House Majority whip Rep. James Clyburn says that a superdelegated Hillary Clinton nomination could alienate black voters. Party leaders have become so obsessed with who can carry white voters, that they’re “almost saying black people don’t matter.” Clyburn also suggested that Mrs. Clinton has a grand strategy to ensure Obama loses to McCain, thus clearing the slate for a 2012 win.[Washington Post]
Fissures.
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
An Other Greek
Interestingly, the Clinton candidacy has opened people’s eyes to the Clinton operation.
Triangulations, ambitions and intrigues.
Does anyone remember Hillary campaigning for Gore? I don’t.
Does anyone remember Hillary campaigning for Kerry? I don’t.
Does anyone doubt that Hillary, like Bill, puts her own career before the party? I don’t.
Does anyone really doubt that Hillary would work against Obama, and the best interests of the party also, for a chance to run in 2012?
Well?
——————————————————————————-
Chris
Even without a raging Hillary Obama could lose. Don’t forget that.
leomoore
I want make sure I understand the mindset. If Obama loses in the general election, it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault. If Obama loses the nomination, it’s Hillary’s fault. If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, it’s Hillary’s fault. If Hillary Clinton loses the general election, it’s Hillary’s fault. I guess everything that goes wrong is Hillary’s fault.
Didn’t the Republicans blame everything on the Clintons? According to them, Bill and Hillary are responsible for everything from 9/11 to the last recession to the “need” to invade Iraq to the failure to capture bin Laden to the crisis in healthcare. It’s nice to see Democrats carry on the tradition.
John
If Obama loses the general election, he shouldn’t blame himself. He should blame the overzealous fools who claim to “protect” him from criticism through fear and intimidation.
They’re the ones who are scaring voters off. Hillary’s lame attacks almost always backfires. But then, some of Obama’s dumbass surrogates overplay their hand by calling her nasty names (and implying that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist).
That’s what annoys these small-town midweterners. It’s not Obama himself, it’s the creepy college-aged groupies who serve as his self-appointed “Praetorian Guard.”
An Other Greek
“I want make sure I understand the mindset.”
Well, the article was a bit more complex than the deduction, but, yes, basically, you are right: It IS Hillary’s fault.
In a very well-documented string of shockingly Rovian decisions, Hillary and her campaign have demonstrated her determination to “go there”.
Linking this outrageous record to republican, “right-wing-conspiracy” rhetoric (the same r-w-c of her recent ally?! Richard Mellon Scaife) really confuses the point.
Hillary’s decision to “go there” on so many occasions makes her absolutely culpable.
Her injurious campaign, her unimpressive and faulty senatorial record, and the new perspective on her husband’s record, suggest the Hillary’s ambitions will be answered at least in granting her the title of “most responsible” in the way the post-primary race plays out…
————————————————————————————
Bob
Please. I’m sick of black people saying that there’s gonna trouble right here in River City if Obama isn’t ushered to the nomination and to the presidency. If I’m not mistaken, he wasn’t WON the nomination and will not by the time the election rolls around. But the Obama camp acts as though he has. Sorry, I think Hillary should hit him with all she’s got. If he can’t stand her attacks, how the hell is he gonna withstand what the Republicans throw at him in the general election? But of course, it will be her fault somehow, not that he’s a big wuss who responds to criticism by crying racism or just plain crying. What a whining weenie. Oh, and Another Greek, you complain about Hillary’s ” unimpressive and faulty senatorial record” — how about Obama’s completely unimpressive record throughout his career in politics? The man did nothing as a state legislator and nothing on the national level aside from pretty speeches. He’s a vapid, empty suit who’s nothing more than a gifted inpirational speaker.
An Other Greek
“He’s a vapid, empty suit who’s nothing more than a gifted inpirational speaker.”
Do you really think so?
Empty?
now, that’s no way to speak about the Democratic nominee (and you know he WILL be once the whorish media have milked-this thoroughly through)
if you are curious, follow this link…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/to-those-who-question-oba_b_87970.html
now, compare that to Clinton’s record (hers and his), and you can see why so many dare to hope with Obama…
oh, and one more thing.
She
voted
for
the
war.
