Join The Movement or Has the Obamamania Gotten Out of Hand

I have written here a few times in recent days about of the hype around the Obama “movement” as he calls it and the fact many people don’t want to “join” a “movement,” they want a leader. In some ways, I have told a few people in conversation off The Dem Daily, the Obama “movement” reminds me of the Dean “movement” in ’04, another movement I was not swayed to join.

It’s not that I don’t see the attraction he holds for some, I just personally feel it leaves me cold. I’m not a joiner, I’m an independent think, a leader not a follower. When someone pushes me to join or participate in something that involves group think, I tend to run the other way, so perhaps that is why I never caught the Obama fever.

I’m glad to see the media and others in the blogosphere are catching on to the “fact that some Obama supporters’ exhuberance seems to be getting a little out of hand.”  In a spot on and snarky post on ABC’s Political Punch, Jake Tapper writes:

Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.

It’s as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, “Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat.”

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she’s “getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama’s supporters. On listservs I’m on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, “Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of ‘coming to Obama’ in the same way born-again Christians talk about ‘coming to Jesus.’…So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work.”

And Joe Klein, who also makes a comparison to the Dean campaign as I have above, notes:

And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. “This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you.” That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

That is not unprecedented. It has echoes of Howard Dean’s 2004 primary effort, although in Dean’s case the propellant was substance, not rhetoric — the candidate’s early courageous voice against the war. But Dean soon found that wasn’t enough. In June 2003 he told me he needed to broaden his movement, reach out past the young and the academic and find a greater array of issues that could inspire working people. He never quite found that second act, and his campaign became about process, not substance: the hundreds of thousands of supporters signing up on the Internet, the millions of dollars raised. He lost track of the rest of the world; his campaign was about … his campaign. […]

Obama’s strength is inspiration, and it’s also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party’s detriment — and that is not Obama’s game. […]

There is an odd, anachronistic formality to Obama’s stump speech: it is always the same. It sets his audiences afire, but it does not reach very far beyond them. It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key — but not so strong in primaries, where more diverse masses of people are involved. He should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

James Wolcott writes chimes in saying: 

Perhaps it’s my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can’t picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don’t look to politics for transcendence and self-certification.

Finally, Jake Tapper notes:

there’s MSNBC’s Chris Matthews who tells Felix Gillette in the New York Observer, “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.”

And behold, Obama met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?

At least until Easter, or the Pennsylvania primary, whichever comes first…

Will Bunch notes that “There’s a legitimate debate to be had whether Barack Obama is the entire package — including his policy positions and his experience — to become the 44th president of the United States,” but he says faulting Tapper and Joe Klein, “no one should be unhappy about bringing some excitement and some passion into the great American debate — unless of course you belong the Gang of 500, and then you see a mob outside the gates of the Bastille.”

I don’t get, to be frank, that anyone is unhappy about the fact that Obama brings “some excitement and some passion” into the mix. For those of us who are increasingly turned off by Obama’s rhetoric and platitudes, there is something undeniably disconcerting about hearing him talk consistently about the “movement” rather than the platform. We’re looking for a leader not a preacher.  If we wanted a preacher, we could vote for Huckabee.

Taylor Marsh and Jeralyn have more.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Join The Movement or Has the Obamamania Gotten Out of Hand

  1. Janis says:

    I don’t hold any enmity toward Obama himself (unlike his fans toward HRC, as they seem to have joined forces with Rush Limbaugh in anointing her the antichrist). But … well, yes. I’ve gotten massively turned off by many of his fans as well. They’re freaky — and I started out initially preferring him over HRC.

    But … it just struck me that there were an awful lot of (not to put too fine a point on it) young guys in that camp who were delighted at the opportunity to gain liberal cred by promoting OObama as a cadidate while still throwing words like sl*t, d*ke, wh*re, and c*nt around. It was repulsive.

