Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn accusing Barack Obama of being too conciliatory toward conservatives back at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Edwards on New Years Eve referred to Obama's youthful "Afro," which she called, "nice looking, not odd looking."
I have great respect for Elizabeth, who by all accounts is a brave and smart individual. But her comment was a pretty unnecessary low blow, reminiscent of when Joe Biden referred to Obama as the "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Statements like these about Obama are not isolated incidents, sadly. A Hillary Clinton precinct captain in rural Cherokee, Iowa recently questioned Obama's electability, saying "Is America ready for a black president?" It's been well-documented how three different Clinton campaign workers pushed the right-wing email smear that Obama is a Muslim. Clinton supporter Bob Kerrey said Obama was raised in a "secular Madrassa." And Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, Bill Shaheen, infamously insinuated that in his youth Obama may have been dealing drugs.
My colleague John Nichols has argued that an Obama victory would be a triumph of style over substance. I disagree. Let's not forget how much subtle and overt racism Obama has been forced to contend with in his bid for the presidency. He's leading in the polls in a state that is only 2.3 percent African-American (compared to 12.8 percent nationally). New Hampshire, where he's currently tied with Clinton, is even more white.
The fact that Obama has overcome enough prejudice to have a shot at winning both of these states is a historic achievement. It would be a huge step backward for Democrats--and the country--if this election were decided on the basis of racial fearmongering.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Shameful? Yes. Surprising? Sadly--no.
Posted by MATTMAN at 01/02/2008 @ 5:00pm
Mr Berman, something is brewing...and nobody (Left or Middle or me) is going to like it.
We've got die-hard Obama'ites like poster METTEYYA saying that if it's Edwards, they won' support him. And with your article, the sneaking suspicion from me that...if She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed doesn't get the nomination, she's going to sabotage Obama to make sure he doesn't block her "last shot" in 2012.
Edwards' folks may be more concilliatory...but obviously (from your point on Elizabeth) not above taking race into consideration if it helps THEM win either.
So...we've got THREE "Top Three" Democratic candidates that ...a portion (large, small, who knows?) of the Left in this country will dislike if their guy/gal doesn't win it...and MIGHT just help the Republicans defeat them out of spite.
Hope I'm wrong...but a LOT of vitriole out there today (the day before Iowa) and with what you noted, some lingering stuff that isn't too nice.
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 5:03pm
My colleague John Nichols has argued that an Obama victory would be a triumph of style over substance.
~Berman
Ari, nice job and all on the Hillary Inc story, but you are waaaay off base here, bud.
The critical story of the moment is precisely the lack of substance by the Obama campaign, along with the disturbing revelations that keep appearing on Obama's very corporate-centric affinities.
From another thread earlier today:
Keep in mind that there really isn't that much difference between Obama or Edwards, they are just trying to make an appearance of differences to get more votes.
~Wolfgang
Uh, Wolf, I think it'd be possible to drive an oil tanker between the substantive differences of Obama and Edwards right now.
If you've been paying any attention at all to the differences in both the rhetoric and the policy proposals of Obama and Edwards in Iowa it's almost laughable to compare the two.
One guy is spelling it out in explicit and graphic detail.
The other keeps repeating, "Bring the fire, bring the fire, bring the fire!" to his audience while furiously soft pedaling like he's Lance Armstrong in the Pyrenees.
This is the political story of the moment, but few are tapped into it because even The Nation mag has been negligent in its supposed role of mining for substantive paydirt.
Sorry Wolf, I like you from what I read but I'd submit that you've fallen for the same old stuff that our political system has been selling for a very long time --let's make nice in Washington and we can all walk under the rainbow to a brighter future. That's essentially Obama's "platform".
I think we can all see where that's gotten us in the last several decades --further down the spiral.
Posted by b kool @ 4:08pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:06pm
Isn't Obama playing the race card, too?
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:12pm
Some of this politically correct stuff blows my mind. I read the article on politico and didn't see any hint of racism in it. If a woman sports a beehive haircut, if you call it a beehive does that make you a bee racist? Come on. This hair cut BS is really getting old. How about we focus on the issues rather than the superfluous bull for a change.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/02/2008 @ 5:13pm
The fact that Obama has overcome enough prejudice to have a shot at winning both of these states is a historic achievement. It would be a huge step backward for Democrats--and the country--if this election were decided on the basis of racial fearmongering.