—————————————————————————————
John
Speak of the devil….
I love it. A few minutes after I mentioned Obama’s overzealous groupies, one of them shows up to prove my point.
An Other Greek
By defending Obama, I somehow “support” your semantic derision? So I’m a groupie?
That’s cheap and tawdry.
Which brings us back to Hillary, and the point of the article…
You can call me names, but the democratic majority clearly sees through it. I’m not alone. Voters, writers, delegates etc., the MAJORITY of Democrats, are voting and speaking out AGAINST Clinton and in favor of Obama…
If anything, it is the “Hillbots” that are refusing to admit this and instead drag the the rhetoric, tha campaign, and sadly, the party to the gutter…
——————————————————————————–
Leland Frances
Home run, LeoMoore, et al.! Strange isn’t it how the campaign of the candidate “not running as a black candidate” always resorts to race baiting when in trouble [AND gets away with it time after time due to the majority of media who if they don’t already have their heads up his ass are too ballless to call him on it].
Anyone who remembers that Obama’s campaign had to apologize last summer for refering to “Hillary Clinton [D-Punjab]” i.e., the Democratic Senator representing Punjab, thus demeaning her India-American donors, raise their hand. Imagine someone else refering to “Barack Obama [D-Ghetto].” Blink and you missed the story.
When Obama, after campaigning for nearly 10 months found himself still 20-30 points behind Sen. Clinton in support from black voters, who did he pull out of his fake Lincoln stove pipe hat: Donnie McClurkin, according to black lesbian minister Irene Monroe, “the poster boy for black ‘ex-gay’ ministries,” to, as she said, “play the race card” and “whore for” homophobic black votes in South Carolina. But MSM saw it just as a fight among the fags and quickly forgot it or ignored it entirely.
Then when Sen. Clinton rose from the Obama/Media-declared grave the first time in the New Hampshire primary, Obama let all the dogs out. His national cochair, Jesse Jackson, Jr., went on MSNBC and essentially smeared Sen. Clinton as a racist for allegedly not tearing up as she had in NH for black victims of Katrina—and that the black voters of South Carolina should pay attention to that—that is, not vote for her in their primary because she MUST BE A RACIST! Was JJ, Jr., called on it? Nada.
Then one of the heads of Obama’s South Carolina staff distributed a memo mischaracterizing things Sen. Clinton, Pres. Clinton, some of her supporters, had said as “racist” which MSM picked up and quickly turned into “truth” rather than the ruthless and lying political proganda that it was. Fake “undecided” super delegate Donna Brazile [who, as his campaign mgr., helped Al Gore lose millions of votes to “all hat no cattle” George Bush fils] piled on, huffing and puffing that she was “offended as black woman” by the Clintons.
With the Swift Boating of the Clintons As Racists complete, and without Obama so much as changing one syllable of his political agenda so that it might do more for/appeal more to black Americans, the wagons circled and suddenly he won the South Carolina primary and has mopping up black votes by playing them as stupid ever since.
But documenting such facts to Obamoonies, whatever their color or sexuality, is a waste of time. He doesn’t even officially have the nomination yet, isn’t on the general election ballot, and the fix is in to blame Sen. Clinton if he fails. Not him, despite his inability to close the deal even after all the successful race baiting he’s done; not him, despite having spent at least three times as much money as she has; not him, despite the contest being declared over before New Hampshire, then before Super Tuesday, then before Super Duper Tuesday, then before Pennsylvania; not him, despite mainstream and most gay media having treated him as the Messiah and her as the AntiChrist time and time again.
And so Clyburn pulls the race card out yet again, and the media pick it up and plays it for him and the Dali Obama, while poisoning the Hillary Haterade further with his shameful claim that she secretyly wants McShame to win. Sorry, folks, it’s not Sen. Clinton operating out of the Karl Rove Playbook but “Mr. New Politics” who continually demonstrates, as lab reports would conclusively prove, that his shit does, in fact, STINK!
An Other Greek
“Anyone who remembers that Obama’s campaign had to apologize last summer for refering to “Hillary Clinton [D-Punjab]†i.e., the Democratic Senator representing Punjab, thus demeaning her India-American donors, raise their hand. Imagine someone else refering to “Barack Obama [D-Ghetto].†Blink and you missed the story.”