    Add that to a lot of rather foamy-mouthed barracuda women who are champing at the bit to take down a wmoan they perceive as Little Miss Thing In Her Pantsuit Who Thinks She’s Better Than Me, and it just really made the alarm bells ring for me. I ended up giving HRC a second glance, looking past that Iraq vote, and seeing a lot more there — and a lot less there when I looked at Obama.

    I haven’t equated Obama and Dean much, though — mostly because Obama strikes me as a more Kerry-like figure. He’s deceptively flashy, but push comes to shove, he’s just another of what I call the standard soft-stomached Democrat who can’t take a punch. Dean strikes me as a bit more Hillary-like in that he was a pugnacious little bruiser on the side of the angels. His “Deaniac” followers were a bit out of hand, but candidate-wise, he and HRC seem more parallel, and Obama and Kerry seem so to me, too.

    But I agree completely. The goggle-eyed weirdness emanating from the Obama fans I know has weirded me right out. It’s funny how vicious and savage they have gotten, when they are supposedly trailing around after a guy who talks about hope and happy thoughts and singing “Kumbaya.” He’s got the rainbows and butterflies, and they’ve got the long knives.

    And again — I don’t hold that against him as a candidate. He’s simply too green and his warts haven’t been found yet — and we can’t AFFORD to waste months letting the press find them and punching him apart like Swiss cheese. In eight years time, after he’s gained some more grey hair and battle scars, and learned that verve, enthusiasm, and freshness aren’t enough, he’ll be ready. Until then, not a chance.

    Remember: Hillary entered the healthcare debate over ten years ago with exactly the same arsenal of weapons as Obama has now. Verve, enthusiasm, and freshness. They weren’t enough then, either.

  2. alrudder says:

    Yes certainly wacktivists can bring down their own candidate, like Dean in Iowa. But unlike Dean, that is not the essence of Obama’s support. Obama’s campaign is a flatter organization (and thus can raise more money and scale up in size) than Dean’s was and Obama is courting the middle.
    Hillary does have a passionate base, it’s just that they tend to be older and thus don’t use computers and don’t have the same energy as Obama’s. I’ve suspended my campaigning for Hillary (due to the slow apology on Bill’s comment about Jesse Jackson) but I wish they would work to make men, particularly young men feel more comfortable in their campaign offices. They don’t reject us, but clearly, it is an older female environment.

  3. Brian Luce says:

    “I’ve suspended my campaigning for Hillary (due to the slow apology on Bill’s comment about Jesse Jackson) ”

    What apology? He took a reflective tone at a few Black churches–that’s no apology.

  4. Brian Luce says:

    All fair points Janis, however, that Iraq vote you’re willing to overlook has cost 4,000 American lives, 100,000 Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars and diminished our reputation in the world. And after all that, she still greenlit Iran. Her Iran vote is the 500 pound gorilla standing next to Hillary every time she’s on CNN and the Iraq vote is the 500 ton T-rex.

    Think about that dinosaur and monkey before you pull the lever on her.

  5. Janis says:

    Al, trust me — there’s no amount of work women can do to make jittery young men comfortable around women over 40. That’s work and growing up that they have to do — we can’t reach into your heads and MAKE you not get jumpy around competent women with grey hair. If we could, we would have reprogrammed your brains in that direction a looooong time ago. 🙂

  6. Janis says:

    Brian, perhasp you’d like to think about Obama’s vote to continue funding it once he was in the Senate and making exactly the same sorts of decisions that you label as cynical and triangulating when Clinton made them.

    There’s more than enough Iraq blame to go around.

  7. I believe that Obama is a republican conspiracy. Republicans in large number are crossing party line and voting for Obama, and I believe also funding him generously. Only chance that Republicans have in 2008 election, is they have easily beatable candidate on the other side. The Republican voters who are voting for him in the primaries and funding him are not going to vote for him in November. They will turn back to their own party. Barrack Hussein Obama is a “Moslem” name, pay attention to “Hussein.” I wish that someone will investigate back his “moslem” past.

    I am very shocked to hear that College educated are not so well educated after all, they have become part of the mad “Obamamania.”

