida
2) Refusing to fix Michigan and Florida
3) Making misleading public statements about MI and FL
4) Trying to prematurely push Hillary out of the race
5) Urging super-delegates to end the race before all states vote
Those actions gave many Dems the impression that the DNC wanted Obama to win at any cost — even if 2 states’ Dem voters were disregarded. That the DNC has remained silent while Obama’s campaign used divisive tactics only intensified that impression.
Naturally, many Hillary-supporting Dems feel that the DNC does not care about what they think or want.
This top-down, disregard-the-little-guy style of leadership has caused many ordinary Dems to notice similarities between the DNC and the GOP.
That’s a major deal breaker.
In short, the DNC’s own leadership countered its own purported goal of party unity by repeatedly alienating so many of its members.
So, if we must point fingers, let’s not leave out any valid targets.
Obama’s planned “Town Hall with Veterans and families” has not happened…
Instead, it looks like a rally, with fewer vets than Obambots. Since the location was kept secret, this is just a “select” group, like Bush has done in the past to much criticism…I don’t think this will win many military votes here….the online poll from the local oldies station seems to point toward McCain…and Hillary staying in the race.
This is the typical Richardson event (he organized it)….SELECT, IN SECRET, with the press invited to be complicit….It will not help things here…
“UPDATE on Obama in New Mexico, Memorial Day”
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/
I will update my post as the day wears on…
Time to act in advance, before having 2000 “Deja Vu”, watch RECOUNT-HBO DOCUMENTARY-
We the people, who believe ‘every vote counts and should be counted’…will scream ‘not this time’…if they persist in their proved intention of stealing Sen Rodham’s nomination..”irreparable damage” to our belief in the Constitution.
“Reassure us that this Nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop the administration’s assault on our Constitution” Can you, DNC?
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Bush_v_Gore.htm
The December 9 stay was absurd-
One of the most stunning and criticized actions of the five conservative justices was their December 9 stay stopping the counting of the undervotes. This step was taken before the court had even received briefs and heard oral arguments on whether the counting was improper.
The Supreme Court rarely issues a stay before deciding a case. It does so only when there is a substantial showing that a party could suffer “irreparable harm” and is likely to prevail in the lawsuit. Incredibly, Scalia wrote that counting the undervotes would “threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush] . . . by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
According to Scalia, then, Bush had a legal claim that he was legitimately elected without all the votes being counted. And Bush’s claim deserved legal protection from the irreparable harm further counting could cause. The irreparable harm, obviously, was that a complete count might reveal Gore had won.
Always in the past, that was known as democracy rather irreparable harm. Scalia’s position has to be among the most asinine and disingenuous ever written in a judicial opinion. And his four co-conspirators went along with him.
It could not be clearer that counting all the votes does not harm an election’s legitimacy but only adds to it. As Justice John Paul Stevens expressed in dissenting to the stay, the failure to count votes is what casts a permanent cloud over and causes irreparable damage to the legitimacy of a close election. The question forever lingers as to whether a complete count would have shown that someone else had won.
Even if the counting had included some votes that shouldn’t have been counted, this would not constitute irreparable harm. The improperly counted votes could simply be removed from the totals - in the light of day and for reasons everyone could see.
In fact, counting the undervotes could have revealed important information that should have been considered. For example, many of them may have showed an indisputably clear intent of the voters to select a particular candidate - under any standard of counting votes. Those unchallengeable votes should certainly have been included in the final tally. Tony Mauro wrote in USA Today about the illogic of refusing to inspect the undervotes: “Since when is not knowing better than knowing?”
Further, the refusal to examine votes is the most flagrant violation imaginable of the core democratic and constitutional principle that every vote be counted. This is so basic and evident that it’s impossible to think the five justices were unaware of the legal violations they were committing and the voting rights they were extinguishing.
And by stopping the count until the alleged “deadline” for counting votes had passed, the majority did irreparable harm to Gore, because a complete count may well have shown he had won. They had no concern about this genuine irreparable harm.
Vincent Bugliosi says of Scalia’s explanation for the stay: “Only a criminal on the run, rushed for time and acting in desperation, could possibly write the embarrassing words Scalia did.”