Uhm, I remember this, and a lot of us thought that she doth protest too much…
Obama’s playful yet callous words revolved around the huge issue of American jobs being lost to foreign competition: A CLINTON LEGACY.
Your analytical assertion that Obama’s remark demeans Indian-Americans shows your lack of understanding of the remark, or your purposeful obfuscation.
Further, to compare this to the completely coming-from-left-field, and clearly racist “analogy” (“Barack Obama [D-Ghetto].) shows that you are up to trouble.
Although I agree and share your problem with Obama’s and Donnie McClurkin’s courtship, I understand the “politics” of it and am rather satisfied with Obama’s political amends. I can respect you may not be.
Still, you point out a couple of what are clearly MINOR examples of what you see as ?Reverse-race-baiting (!) from Obama’s supporters, and go on to state:
“But documenting such facts to Obamoonies, whatever their color or sexuality, is a waste of time.”
Humm… Documeting such facts? Shall we go there?
Would you like to see a “documentation” of all of Hillary’s team’s dirty tactics?
Again, the majority of Democrats agree that it Clinton who has committed many many more trespasses and it is Clinton who is ON RECORD as playing dirty (as usual). For a nicely written inditement on just these issues, read Michael Moore’s recent article:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
————————————————————————————
An Other Greek
Couple more things.
You state:
“…despite his inability to close the deal even after all the successful race baiting he’s done;”
—reverse-race-baiting is hardly a succesful campaign tactic in historical America, despite your assertion. Other than the “Macaca moment” of naked racism, it is rather RACE-BAITING that has proven succesful.
“…not him, despite having spent at least three times as much money as she has;”
–You fault him, I praise him. His money comes from a GROUNDSWELL of citizen small-donations, NOT from a handful of fatcat friends.
“…not him, despite the contest being declared over before New Hampshire, then before Super Tuesday, then before Super Duper Tuesday, then before Pennsylvania;”
—well now, if you want to bring up PERCEPTION-CONTROL, you may want to reconsider. Hillary, the INEVITABLE Queen of the Democratic aristocracy was the one, the only…
for so long…
…with an ex-prez hubby to boot!
and despite the reign, despite seemingly insurmountable odds, Obama has risen.
THIS my friends is an amazing story. Instead the story gets muddled and derailed by semantic lies and confusions:
-Hillary is an underdog (huh???)
-Hillary won Texas (no, she didn’t, that’s a lie, and her campaign was behind the misinformation)
-Hillary wants to count Michigan!!! (and FL)
-Hillary cries
which brings us to the biggest lie:
-Hillary is treated unfairly by the press,
you say: “not him, despite mainstream and most gay media having treated him as the Messiah and her as the AntiChrist time and time again.”
Asserting that Obama is given a “free-ride” by the press is a classic example of
OPPOSITE-LAND Rovian rhetoric.
Rather it is Hillary whose press releases become the words of reporters. Over and over. If anything, the media dogs are loose, the sink is thrown and Obama is enduring dirty dirty —unilateral— attacks.
Did you not see the ABC debate???
Again read Michael Moore’s inditement and you’ll see…
———————————————————————————–
Typical White Gay Person
No 3 is so right. This is the biggest can’t win for loosing situation I have every seen. I heard one of the 20,000 chattering pundits say, in relation to Rev Wright, “Hillary’s silence on the subject speaks volumes to her racist feelings”.
So after this tan version of Tony Robbins gets the nomination, you Obamaheads are not going to want the evil, satanic, whore, racist, the Clintons to help support Obama. That would be a bit hypocritical.
I am sure you would like to see her step down as Senator since she has been soooo homophobic.
I think a large number will jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.
An Other Greek
???
John
Yeah, the most reverend Archbishop AOG has to write “race-baiting” in caps because the typical white sheep are simply too stupid to understand the Holy Father’s glorious vision for the world (without a constant reminder of how sinful they are).
Now, everyone kneel down and kiss Pope Obama’s pinky ring, like good little devout Democrats.