    But I am absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton will win, and not only be nominated, but take the oath of office in January 2009.

  8. Kat says:

    At first, I thought the Obama Movement creepiness was just his overzealous minions — kids who never heard the word “sacrifice” and don’t have to worry about providing for aging parents and entitled kids. However, I’ve come to believe that it’s a calculated strategy to take the focus away from real issues, so that a sanctimonious and prissy egomaniac can take the White House. So much for hope and hot air. How will that get us health care?

    If these kids were out sacrificing anything, fighting for anything, giving up anything, I might pay attention. They don’t know what a real fight or sacrifice is.

  9. Brian Luce says:

    Sorry Janis, but the Iraq war and the Iran vote are part of Hillary’s legacy, not Barack’s. It’s no “Fairytale”, it’s a matter of public record.

    Once Hillary and the rest of the spineless hacks greenlit the war, Bush had congress by the gonads. Voting to maintain funding became synonymous with supporting the troops. The troops should be supported once we’ve put them in harm’s way. It’s a nations obligation.

    Hillary served as a Bush surrogate–making the same absurd connections between Al Qaeda and Sadam. Barack NEVER did that. So pulling Barack into Hillary’s Arabian Nightmare isn’t going to fly. Voting to support troops at war isn’t the same as tag teaming with the GWB propaganda machine.

    Hillary Clinton was WRONG ON DAY ONE. And the fact that she’s female, over 40, and has grey hair doesn’t mitigate that. 4000 Americans dead, 100,000 Iraqis dead, a trillion dollars gone. Marinate in that for a while before punching her ticket.

  10. alrudder says:

    Brian,
    Hillary did make a perfunctory apology on Nightline last week, but it is clear that her high command has no idea how much repairing they have to do with the black community.

    Janis,
    As for marketing to young men, first it is imperative. She can go on media that we watch. She can also start talking about issues that men tend to pay more attention to: national security, business, etc. Please don’t think of it as reprogramming our brains, just come out and speak to us in our language. I’ve met Napolitano and Granholm and they can do that.

  11. Brian

    “And the fact that she’s female, over 40, and has grey hair doesn’t mitigate that.”

    Excuse me?

  12. Hillary Clinton could be the anti christ, but I doubt it. Barack Obama could be the anti christ, but I doubt it. Get a grip, people, they’re politicians. That means that they’ll work for us, they’ll work for themselves, and they’ll work for whoever will pay the price to keep them in the game. Well, at least the Democrats tend to be like that. The Republicans, not so much. They tend to leave out the part about working for us.

  13. Janis says:

    Brian, do you know why there’s more warts on Clinton?

    She’sdone more stuff.

    Obama is unblemished simply because he hasn’t actually DONE anything or had his nards to the fire over anything. It’s interesting to note that the minute he did have to start thinking about his long-term career, he started voting politically as well.

    Again, the man is attractive as a candidate because he has done nothing. People who have done nothing are always easier to talk up because doing something means that you take the risk of failing. The easiest way to piss people off is to do anything. Obama is empty — empty of achievements and empty of flaws.

  14. Janis says:

    “… just come out and speak to us in our language.”

    Al, do you have any idea how silly that sounds? Professional women don’t live in some little all-girlie bubble, you know. I need to deal with and interact with and “speak the language of” young men throughout my entire life, because I wouldn’t have a career at all if I couldn’t. To suggest that I or any professional woman hasn’t already learned how to be bilingual in Guyspeak shows an incredible lack of awareness of what a woman needs to do in order to build a career in anything even vaguely professional in this world.

    Many of the men of all ages I’ve worked with in the past could afford to be entirely monolingual. Not one woman can. For want of a less blunt way of saying it, we know you better than you know us because we have to. It’s the same reason why Jews know the Christian wedding vows and the vast majority of Christians know nothing about Jewish weddings aside from the broken glass thing, and why black people know more about white culture(s) than white people do about black ones (aside from the gangsta stuff that shows up in the movies). The people in the #2 slot always have to know the #1’s better.