Well said, Ari!
Obama is an absolutely incredible figure, who has risen from nothing by the sheer force of his talent. If he were white, there is no doubt that we would be saying he is the re-incarnation of Bobby Kennedy. But even as a bi-racial "black man", his appeal to every American of all stripes is truly extraordinary!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 5:19pm
Would Bobby Kennedy have reached the heights he did without his rich, bootlegger father?
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:20pm
Well said, Ari!
Obama is an absolutely incredible figure,................
Metteyya
Cheer up Ari!
You've got Meta-man on your side :-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:22pm
Barack Obama:
So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:
"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."
The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:
"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 5:30pm
What Elizabeth Edwards actually said:
"There was a New York Times article fairly early in the race," she said. "It had a picture of Obama with an Afro -- that a lot of people had then, it was nice looking, not odd looking -- at Harvard Law School, being asked to voice an opinion at a meeting of people with respect to tenure for African-American professors. He spoke, and spoke eloquently, and when he left, both sides felt he agreed with them."
This was not a good sign, Elizabeth said. This was an example of when a "desire for conciliation becomes more important than getting a particular result."
She also said that being too conciliatory "is not what we need right now" and that "John believes we have to fight."
I vote for Ari Berman to be put on probation for offering up such non-story nonsense.
What's it gonna be Ari? Style or substance from here on out?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:31pm
The fact that Obama has overcome enough prejudice to have a shot at winning both of these states is a historic achievement. It would be a huge step backward for Democrats--and the country--if this election were decided on the basis of racial fearmongering.
Sigh. I was wondering when it would come down to this. Vote for Obama because he's black. Vote for Hillary because she's woman. Vote for Edwards because he's white. Vote for Richardson because he's hispanic. Vote for Kucinich because he's slavic/irish. Vote for Dodd or Biden because they're senior citizens, alcoholics, catholics, whatever little pigeon hole you can put them into. If you don't vote for (insert candidate) you are pushing the country backwards.
Stupid.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/02/2008 @ 5:31pm
What's it gonna be Ari? Style or substance from here on out?
I say SUBSTANCE, Bkool, and substance means VOTING RECORD, not "populist or progressive talk". Here's Edward's voting record while in the senate:
1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
See this also--> http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 5:42pm
Posted by METTEYYA
Why did your man vote yes on the credit card bill?
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:43pm
I am supporting Edwards over Obama and it's precisedly based on substance...confirmed by a friend of mine and his wife that left a recent Obama speech in Des Moines feeling he was all fluff with no specifics. Change is good, but how are you going to get it done?
And this portion of your post, "Let's not forget how much subtle and overt racism Obama has been forced to contend with in his bid for the presidency. He's leading in the polls in a state that is only 2.3 percent African-American (compared to 12.8 percent nationally)."
Not saying Obama hasn't face some racism along the way, but the fact that he's leading in some polls in a very white state would suggest to me that Iowa isn't being super racist towards him!!!
Posted by KCMORyan at 01/02/2008 @ 5:49pm
A pertinent excerpt from the freshly posted Chris Hayes piece:
Also noticeable among the recipients of Swift Boat largesse is one who received only a single donation: Mike Huckabee. Despite meager fundraising and little national name recognition, the former Arkansas governor has experienced a bubble-like expansion of support and media attention, taking the lead in Iowa and approaching a steady lead in national polls. But the lack of Swift Boat contributions lends credence to the claim that Huckabee is viewed warily by the money men who call the shots in the modern GOP. Despite proposing a radically regressive tax change and taking Grover Norquist's antitax pledge, he's been attacked savagely by the Club for Growth and eviscerated by columnist George Will for "comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs," among them "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity."
This all supports the notion that the people behind the Swift Boat operation are chiefly concerned with the continued upward redistribution of wealth that is, more or less, the contemporary GOP's raison d'être. In 2006 Perry ponied up $5 million to start the Economic Freedom Fund, a 527 group devoted to attacking Democratic incumbents, and landed a large donation from prominent Swift Boat donor Carl Lindner. All of which is to say that the Swift Boaters aren't some kind of side show, a coterie of vicious mudslingers operating at the edges of respectability. They are the show. They are modern conservatism's core funders and beneficiaries. With conservatives staring straight into the abyss, their activities in this election cycle could very well make the Swift Boat smears look tame by comparison.