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine an assertion more nonsensical, embarrassing, and contrary to law than that counting votes casts a cloud over the legitimacy of an election. Columnist Mary McGrory wrote that Scalia “might as well have been wearing a Bush button on his robes.”
Actually — DON’T — watch the show, as it’s not a documentary. It’s a fictional account of the 2000 FL “hanging chad” fiasco.
When “artistic license” is used to put words in peoples’ mouths, then it can’t be claimed to be a documentary.
Historical fiction, on par with Eugenia Price novels.
The DNC wants to lose. IMO
DB,
I know it’s juvenile, but I’m still cracking up over your handle.
Maybe the DNC does want to lose. Pat Buchanan (months ago) suggested that it would be in the RNC’s best interest to let the Dems have one term in the WH, then slam them for failing to fix all of Bush’s disasters, then take the WH like the GOP did after Carter.
who knows?
I have been on Hillary Clinton’s email list for most of the campaign, and while I don’t read every message sent out, she has not even MENTIONED Obama in any of her messages.
This is contrary to Obama’s tactics, however.
I was shocked when I read the email Obama sent to his supporters accusing Hillary of attacking them. No wonder they are all over the blogs going on about how divisive she is.
I never thought that Hillary was negative, actually. I just felt she was bringing up important things that Obama needed to address. Obama, on the other hand, has been playing dirty all along, while trying to make himself out to be above it all.
If you are TRULY above it all, you would not call the opponent out for being “divisive” or “dirty.” You would simply speak in positive terms all the time.
I find Obama’s campaign style to be highly passive aggressive and I’m not the kind of personality who responds well to passive aggressiveness. I realize there are other people who fall for that crap but not me.
HoB,
I’m with you: I don’t fall for the passive-aggressive tactic either. IN fact, I take exception to people who try to manipulate me, because it shows how stupid they think I am.
I’m so glad that you said that:
“I was shocked when I read the email Obama sent to his supporters accusing Hillary of attacking them. No wonder they are all over the blogs going on about how divisive she is.”
That’s exactly what I thought when I came across the emails in March and April. The DNC should have said something to Obama about this directly divisive tactic.
Perhaps the DNC cares less about unifying the party and more about seeing Obama win. Who knows.
Maybe donkey Brazziere is right (don’t you love that handle?): maybe the DNC wants the election to go to McCain, so the DNC can knock him out in 2012 and have a better chance of keeping the WH for a few terms.
Why is it that the Obama camp blames everyone else for there mistakes never him.
Obama phone banking in Oregon slammed Hillary to the people they were calling and said she was a Marxist. This upset the voters so much they hated Hillary after the call got over with.
Gloria,
Thanks for sharing that. I had no idea.
It always did bother me when Bush would do the secret meetings and manipulate the scenery to make it look like he had more support than he really did.
I guess Obama is not as popular as he’d have the media believe.
I am so tired of being told that I will have the blood of Iraqis and our troops on my hands if I don’t vote for Obama. Got told that this AM over at MyDD.
Here’s what I said:
“YOU all have a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate. But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.
So if there’s any blood on anyone’s hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.
I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney’s BTW…but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day…again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again. AND IT’S NOT BARACK OBAMA.
You still have a choice and a chance. Take it. Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009.”
Nothing to add, you said it all. Well done.
Well put, they will be at fault after the sh** they have spewed in our direction this primary season, but more importantly for the crap they spewed towards Hillary.
Shainzona,
Good answer.
Does Obama Need Hillary’s Supporters?
By: Jane Hamsher Monday May 26, 2008 12:22 pm
Link
http://firedoglake.com/
deb, thanks for your post. You make a lot of good points.
The one thing I don’t understand though is your expectation that the DNC should or would do/say anything to mediate between the two campaigns. I’m not a Dem insider by any stretch, so I may not understand the role that the DNC is supposed to play in keeping the peace.
If you could clarify, that would be helpful. I mean that in a straight-forward way.
You are so transparent. And I mean that in a straight-forward way.
“The one thing I don’t understand though is your expectation that the DNC should or would do/say anything to mediate between the two campaigns.”