  15. Janis says:

    Marinate in that for a while before punching her ticket.

    Bruce, why don’t you “marinate” in the absolute fact that an Obama nomination means that McCain will kick him into next week — and that many more lives will be lost?

    McCain will crush him. You guys have been given a breezy ride by the news media so far, and you’re foolish enough to think it’s gonna last. you think you’re in the big leagues and you’re in the kiddie pool. You are in for a real rude awakening — why do so many HRC supporters know this?

    We’ve got that stuff called experience, even though that’s apparently a dirty word this election cycle. We’ve seen it happen a dozen times, and we’re seeingit happen again right before our eyes,and you aren’t listening. Your guy’s gonna get flattened. We’re seeing you run straight head-on for a cliff because the road’s been smooth so far, and we’re on the sidelines going, “WATCH OUT! THERE’S A CLIFF!” while you sneer and brush it off, and run faster.

    And at the bottom of that cliff is President McCain and a shedload more dead bodies in Iraq. If you care so damned much about the war, why are you running pell-mell straight toward that damned cliff?!

    He is gonna get taken out at the knees, right after the convention, if he gets the nom. Like I said elsewhere, “Up next on Hardball, fresh allegations of corruption against Democratic golden boy Barack Obama! Is his rock-star campaign foundering? Next after this commercial break!”

    Why don’t you do a little “marinating.” You’re enjoying your own moral smugness so much that you will send this country straight down the crapper, running for that cliff and ignoring the people who are begging you to WATCH OUT FOR THE DAMNED CLIFF. It’s not just Iraq — it’s the entire economy, it’s the entire damned planet.

    But you just go ahead and run blithely ahead with your starched upper lip, and if your guy gets the nom, and WHEN he starts getting picked to shreds by the media, I’m sure you’ll be able to turn and yell in the faces of HRC’s supporters that it’s all our fault. We, the ones who tried to warn you. “If you hadn’t said anything, Cassandra, there wouldn’t have been any soldiers in the horse!”

    I’ll gloat as well as I can from the unemployment line.

  16. alrudder says:

    Janis and Brian,
    I’m sure you are both nice people, but I’ve got to say that I am interpreting your comments as illustrative about the negative stereotypes of your respective campaigns.

    Janis,
    I’m telling you Hillary is failing to connect with men, if she’s had to do it her whole career, then good, she should do it. Young men are not that bad and please don’t assume we can’t be responsive. Additionally, the culture at her campaign offices needs to make men feel more welcome.

    Brian,
    Tone it down. Obama is a great candidate with a strong case to make to middle America. Just lucidly and calmly present what your candidate means for America’s future and each listener’s place in it.

  17. Alrudder

    I am sorry to hear that you have backed off on supporting HRC. You were among those who convinced me to get on board.

    If there is a problem with the way HRC connects with young men, in your opinion I think that’s valid and campaigns usually want to hear these things from supporters and voters in general.

    I get where Janis is coming from because I too have have had to work harder to get men to listen. We shoudn’t have to. I think that’s why women gravitate to Hillary because we get she is listening.

    Also, I will add, yes, Brian please tone it down. It is possible to have civil discussions and we strive for that here at The Dem Daily.

  18. alrudder says:

    Everyone,
    Sure, no matter how you slice and dice the population, Demographic X has to work harder than Demographic Y. When you are running for high office, a politician needs to relate to people. Their campaign message must resonate with the values and identities of a whole host of people. Also, their campaign organization and surrogates must reflect inclusiveness, and imply that they respect people.
    And of course, communicate in a civil tone.