--So Berman, let's get on the same page and support the guy that is actually trying to fight the swift boat butchers, John Edwards. Explain to me how Barack, the compromiser, is going to be effective in a vicious dogfight. And explain to me how Obama gets a progressive agenda on the table in Washington when he's dealing with wolves and hyenas.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 5:51pm
Thank you METT for trying to explain to KOOL that these candidates' rhetoric is far less important than what they've actually done in their lives. Obama has a far more progressive voting record in the Senate and even more striking, has a far greater history of working for the social good in his post-law sch career than the trial lawyering and hedgefund managing that took up Edwartds' time.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/02/2008 @ 5:43pm
MT, if you go to votesmart.org, you will see that Obama did NOT vote for predatory credit card practices with any bill. He also voted AGAINST the bankruptcy bill that made it more difficult for those who fall on hard time to declare bankruptcy.
For his current effort to stop predatory credit card companies, go here:
http://tinyurl.com/2mproh
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm
Posted by METTEYYA
You're right, I'm wrong. That's what I get for failing to verify the info.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/02/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/02/2008 @ 5:31pm
Thanks B for illuminating the context of Elizabeth's comments. A non-issue afterall, it would seem.
Posted by MATTMAN at 01/02/2008 @ 6:11pm
Thank you METT for trying to explain to KOOL that these candidates' rhetoric is far less important than what they've actually done in their lives. Obama has a far more progressive voting record in the Senate and even more striking, has a far greater history of working for the social good in his post-law sch career than the trial lawyering and hedgefund managing that took up Edwartds' time.
~Rothberg @ 5:52pm
Peter,
First off, I've never claimed that John Edwards is Christ incarnate or that Obama is the devil's henchman.
But, the fact of the matter is that John Edwards is running a red-hot fire engine of a campaign right now, and in an unprecedentedly critical election season I believe we better grab this huge opportunity to get a firebrand who's got the intelligence and chutzpah to take on what is likely to be an incredibly tough job of rolling back the damage of the last seven years.
If we're wrong and Edwards is a bust, then we simply note that we gave it our best shot and let the anger and disappointment of a letdown fuel the next firebrand.
But I believe Edwards means business. It's written all over his demeanor and his 90 page policy outline.
First agenda item: national healthcare.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm
Thanks, Peter!
I really enjoy all of your articles here on The Nation! You are truly a breath of fresh air.
You are correct, BKool, and other Edwards' supporter focus far too much on his "populist talk" and don't pay enough attention to the substance of his voting record and who he is as a person.
It really will be quite transformative to have a true progressive like Barack in the White House for a change, even if he uses "fair-minded words" to describe his progressive values.
Keep up the great work on The Nation!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 6:18pm
Wasn't Obama just as conciliatory in Chicago?
Posted by daviditam at 01/02/2008 @ 6:24pm
Once again, at least Edwards voted. Can't say the same for Mr. Progressive.
Look, I've got nothing against Obama. I hate to throw out a talking point but I really wish he had voted more so I, as a voter, could feel secure in his stated positions (i.e., he either had or at least could show more experience). As it is, he's all talk and no follow up. He does talk a very good game, but he doesn't have the senate track record to back up his statements. I couldn't care less what he did in Illinios. The few votes he did cast were very nonconfrontational and the most confrontational votes that came to the senate floor in 2007, he non-voted. What does that tell me? It tells me he doesn't have the gumption to take a stand and then actually make that stand. I think Bill Clinton is actually right that a vote for Obama is a rolling of the dice. If I'm going to roll the dice on a candidate, then I'm going to roll for someone who has the courage to actually make the hard decisions, even if they turn out to be wrong, and who has the intestinal fortitude to admit mistakes and learn from those experiences.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/02/2008 @ 6:27pm
has a far greater history of working for the social good in his post-law sch career than the trial lawyering and hedgefund managing that took up Edwartds' time.
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person
you don't think that trial lawyering contributes to the social good? I expected better from you.
I guess Obama's shiny brown skin has you blinded.
Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 6:38pm
the race card? you don't think the repubs will stoop so low? of course they will. we do not live in a race blind society.
full disclosure: I have no problem voting for Obama, should he be the nominee.
Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/02/2008 @ 6:14pm | ignore this person
"First off, I've never claimed that John Edwards is Christ incarnate or that Obama is the devil's henchman."
It's the only thing left, you've come about as close as one can, without actually doing the dirty deed.