Nobody’s asking them to mediate anything, but people expected them to show some leadership. Silence becomes the voice of complicity. When the media went all misogynistic, the DNC should have said, hey, we denounce that kind of behavior. I would have expected them to rally around Obama if we had seen the racial equivalent of nutcracker dolls being sold in a media gift shop.
And they should have spoken out when Brazile and Axelrod were saying white working class voters don’t matter. They sat there in silence while two large voting blocks were tossed under the bus.
HI Idear,
It’s a fair question.
I suspect (but don’t know) that the national party is supposed to remain neutral re: 2 Dem candidates. That’s how it is at the local DEC level in Florida, anyway.
That said, I’ve noticed that DNC has interfered between Obama and Hillary — though sometimes more subtly than overtly.
In March, for example, Howard Dean talked about how a long race would harm the party (due to negative campaigning). That was right about the time that Hillary was gathering momentum.
He basically called for superdels to step in and end it before numerous states had voted.
Shortly thereafter, some prominent superdels came out for Obama (I remember Leahy being one of them). And some of them made statements about the negativity of the race and how they wanted to stop it.
I took that as a sign that (behind the scenes) that Hillary was being blamed for the negativity and Obama was not.
DNC got massive pressure from the public to let the race go on, and Howard Dean backed off — stating that he wanted superdel commitments by July 1.
In April, Obama did miserably at the ABC debate. The next day, Howard Dean called for superdels’ commitments immediately.
Not all of them committed, but most of the ones who did went for Obama.
My suspicion, though I can’t prove it, is that DNC leaders have talked (behind the scenes) with both campaigns and many superdels.
Given the results, it doesn’t look like they were defending Hillary or calling out Obama — otherwise, I think more superdels would have come out for Hill while saying “this race is just too divisive.”
Admittedly, those are just my speculations.
You’re right on the mark. It isn’t speculation since I saw it the exact same way.
It was manipulation of the masses toward ob and all those Brazile, Dean and Pelosi remarks made me cry foul! They did it constantly.
I sent Dean a letter at the time about Leahy and other Vermonters and how incredulous it was that the election was going to be decided by his well placed buddies from VERMONT.
I spent 4 months there once, beautiful state, but come on, let’s not give it undue weight in the voting process of a nation.
Karen,
It was all somewhat subtle — as successfuly manipulation of public opinion tends to be, I suppose.
D.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed. I don’t follow as closely as I probably should.
I guess I was assuming that the DNC would be neutral, but as you point out they haven’t been. So the expectation that they would intervene even-handedly is not out of line. Fair to call them on it.
Thanks again.
Idear,
Unfortunately, many DNC leaders don’t seem to be listening when people like me call them out.
Yeah,
The DNC, whoever they are. I’m begining to wonder. Well, not just beginning. Who are they?
In a year that should be a “slam dunk” for the Democrats they still have time to blow it.
Anna,
It should have been a slam dunk. If the party weren’t so divided, it might be.
But the party is heavily divided — thanks in part to Obama’s divisive tactics.
I still find it hard to believe that Obama wants Hillary supporters to unify around him after he trashed and trampled on Hillary (ok, after he had other people do it).
Sure, punch me in the face — then I’ll be glad to help with your homework.
I suppose unity is possible. Who knows what’ll happen in November.
All the negative remarks Obama accuses Hillary is what he stands for and believes in. He manipulates and twisted her statement and stinkingly spread to all of us thinking we’re stupid enough to take the bait. Hillary knows the history better than Obama’s 57 states. At this moment if you’re still undecided, stop drinking Koolaid and stop watching CNN and MSNBC. You’ll see more clearly and “hear better.”
Everything Obama campaign is guilty of they blame and project onto Senator Hillary Clinton. If you want to know what Obama campaign people are up to or what they stand for, just look at what they are accusing Hillary of and then you will know.
Others here note the proximity of Obama to a Florida station that referenced The Politico blog which is run by Republican PR interests.
They’ve used The Politico prior times to get stories out against Hillary, earlier in the campaign season.
Meanwhile Barack’s hopey sunshine tour continues its own gaffe form on this Holiday week.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obamabacking_general_clinton_l.php
Ok we can NOT wash our hands of this.
I’ll not resemble some Pontius Pilot(sp) knowing what outcome will probably occur with my doing so
it wouldn’t be Human of me to do so
(the religious may call it “being Christian” that’s fine)
I just call it being HUMAN!