You know, the irony is this: Obama fanatics are the same latte sipping San Francisco elitists who constantly complain about how the religious right’s love for “cults of personality” diminishes rational thought.
Pot…Meet Kettle…
CitizenGeek
An Other Greek’s first post does raise an interesting, eerie point; the Clintons really do put their own careers before the good of the party …
An Other Greek
omg!!
you guys are awful!!!
calling me names! one post after another!!
and why? because I defend Obama, a pro-gay liberal Black Democratic candidate…
what’s your f-ing problem?
———————————————————————————-
Typical White Person
The only people who think that Obambi has risen above politics as usual are the ignorant fools who blindly follow him like he’s the messiah. He’s a sleazy politician, just like the rest of them… difference is, he’s trying to convince you he’s not, while playing the game just as viciously as the rest of them.
I am a lifelong democrat, but if Obambi is what the Dems throw on the ticket this year, I’m voting McCain. I’d rather the wolf without the disguise than the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Chris
He has something of a born-again Christian.
Afroguapo
An Other Greek
Thanks for your well-thought out opinions and well-informed analyses and trying to restore some semblance of civility and class to the debate. The name calling or ad hominem attacks from certain people on here is baffling and I can only surmise that one goes ballistic when one does not have facts. Your efforts are not lost on people like me and again thanks.
A Dingo Ate My Nomination
“Mrs. Clinton has a grand strategy to ensure Obama loses to McCain, thus clearing the slate for a 2012 win.”
Gosh, this sounds vaguely familiar, only with different names and election year, which helps explain why Howard Dean loves the Clintons so much. Well, it’s good she’s thinking ahead — hope springs eternal.
Kid A
“Mrs. Clinton has a grand strategy to ensure Obama loses to McCain, thus clearing the slate for a 2012 win.â€
So do any Clinton supporters feel like dicussing this? Or do they just see keywords “Clinton” or “Obama” and automatically go into attack mode, regardless of the topic at hand?
Tom
Thanks An Other Greek for the link to Michael Moore’s letter supporting Obama.
Robert
Clyburn is an idiot. The superdelegates HAVE to decide this nomination: neither candidate can receive enough delegates to secure it. He seems to ignore the point that Obama also needs the superdelegates to win.
Rock
Obama won the nomination! It’s his, so Hillary needs to drop out.
Admit you lost and GET LOST!
And yes, Obama CAN beat McCain. Hillary could never win. Everyone hates her.
Bob
Really, Rock? Obama won the nomination? Seems to me nobody has won anything, and won’t without the superdelegates. So, yet another Obamaton lie about their sainted candidate. He has “won’ NOTHING. Deal with it. I can’t wait for Saint Obama to get his ass handed to him in November. McCain wins by 200 in the electoral college. There are too many white people who will never vote for a black man, and there are too many Democrats like myself who think he’s a fraud who loves to hear himself speak. NObama, baby! That boy is toast.
And Kid A, seems to me like Hillary’s doing everything she can to win this year, not in 2012. But that’s the common refrain among the Obamatons who are already trying to lay blame for his loss at anyone’s feet but his own. If Hillary can damage him so beyond hope, what would the Rove machine do to him? He’s a pathetic wuss who cries “racist!” whenever anyone challenges anything about him. I wish he’d just go away. So do a lot of people.
Bob
Oh no. Afroguapo is here to call everyone racist who doesn’t kneel before Saint Obama!
tpagy
Well finally eyes are a opening its not just Mcclurkin its Meeks and its doing just what the Democrats scream so loudly about the religious right evangelicals About sorry people its about his pandering to Black Racist Homophobes its just as ugly as the other side is and no better me I’m voting for the only progressive that maybe on the Ballot Cynthia McKinney! and Howard Dean and Lea Daughtery and Donna Brazile can go play with themselves and Donna you need to shut the F up we seen what you did for Al Gores campaing in the ground so why would your input be warranted and besides after the article in the La Times today shows hes the same old typical pol sorta brings the shinnyness off Senator Obama.