"If we're wrong and Edwards is a bust, then we simply note that we gave it our best shot and let the anger and disappointment of a letdown fuel the next firebrand."
What's this "we" shit ... ? Plus, you're not getting off the hook that easy, because you can't say you weren't warned, or told.
Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.
Unless you're prepared to say he could actually forget that he read the NIE, (which is total bullshit and you know it) then you must admit that he lied. And if he would lie about that, what makes you so sure you're getting the truth now?
"Thank you METT for trying to explain to KOOL that these candidates' rhetoric is far less important than what they've actually done in their lives. Obama has a far more progressive voting record in the Senate and even more striking, has a far greater history of working for the social good in his post-law sch career than the trial lawyering and hedgefund managing that took up Edwartds' time.
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person "
Which is a point I made in another post, perhaps tad less cynically, and or cold-blooded.
If he wins the nom then I'd vote for him, over the repuglikan, but that's the only way, he could get my vote after lying about the NIE, it is just too revealing an insight to bury, or leave subliminal.
Posted by V at 01/02/2008 @ 6:47pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/02/2008 @ 6:27pm
Why is his Illinois record irrelevant? The issues he fought for in Illinois are the SAME ones that progressives are fighting for across America.
OBAMA'S ILLINOIS SENATE RECORD:
Obama led the fight in Illinois for publicly funded elections to take money out of politics. This resulted in the first campaign disclosure law in history that some thought was a compromise because it didn't contain strict limits on donations. The reality, however, is that the disclosure law has completely changed the way politics works in Illinois and the way campaigns are reported on by the press. The press effect, in particular, has changed Illinois politics from one of the most corrupt to one of the best in the country.
Barack also led the fight for universal healthcare in the Illinois legislature. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services for women.
Obama introduced and passed legislation to have criminal interrogations taped to prevent torture and abuse, and also created the first racial profiling law in the state.
Another thing he passed in Illinois was child care subsidies and tax credits for the working poor.
His record in Illinois was "consistently progressive", which is NOT what one can say of Edwards or Hillary.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 7:45pm
If I'm going to roll the dice on a candidate, then I'm going to roll for someone who has the courage to actually make the hard decisions, even if they turn out to be wrong, and who has the intestinal fortitude to admit mistakes and learn from those experiences.
~Fritz the Cat @ 6:27pm
Smooth post, Cat :D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 7:48pm
b kool:
"If we're wrong and Edwards is a bust, then we simply note that we gave it our best shot and let the anger and disappointment of a letdown fuel the next firebrand."
V:
What's this "we" shit ... ?
b kool:
Easy, viper. "We" simply refers to those who would vote --in my hypothetical scenario-- for Edwards, not some sort of solidarity statement and Kumbaya warm sentiments with the cynical likes of you, dude.
I tend to downplay any friction with you because I think that there is probably much more we might agree on than disagree.
But perhaps I should reconsider if indeed you are the snarky self righteous jackass that seems to seep thru on occasion?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 7:57pm
Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.
~V
Better yet, V, why don't you expand and expound on your argument here if you think its so damn rock solid. Either that, or just can the self-righteous "raging John Brown rhetoric".
Or maybe put your money where your mouth is, and lead the armed resistance to these lily-livered traitors?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/02/2008 @ 8:08pm
Obama is an absolutely incredible figure, who has risen from nothing by the sheer force of his talent.----Posted by METTEYYA 01/02/2008 @ 5:19pm
Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
(100 blog-points to who spots the reference)
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 8:09pm
BTW....
"His record in Illinois was "consistently progressive", which is NOT what one can say of Edwards or Hillary."----posted by METTEYYA 01/02/2008 @ 7:45pm
METT, why do you always say "his record in ILLINOIS" was "consistantly progressive"....
and never his ENTIRE voting record is "consistanly progressive"?!!??!??!?
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 8:11pm
Posted by MASK 01/02/2008 @ 8:11pm
MASK, that comment was in response to MASK (oops!), I mean FRITZ, concerning Obama's ILLINOIS record.