I will NEVER give it up to the REPUGS until my last dying breath might save HILLARY otherwise!! I want the troops OUT OF IRAQ, I want clean AIR & WATER, I want STEM CELL FUNDING, I want a DEMOCRAT FOR PREZ named HILLARY!!
I won’t give up on her because I won’t give up on being HUMAN living in AMERICA!
I started emailing Morning Joe (back when I use to watch MSNBC Obama Network) about 8 months ago. I asked why Mika Brzezenski was drooling all over Obama. I found out when I saw her bring her father Zib (works for Obama as does her brother) and he was making me sick with his lovefest with anything Obama.
Mika is one of the worst along with Chris Matthews, Keith, David and most of the media oh, not to forget Roland Martin at CNN he makes me gag. She is not as hot as she thinks she is and has gone out of her way to push Obama down the throats of the democratic party. She always like to say she is not in the tank for Obama but it is so clear she would live to jump his skinny bones. Of course, Michelle Marxist would have a thing to say about a whitey woman getting her man.
I am totally shocked that she is not called out just like the boys for their treatment of Hillary.
I have stopped watching Obama channel a long time ago and except for Joe the whole lot of them are so “in the tank for Obama” I cannot wait til they cover the election and he loses in a landslide and then they go back to their prison stories and pedophile programming and find that their ratings are “in the tank”. Do they really think the Obamanots are going to continue to watch their sorry network after the election. They will be back to their online games and ipods.
NO OBAMA NO WAY NOW HOW
HILLARY OR MCCAIN 2008
Good for her. Michelle says Obama “stinks and snores” and has HIS own room.
Just what we all need to know right..{{ugh}}
I think what is causing all those problems is hillary going out of her way to be nice. For the life of me i couldn’t understand why did she apologize for the RK comment. Who ever misunderstoodit it must be either stupid or someone with evil intentions, and basically all BO suppoeters can be fit in there.
Right, but she has character and uses compassion in her judgment. I’m sure she wanted to make it clear to the Kennedy family that she meant no disrespect.
Everytime they attack her for something she didn’t do and she makes a statement to say what her intent was and that she is sorry if it offended anyone is common decency and diplomatic values as a grown-up.
I have a friend who says “why the hell did she apologize again?” when Hillary does so. She’d like Hillary to take a “oh screw off” attitude.
One thing we dislike about Ob is his arrogant nature. Hillary isn’t that way, she is tough but gentle too. I admire her for it even if it isn’t that tactical hard stance it is proper to do.
You’re right. It’s strange that there was even a need to apologize, especially given that she’d twice before publicly mentioned the ‘68 campaign’s going to June.
No one gave her any trouble then.
Since most every Hillary supporter has been threatened, how do we know that Hillary herself has not bee threatened. Maybe all the noise is to quiet Hillary from saying something about that? It is common for Obama campaign to accuse her for what they are guilty of…just saying.
After all this has been a twilight zone of an election and much worse than 2000.
The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton has been threatened for decades and has had to live with that reality. Yet she does what she does best; serve this nation in the most productive way possible.
But this, to Senator Clinton as she has said repeatedly, is nothing compared to what the men and women of our armed forces, serving our nation and in harms way everyday endure.
Is this site hijacked? it’s acting strange.
WHat do you mean by “acting strange”? The site, physically? The way it loads?
It’s one thing to have a good political fight when there is a level playing field, but these past six months have been unbelievable. Thanks for putting a string of these abuses together (makes for good responses to the inane questions of the other side). I would like to add the whole cycle of papering states with flyers filled with lies and misinformation (as reported by factcheck.org and other independent observers)on Hillary’s positions on NAFTA and Healthcare. He was still doing that as late as Indiana.
The Obama/Axelrod psyops campaign might win the boy his nomination, but look at the cost!
THanks. Good addition of info. I hadn’t remembered.
Yes, the cost likely is that Obama will lose the WH even if he wins the nomination.
As I’ve said before, Axelrod failed his client by being so short sighted.
*dons tinfoil hat*
What if Obama isn’t Axelrod’s real client? What if the GOP is paying Axelrod under the table to misdirect Obama?