A Dingo Ate Her Nomination
Bob, I’d say that, unless by some far fetched, twisted chance you’re Obama’s father, referring to him as “boy” in any context is blatantly racist. But hey, you’re obviously a Clinton supporter and just taking a page from the lil’ ol’ Dixiecrat’s playbook, so it’s perfectly understandable. Carry on.
Young, Rich & Elite with a Degree
Well, tpagy, if nothing else, you certainly fit into Clinton’s exit poll demographic.
Typical White Person
First, you guys are welcome. Thanks for the kind words, I felt like I was in the twilight zone there for a moment… (Maybe it’s all the same person?)
But I did want to mention one more thing. Here is a quote:
“It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.”
Who wrote that?
The NYTimes (on Wednesday) !!!
That is the very same paper that endorsed Hillary. Of course it is her “moe-town” “home-state” paper, and they probably had no political choice but to endorse her, but the point is that the NYTimes is certainly a Hillary-friendly medium, and EVEN THEY had to speak out against her in their editorial pages.
So, stop demonizing Obama, and get serious about this race. (Unless you all, as the above poster shockingly revealed, “would rather vote for McCain” rather than a Black man, oops, I mean Obambi, Nobama, Boy, or whatever you “non-racists” want to call him…)
—————————————————————————–
An Other Greek
No but seriously, why can’t I link the NYTimes editorial?
——————————————————————————
KB
What I have yet to see on cable news, or to read anywhere, including on this discussion, is how Hillary’s supporters explain both her path to the nomination, and how she brings the party together if she were to get the nomination via Superdelegates.
Although I support Obama, I do not hate Hillary Clinton and I don’t think she should quit the race. She has every right to be a proponent for letting every voice and vote be heard. It has been refreshing to see a real contest for the first time in many primary seasons.
Having said that, what I AM deeply troubled about is the (lack of) common sense coming from Hillary Clinton in regards to HOW she would actually take the nomination. I have to question the rationale of any candidate in her position putting forth the arguments that she has.
To what end? She must now rely on the Superdelegates to overturn those votes if she loses the popular vote total and comes up short with fewer pledged delegates that Obama.
Does she HONESTLY, REALLY believe that Democratic voters (or any voters open to voting for a Democrat in this coming election) would just accept her position of letting everyone vote and then let the party leaders and elected officials move to anoint someone else?
If the remaining uncommitted superdelegates were to endorse her at this point, how do they explain the purpose of LETTING people vote in this months-long primary and caucus process in the first place, only to let the Superdelegates determine who should be the nominee? (Talk about “elitist,” how ironic!). If that scenario is and has been truly on the table as an option, I do not understand the purpose of going through all this voting when the Superdelegates could just select their nominee up front in the first place. This process has always highlighted what differentiates us from a parliamentary system where you vote for a party rather than an individual.
If it was Obama in her position making the same argument, I would be writing the exact same thing about him.
Furthermore, it is simply specious for her to keep touting that she is the better nominee for her ability to win “the big states” come November. The flawed logic in her position is that yes, she won more votes than Obama in New York, California, Texas, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania. But the point is that she won more votes THAN OBAMA.
She would NOT necessarily win more votes in the general election in those states than McCain, and Obama would NOT necessarily win fewer votes in the general election in those states than McCain. It is a whole different contest! One which, based on this primary season, we are unable to predict in a head-to-head matchup. (For example, who thought McCain had a snowball’s chance in hell last Summer and Fall?).
Also, it is most likely that Obama would also win New York, California and some other large heavily-Democratic states by virtue of his party affiliation.
I am very interested in hearing what Hillary supporters REALLY think would happen to the party and the results of the general election if the Superdelegates ended up deciding who the nominee was when the other candidate had won more of the popular vote and elected delegates. I don’t see those scenarios being discussed anywhere by her supporters, by anyone that I know who supports her, or basically anywhere in the media.
Ryan
Now don’t take my head off, its ungodly early and I’m going to be too lazy to look up my quotes (at least for the moment.)