His record in the US Senate has also been consistently progressive:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
Posted by Metteyya at 01/02/2008 @ 8:17pm
OBAMA'S ILLINOIS SENATE RECORD:
Posted by METTEYYA 01/02/2008 @ 7:45pm | ignore this person
METT, that's great. It really is. Great for Illinois. But when he had the chance to weigh in on national issues, he didn't. If he had taken that same spunk to the U.S. senate level, then I'd feel a whole lot better about him. His non-vote is a big problem for me personally. What I see is a very enthusiastic progressive thinking state senator, who went to the U.S. Senate and non-voted on very controversial issues that had a far ranging affect - farther than a state's borders. Who now wants to be president who's power and influence ranges even further than that of a U.S. Senator.
He obviously did well as a state senator but as a U.S. senator, not so much.
Everyone has a level of competency and perhaps his was reached at the U.S. senate level. I don't know. From what I've read about him and heard about him, I'd say he has great potential.
Every candidate in the field poses risks. I think as a voter, you have to pick and choose the risks you are willing to take. Right now, Obama is not a risk I'm comfortable enough to take. I can't base a decision for my vote on his voting record because there isn't much there, especially on the high impact issues. Because of that, his unity campaign really sets off a nerve. Call it a Spidey-sense. If he won't take a stand on the issues and cast a vote, then how much will be compromised away in his quest for unity?
In my mind, this is a two person primary race - Edwards and Obama. Both pose risks but I like the odds of Edwards better. That's just me.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I honestly don't know what I'll do. I don't see myself as being able to vote for her, even with eyes closed and nose held. I'll probably wait to see what 3rd party candidate develops.
If either Edwards or Obama gets the nomination, I could vote for them. I would feel more comfortable with Edwards but if he's not in the running, I can see giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on his progressive stance and voting for him. I feel he's a bigger risk than Edwards but certainly better than the alternative.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/02/2008 @ 8:28pm
Thank you for calling out John Nichols, Mr. Berman!
Posted by martincaver at 01/02/2008 @ 8:50pm
The only one of the three "front runnners" who can pick up any of the red states is Edwards. That's just the way it is. Obama has never really won a election for national office. His Illinois sentate win was against another black, Alan Keyes, who was a complete wacko. If Obama tops the primaries in IA and NH, that just means he wins among a select group of liberal Democrats, that is hardly representative of the national electorate in the general election.
Why did Obama"s presidential campaign receive its earliest substantial donations from the same right wingers who funded the Swift Boat attack ads against Kerry? (see See NYT"s story 3/7/07: Jared Abbruzzese " supporter of Swift Boats and Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&pagewant ed=all) Why did Obama get his first major media mention from conservative pundits? Could it be that Obama has no chance in the general elections and would be an easy candidate for the GOP to beat, at least by a hair, despite their current problems in the polls? Could it be that the only Democratic candidates Wall Street prefers are either Republicrat DLCers or unelectable, or both?
Posted by wgilwood at 01/02/2008 @ 9:20pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/02/2008 @ 8:45pm
No, her part was played by Angela Lansbury.
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 9:24pm
Dennis Kucinich recognized he's not achieved the 15% viability threshold in Iowa and freed his caucusers to support Obama. With Mett and Rothberg offering solid evidence to believe he's genuinely progressive in the realm of social justice, I'm hoping he, Obama, wins manana in Iowa. Brrrr!
Posted by lewwelge at 01/02/2008 @ 9:26pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/02/2008 @ 8:17pm
So I guess you would say that Clinton's voting record (at least since Obama's tenure) is just as "consistently progressive." Only eight times did Clinton and Obama cast a differing votes.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/02/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 01/02/2008 @ 9:26pm
You know, I don't think you'd have to be a Jedi to convince LEWWELGE that..
these aren't the droids she's looking for!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 9:41pm
Re: Playing race card. Well, actually it's Mr. Obama who's been holding high his race flag from day one of the campaign.
Posted by HelenDAO at 01/02/2008 @ 10:15pm
Posted by HELENDAO 01/02/2008 @ 10:15pm | ignore this person
he cannot help it.
Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 10:22pm
"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!
For those of you who still have not heard:
There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.
It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM
Together for Obama, Anne
Posted by annevilla at 01/03/2008 @ 09:41am
This is a hack job, Ari. I would expect to see this on msnbc.com.
I expect better from The Nation, and from you.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2008 @ 10:07am
Posted by HMAN23 01/03/2008 @ 10:07am
All bets are off, HMAN....it's a madhouse, a MADHOUSE! (to quote a certain NRA President on a world dominated by simians).