  19. Brian Luce says:

    Janis, I see you’ve bought into the myth of HC’s 35 years of experience. Unfortunately her record doesn’t support the myth. As best I can tell, HC’s main accomplishment has been failing to get a health care program passed. Her legislative record is paper thin, and her children’s rights advocacy amounts to 11 months in a NGO. You can make the case that she’s experienced at being the chew toy of the right–or that she’s experienced at riding her husband’s coat tails, or experienced at trading on the Clinton brand name, but her record is ultimately one of failure–a failure of poor judgment profoundly underscored by her Iraq vote and shameful, hawkish rhetoric leading up to the invasion. 4,000 Americans, 100,00 Iraqis, a trillion dollars. Those are not warts Janis, those are sins. If concern for human life and national treasure makes me “morally smug”, I happily wear that as badge of honor.

    You lose credibility when you talk of “absolute fact” in regards to what will happen against McCain. How do you know? Gotta crystal ball? Nancy’s astrology charts? And how do you know what dirt is going to surface on Obama? Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know the future, but I do know the present, and all the polling clearly indicates Obama matches up more favorably against McCain than HC does. I can also divine the past: 4,000 American Lives, 100,000 Iraqi lives, one trillion dollars.

    Leaving all this aside, the biggest problem with you argument is that setting up HC as the one best able to take a punch is the way losers think. You’re not setting HC up to win, you setting her up not to lose. She’s like the New England Patriots, she’s got the brand name, she’s got the great organization, but Obama, like the NY Giants, has audacity to believe he can win. We’re at halftime and it’s all tied up. Not bad for an obsure, skinny bi-racial dork with a wierd name doncha think? Ain’t gonna be no coronation darling. Don’t gaze too deeply into that crystal ball because the NY Giants love to blitz–that crystal ball may get shoved down your throat.

  20. Brian

    The implication that Iraq is all HRC’s fault is ridiculous. Again I will repeat, Tone it down with the criticism. All which you have repeated here over and over again.

    Oh and FYI, so the Pats lost the Super Bowl, they played a perfect season until the Super Bowl, that stands as facts. They are damn strong football team.

  21. OK, now let me make sure I have this right:
    1. Hillary has not been able to out-fund Barack
    2. Hillary and Bill have not been successful in playing the race
    card
    3. Bill has not been able to convince us that Baback’s campaign
    is no more than a “fairy tale”
    4. Hillary’s operatives have not been able to fool us into thinking
    that Barack, instead of being a Christian, is actaully a Muslim
    5. By winning primaries in various geographic regions, they
    have failed to prove that he does NOT have national appeal
    6. They have largely failed with their “lack of experience”
    argument.
    7. They have not been able to portray him as a flip-flooper, as
    his stand on the issues has been remarkably consistent.
    SO, what’s left? Oh, I know, lets portray his supporters as being fanatical. Let’s portay his ardent supporters as being crazed. Let’s portray his “movement” as something more closely resembeling a crazed religious cult. OK, Hillary, I guess it’s worth flying this one up the flag pole to see if it will fly.
    I, for one, (along with many Americans from every political pursuasion,gender, age and race) am supporting Senator Obama for his clear message of real CHANGE. He want’s to end the corrupt influence of lobbys on the political process. Some may get upset when I say this, but I am tired of an executive branch headed by anyone from either of our two royal families. How can the perpetuation of this Bush/Clinton cycle be cast as CHANGE?
    Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but the last time I checked, I was not foaming at the mouth. I am not worshipping him as a new massiah. And oh, by the way, I am not experiencing an urge to drink cynided laced kool-aid, ala the Jim Jones folks.
    Well, I guess when you never even thought that a young, up-start, would have the “Audacity of Hope” to challenge you on the way to your pre-ordained coronation–any thing is worth a trying.
    By the way, as I have said on this blog frequently, I will FULLY support Hillary if she eventually becomes our nominee!! Either one of them is better than McCain. I would certainly hope that all of you Hillary supporters would do the same IF THE TOTALLY UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS AND BARACK BECOMES OUR STANDARD BEARER. I pray that the very thought of this happening has not caused any out there to experience indigestion!!! Buzz

  22. Buzz

    I don’t know why but I had a good laugh from your comment tonight. And FYI, Jake Tapper from ABC who I largely quoted in this piece is an equal opportunity journailist who has also taken a lot of shots at HRC. So too has Joe Klein, who was also quoted. This is not something put out by the Clinton campaign it is a perception floating into the media and the blogs.