I actually read an article (in the British news, ironically of all things) about the pheasible route Clinton can take to garner the nomination for herself. Essentially the only way either candidate can win, is if 1.) they rally a large amount of super delegates to their side prior to the convention in august 2.) neither gets the numbers they need even with super delegates (for whatever reason) and a vote has to be taken at the actual convention)
The way for Clinton to push ahead and gain momentum is to essentially bring Obama’s electability into question (and before any Obama-ites jump on my case, this is not me saying he is these things merely stating the path she would have to take) She would essentially have to paint Obama as someone who cannot win the general election, and who cannot defeat John McCain in November. Further strengthening her arguement is the fact that a significantly larger (I do not recall the exact numbers but they were significantly different) percentage of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general election while only a small percentage of her own supporters would Support Obama. It should be noted the exit polls (of which this information refers only to the particularly bloody state of PA) did not state the reason for this, only the facts, so conjecture away, if you choose to.
In alot of ways I think all of this kind of blame that has been brought up in this article by Rep Clayburn ultimately only plays into Clinton’s hands, Despite the fact that he is seemingly still the presumptive nominee, Obama -has not- actually won the nomination. It does not bode well for him, and in fact plays directly into Clinton’s strategy to win the nomination, to already be blaming her for his loss.
On a side note, I find it disturbing when before we have a nominee, much less a new President, we already have people blaming people for the loss of the Presidency to the Republicans. I cannot help but shake the feeling that there is a feeling (deeply harbored but rarely mentioned) amongst democrats that they are going to lose this election.
As to Clinton versus Obama, I honestly don’t know. On a purely personal level, I don’t really care for her, I know that she will sell us (meaning the gays) up the river the first time she has to for political expediency, but I feel, given her past and record, and really just who she is, she is much more upfront about this fact. Clinton is a self serving politician who will do whatever it takes to get to the top. But she basically owns up to it, and on a certain level you have to respect that sort of temerity. I also firmly believe she raises a valid point that for better or worse, we cannot demand that people decide who our candidate will be until every state has voted, in race this close, it is disgusting to me that people will exchange expediency for the electoral process.
As for Obama. I want to like him, I really do. I know that when I watched his speech on race in America it touched me in a way no other has in this country. It felt like a JFK moment, an FDR moment, an MLK moment. As a biracial person living in america it made a deeper impact on me than any speech I have ever heard by a politician. I am 25, over educated, well heeled and I feel I -should- be behind him, and yet I can’t just quite get myself there. I have a deep reservation, that despite his gift for speech, there is something about him that just doesn’t feel right. At the end of the PA race I could finally start to put a finger on it. Despite his talk of change, of hope of moving us forward in unity and grace, when push came to shove and when it came down to the wire, he went negative, he went attack and he did it in a big way. I know it will be argued that he was just elbowing back someone who had already given him a black eye. But so what. If you are campaigning on hope, and change, and being above it all, what does it say that when the going gets tough, you drop that in favor of hitting below the belt?
If McCain hadn’t gone so nutty over the past 7 years I would seriously consider voting for him, instead what I find myself wondering is what does it mean, when for every election cycle I have been able to vote for (this being the third) what does it say that I have yet to see a single candidate that truly inspires me, that makes me believe, that pushes beyond bickering, and partisanship, and self interest to truly bring our country together? I keep waiting for a return of a 3rd party like the populists in the 1890’s to shake our country up, to get us on the right track, the reality is no matter who you put in office they are beholden to their real masters, and I gaurentee you those masters are not the family of 5 in Texarkana AR who are making by on 30k a year.
Most telling I think i find it sad that I myself at 25, have become so completely and utterly cynical about our country, but also I find it incredibly sad that our country is in such a state as to inspire such cynicism with electoral politics not just with myself but with a significantly large portion of my generation.
Ryan
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/PA.html
exit poll data from PA
scroll down its near the very bottom
Mr C
Hey Ryan,
Thanks, I read it. And WOW!!! Race was surely factor in PA!
SAD!
Mike Adams
If that nigger becomes president, I hope he has the nerve to deport Michael Lucas back to Russia. I’m totally over bad porn!
Mike Adams
Oh I heard Micheal Lucas has a fissure can anyone verify that claim?
Jesse
I support Obama 100%. I like my coffee black with a little half n half. I have never had a latte. I don’t think Obama is a messiah any more than I think Hillary is the antichrist. I never drink cool-aid and I don’t kiss anyone’s ring. These general statements to try and undercut the intelligence of people who support a candidate other than the one you support are a bit closed minded and offensive.