Nichols going for Edwards...Rothberg going for Obama...METTEYYA becoming RESE in supporting Barack....Clintonites like FRANKG figured there was little hope and escaped....Elizabeth Edwards talking "Afros" and Her Majesty's talking "Who's going to elect a black President?".
Welcome to the Democratic Party....same as it ever was (maybe a BIT less violent than Chicago '68!).
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/02/2008 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person
Here let me help, I make no protestations as to niceness, righteousness, or any other virtue soever, whatever you name it. I try to bring nothing that I can't take with me, so ... no virtues but two, that is. No matter how hard or where it leads ... truth, and treating, till proven otherwise, others like adults. Righteousness would mean that I think I have something that you, or others do not possess, so in that context you are wrong. So, the only thing I have, until proven otherwise ... is the truth.
What friction?
Here's some non-ambiguous friction for you: I've been the very soul of civility, asking you, as an adult ... to reveal on, or by what basis, you believe ... how is it, that you have this fawning (there's no other word for it) belief in John Edwards?
Take your response to this, for instance;
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.
Unless you're prepared to say he could actually forget that he read the NIE, (which is total bullshit and you know it) then you must admit that he lied. And if he would lie about that, what makes you so sure you're getting the truth now? "
Instead of answering the question, you crumbled; "Better yet, V, why don't you expand and expound on your argument here if you think its so damn rock solid. Either that, or just can the self-righteous "raging John Brown rhetoric".
KOOL, show me, one of my "John Brown" moments if you will? You crumbled ... and started spewing ridiculous (so ridiculous as to be wannabe) personal insults. You use the same tack with Metteyya; responding with derision to legitimate questions.
"Or maybe put your money where your mouth is, and lead the armed resistance to these lily-livered traitors?"
You probably cannot grasp it, but, errr, uhhh, ummm, for the record ... you have gone way, way around the deep end here. Having regressed to childhood infancy and then having daddy (Edwards ...) seemingly attacked, you've blown a gasket. Although if I was of a mind to do as you, raved, I would doubtless ask for your address, so as to start with your punk ass, because you, and people like you (hereinafter named "THE REGRESSORS"), are the real problem.
But, back in a sane universe, what I more likely as not to do, is start a movement to get you, and the other regressors, mass therapy, to prove to you (hopefully, once and for all ...) that just because someone is on TV. And practiced their demeanor in the mirror (Jesus Christ, you actually said, actually used demeanor, as a reason ...) doesn't mean they are an adequate stand in for your birth parents, no matter how bad you want, or need them to.
"But perhaps I should reconsider if indeed you are the snarky self righteous jackass that seems to seep thru on occasion?"
Kool (never minding that I say this while smiling, as I did the other comment that put a knot in your undies) I give a fuck how you think it appears, snarky or otherwise.
And I have my answer. Thank you ...
Posted by V at 01/03/2008 @ 10:41am
Emphasis mine ...
"Thank you METT for trying to explain to KOOL that these candidates' rhetoric is far less important than what they've actually done in their lives. Obama has a far more progressive voting record in the Senate and even more striking, has a far greater history of working for the social good in his post-law sch career than the trial lawyering and hedgefund managing that took up Edwartds' time.
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person"
Posted by V at 01/03/2008 @ 10:52am
I find it very amusing that Elizabeth can't say the word "Afro" in describing hair one time, yet the media can slam John Edwards ad naseum over his hair cut. Who's being racist here? How many times did The Nation come to JRE's defense over the ridiculous focus on his house and hair cut? The media didn't focus on any other candidates personal clothes, hair cuts or homes - just JRE. And now Bloomberg wants to run and he can put 1 billion dollars into a campaign without missing it! hmmmmm
Posted by mararmstrong at 01/03/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by V 01/03/2008 @ 10:41am
Posted by V 01/03/2008 @ 10:52am
V,
I don't have much to say that I haven't said to you before.
Just two brief points:
1) We probably are in agreement on the fundamental fact that much needs to be done to retrieve the "Republic for which it stands" from the downward spiral it is rapidly descending into. You just happen to have a churning, scalding and irrationally furious hatred for John Edwards, and it just chafes your huggies that I keep speaking out in his favor.
2) Your long winded, and circularly convoluted prose betrays --in my opinion-- a very conceited, feather-preening character. But I could be wrong. I just never see you engaged in straight forward, frank discussions in these threads --just a lot of windy, gnarly rhetoric.
Good day, my unusual acquaintance ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:52pm