The Obama surrogates has made race as an issue in this primary (with the blessings of the Obama campaign?) and race bait, too , as a counterpoint to whatever future controversies and scandals that Obama might have in the future. He has made race and race baiting the central portion of his campaign. It is with a certainty that Obama surrogates(with the blessings of the Obama campaign?) will answer every controversy and scandal with statements pertaining to race.
Remember the time when the Somali tribal dress that Barack wore in 2006 and was leaked thru the Drudge Report? David Plouffe immidiately accused the Clinton team of ’shameful offensive fear-mongering’. Then there is the op-ed of Orlando Patterson in the NY times which tried to put race in the 3am ad of Sen. Clinton.To qoute the 1st paragraph of the op-ed:
“On first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.” And that is only the 1st paragraph.
Then there is the latest “brushing the dirt off the shoulder” incident which the Obama surrogates(?) has linked to the Jay Z song, “Dirt Off Your Shoulder”, a racially charged song (see this web link and judge for yourself.)http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jayz/dirtoffyourshoulder.html
And now this:
May 9, 2008 — WASHINGTON - First it was Bill Clinton dismissing Barack Obama as just another black candidate winning South Carolina.
Now comes Hillary Rodham Clinton, splashing moonshine onto those smoldering embers by telling West Virginia voters that “hardworking Americans, white Americans” support her, not Obama.
So “hardworking Americans” who support Hillary are racists, then? If that is Obamas’ position, my vote will be Hillarys’ and will write that name in the ballot. Otherwise, other voters will have to decide but not me.
This can be construed as race baiting tactics of the Obama team and surrogates. It only needs a spark.
Please forward to your friends because it is imperative that the American people know who the real Barack Obama is and the way it is seen by me is he wants the race card to be front and foremost always. This has been his strategy in the primary and may have tragic consequences down the road as far as the DNC is concerned.
In order for me to change this perspective on Obama, he must prove to me by his actions that this perspective is wrong. Otherwise, it is beginning to become strenghtened by it.
Did Hillary really say “hardworking, white Americans”? In public?
She was reading an article from USA Today and yes she read that. So what. We call the black vote the “black vote” why not the white vote the “white vote.”
She did not say only that the only hard working Americans are white Americans. Read the transcript. She was saying out loud the different demographic segments of the population.
Rise of the Cult of Personality
http://politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/05/26/phantoms-in-the-mist/
For the past eight years since George W. Bush’s questionable victory, Americans have experienced a new distrust of government far surpassing the dark days of Watergate. Unlike the Nixon era, when we believed the enemy was simply the Republicans, we now have a taste of the insidious vampiric thirst of all government.
Thanks to the Republicans, we have looked at our neighbors with a suspicious eye. We have survived the darkest hours of the politics of fear, lived our lives in color-coded degredation, and we despise it. We have endlessly searched for unseen enemies at the cost of half a trillion dollars and four thousand lives. We have bombed our way onto the Shit List of nearly every nation on Earth because every Republican elected since Eisenhower has crowned himself King of the World.
Replace “Republican” with “Obamite”
OBAMA AKA “GEORGE BUSH LITE”…
Hillary has attacked Obama’s readiness for the job — she has pointed out his lack of experience (Obama also claimed that her years as First Lady weren’t really experience). All of that is what candidates do. But, she has not, to my knowledge, attacked his character. Obama, however, has over and over again attacked her character by calling her divisive and untrustworthy. It is a pillar of his campaign. Yet, as this writer points out, the DNC and the Democratic establishment and the media have never called him on it. It is disgusting. I heard today that some Super Delegates are saying that they know Obama can’t win, but they need to nominate him to show the party is not racist. What about the country? Does it matter who is President? Does it matter what our problems are? Or is it just important that Democrats don’t appear to be racist?
Joanne,
You make a very valid point about our nation’s problems. Where did you hear that about superdels who admit that Obama likely won’t win in Nov?
Re “Truman” on PBS last two nights: In the 1948 election, the Democrats fissured into a Progressive Party and a Dixiecrat Party, in addition to the main Party. Why are we so shy about raising the possibility of going it alone this year? The Democrats of 1948 would have.