Michael Duquette
Obama will never beat McCain in November. Wake the fuck up!
I will personally ensure McCain gets the presidency. I actually care about my country. Were not voting for the next American Idol. Get it together silly queens!!!
Side note – Those of you who seem to think there’s not much policy difference between Obama and Clinton are sadly mistaken and the Republicans will absolutely crush Obama. Clinton is the only HOPE for the Democratic party. Hope was originally Bill Clintons running slogan btw. Im glad I live in a state that realized the truth on March 4th.
How a gay can wholeheartedly support Obama is beyond me. Now im late to the airport…get it together Dems
Jesse
I’m so glad someone has a crystal ball that tells them the results of the election in November. Let’s not waste anymore money on campaigning or ads, now that we’ve been enlightened by your prescient truth.
An Other Greek
Ryan,
You say: “I have a deep reservation, that despite his gift for speech, there is something about him that just doesn’t feel right.”
well, is it the obvious? is it his race that bothers? Because your “disappointment” over his “going totally negative” is a bit over-dramatic ESPECIALLY considering that Obama is ON RECORD as NOT going negative, in the way he could… There is much he has not said/done that could damage and demean Clinton, and we all know that… I think to hold Obama to your own personal interpretations of what he should be or act like, is hypocritical and damning… It also continues to exoticize him and otherize him by holding him to standards unreal… Dangerous and revealing territory. So, what is it really, what is that thing you can’t quite explain that keeps you from believing in him???
Than you say: “If McCain hadn’t gone so nutty over the past 7 years I would seriously consider voting for him.”
Well, I could say “Enough Said” and leave it at that, but do not for a minute think that either Democratic candidate is interchangeable with McCain,
IF…
…IF you are interested in gay rights, civil rights, human rights, the environment, our foreign policy, etc…
So maybe you are not a racist then. Maybe you are just not a democrat? If you are gay, then you are certainly confused… Take your time, you’ll figure it out… And stay out of self-hating log cabins…
——————————————————————————-
todd
The only thing the Clinton’s care about are the Clintons. Will Hillary stump for Obama if she loses? Did Hillary stump for Gore or Kerry – no, she plotted her own rise at the expense of the party. They think the democratic party is their plaything to do with as they wish. Now we are suposed to believe she is some kind of blue collar momma – who cares about poor whites who lost their manufacturing jobs? Riiiiight. Ever see the bling she dons herself in?
NightHawk
To Todd: Hillary has said repeatedly that Democrats must come together in the fall and that she will campaign for Obama. Obama is the one who is doing the damage by saying that he would be able to get Hillary’s voters in the general election, and she wouldn’t be able to get this (even though polls show the exact opposite). And there there’s Michelle Obama, who said that she didn’t know if she would vote for Hillary if she were at the top of the ticket. There’s some real unity for you there.
And to An Other Greek:
Obama
voted
to
FUND
the
war.
Ryan
Actually Greek it is not his race that bothered me at all. If you actually read my post you will see that I am like Obama himself bi-racial and grew up in a household that moved around alot (16 times in 18 years. thank you military) I won’t use my own multi ethnic status as a defense to prove that I do not dislike Obama because of his race. I know plenty of racial minorities who are incredibly racist. My dislike of Obama is more because I cannot feel that he is snake oil peddling hope to the United States and is doing so, because he is completely aware that America is in desperate need of something to believe in. My concern was only exacerbated by the fact that when the going got rough he got his hands dirty and played hardball.
I truthfully find his rhetoric incredibly convincing and uplifting, I am just concerned that it is a facade, and that beneath that facade I, and the nation for that matter are not entirely aware what is it there.
I find it telling though that every time anyone (apparently even other racial minorities) decries Obama for anything, the first thing hurled against them is racism. I’m all for debate, but you need to find a better defense of your points other than labeling someone a racist. Until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes, don’t you dare presume to judge me.
Ryan
(and I forgot to add)
and as for my political leanings, you are right I am not a democrat, nor am I a republican. I prefer to choose who I vote for based on both my own personal interpretation of their moral character (which is my right) as well as their stated stances on public policy, past histories, financial connections, and political interests.
Anyone who blindly follows one party just because it is their party, and does not closely examine all candidates, is an ill informed voter.
Have I pretty much always voted democrat because 95% of the republicans are asshats? yes. That doesn’t mean I always will. Being gay is only -one- aspect of who I am both as a person and in terms of my political leanings. I’m also biracial, own a home, am married and all of these things as well as a great many more influence my vote beyond who I choose to put my willy into.
An Other Greek
Ryan, I haven’t walked in your shoes, nor you in mine. And I DO commend you for saying, “I won’t use my own multi ethnic status as a defense to prove that I do not dislike Obama because of his race. I know plenty of racial minorities who are incredibly racist.”
that is wise on your part.
You also say, “I find it telling though that every time anyone (apparently even other racial minorities) decries Obama for anything, the first thing hurled against them is racism.” Yes, you are right, it is telling, because it is our reality, just read the above posts… So it is no surprise to identify the racism that is prevalent and active in defining Obama, and especially OUR (mine and yours) perceptions of him.
But what strikes me is your self-given allowance to judge politicians on their “moral character.” Besides that being largely speculative, it is also largely dependent on corporate-sponsored information dispersion. Shaky ground.
More correctly, you then state that in addition to you “feelings” about character, you are interested in “their stated stances on public policy, past histories, financial connections, and political interests.”
Reading you comments about McCain, I find it curious that you would have rather voted for him over either Democratic candidate (even with that erroneous qualifier about his “nuttyness”). Do you find his “stated stances on public policy, past histories, financial connections, and political interests” agreeable??
I suggest a closer look!
Monolith-ism is unattractive, and it is oh-so-empowering to separate ourselves from our expected and stereotypical associations, but let’s get real. I am just wondering what is it about the policies of the Republicans that allow you to be in such a relativistic space as to your precious allegiances?
By the way, thank you for your time and your tone. It is a pleasure to debate this with you.
——————————————————————— ———-
Afroguapo
The “voting for McCain before Obama” rhetoric on here (realize Ryan said over either candidate) is such a questionable eyebrow arching tactic and indicative of so many subliminal and internal issues at play. As always, well said and great thought out analysis An Other Greek.
Ryan
just to clarify, I would never dream of voting for McCain now. I was referring to 7 years ago when he was the republican underdog and it was more of just a… theoretical position than an actual one. between accusations of gay sweaters and allying with hardcore fundamentalists preachers I wouldn’t touch McCain with a ten foot pole. As I stated above I pretty much always side with democrats because I find them to be slightly less insane than the republicans, my point was merely that in a general sense, I don’t find it useful for people to blindly pledge allegiance to one party or another, since oftentimes I find neither one has much of an impetus to really help out the average american once campaigning season is over.
An Other Greek
yes, but, I got that the first time you said it.
Problem is that 7 years ago, McCain was essentially the same Republican, with the same problems. 7 years ago McCain still espoused policies that threatened the well-being of gays and multi-ethnic Americans, and especially of gay multi-ethnic Americans…Maybe you don’t know this? Keating Five is much more than 7 years ago… He hasn’t gotten “nutty”, you’ve just gotten to know him better…
Anyway, you say: “I don’t find it useful for people to blindly pledge allegiance to one party or another, since oftentimes I find neither one has much of an impetus to really help out the average american once campaigning season is over.”
Well, I’m not with you on that, but can we at least agree then that if parties cannot help Americans, certainly they can HURT Americans??? And non-Americans as well?
Relativizing the differences between the parties, especially after the Bush catastrophe is curious. Remember when the arm-chair liberals would complain that Gore and Bush are the same? o u c h!!! Instead of enlightened, your hold of ersatz “objectivity” seems like an exercise, like an insistence to theorize and idealize, when in fact, the practice of the Republicans should make their problems clear and evident. Lastly, beware of Libertarians and log-cabin republicans. These brothers are beholden to greed and their privileged individualism, even when they themselves are victims of the system the delusionally project themselves as benefiting from…
—————————————————————————————–