    Personally I get and I am sure the media does too that not all of Obama’s supporters are young and idealistic and along for the ride, but some are just that. Easily swayed and they may not as pointed out the NY Times yesterday, turn out to vote.

    No worries on my part on indigestion… I drank a whole bottle of Pepto after reading some of the other comments here of late. 😉

    As always my friend, these days we disagree, and I look forward heartily until the day when we are on the same team again.

  23. Brian Luce says:

    I’m not being harsh, but electing Hillary Clinton will gives us 36 years, 36 consecutive years of the Bush/Clinton dynasties. That blows. I’m shitfull of Bush/Clinton. Let’s give the country a colonic.

  24. Oh my gosh, the ad below right now – The GOP is hiring. Crazy.

  25. Brian

    You are being harsh and rude and that doesn’t really fly around here when it is done repeatedly. The Dem Daily has a reputation of being a blog where the discourse is civil. Please keep that in mind.

  26. Bacalove says:

    Obama’s movement is a People Movement, a movement to empower People, to put the power back into the People’s Hands. Some are afraid of this and want to deny it, they want to keep Power for their own separative selves and continue to divide and conquer while America continues to decay and not face and tackle her many problems facing her today, to keep us from moving into the 21st Century with schools, infrastructure, energy. Our public schools need more light, right now they look like Prisons and we all know that light is good for your mental health. Obama wants to reform the way we politick in this country, with lies, spin and saying and doing anything tor the sake of power, that is the old way and should not be 21st thinking policies, which the young get and those pure of heart, who want to lead a more holistic way of life and yes, believe what their leaders say to them. I am on the Obama movement! It is about us, not just about You or the Well Connected!

  27. Trevor Owen says:

    As an idealistic young male who supports Obama I guess I fall right into a typical category. However, I agree that the fervor around Obama is a little worrying. People are building him up to a level that is not only unreasonable, but unfair in my opinion. Yes, I support Obama, yes I think he can be a good leader for our country, but I don’t think he’s going to be able to fix everything overnight, not even over 8 years (if he gets that long). I think the Obama campaign didn’t plan for what happened, rather, they’ve paid attention to it and chosen to ride the wave. I just hope that everyone who has been caught up in it can ride it down, without having it crash over them and surprise them when they find out Obama isn’t the next Jesus, just a good leader with the ability to inspire people.

    I do take offense at the idea that young people only support him because they’re getting caught up in the hype. I’ve done my research, and I based my choice on that, not what the news was telling me to do.

    Oh, and Jagdish, I’m pretty sure there has been an extensive look into Obama’s “moslem” past. I’m fairly sure it is close to non-existent. What connection he’s had to Islam is out there for anyone to read, and I’m faintly amazed that that is still a major talking point and a reason people don’t like him.

  28. Janis says:

    Brian, I certainly haven’t had a gutful of Clinton. things were pretty damned okay when we had a Clinton in the White House. What I’ve had a gutful of is people conflating the two because of the Horror-The-Horror of a blowjob and the Horror-the-Horror of an unjust war being regarded as equal! I’m sick of hearing people go, “Oh, but Clinton was Just As Bad!” No, he wasn’t. It’s absolutely insane to propose that he was anywhere near the level of craven, vicious, hateful, nutjobbery that the current inhabitant of the WH has evinced. It’s cheapens outrage to spread it around that thoughtlessly. Clinton lied about a astupid sexual escapade that HRC should have punched him over — and I hope she did. Bush lied about a hell of a lot worse. How in Earth you can actually even think to hyphenate those names boggles me.

    And regards Iraq — what I want as the daughter of a VFW is someone who can END IT, more than I want someoen who can point to it and go, “Not MY fault!” Particularly when he began falling in line with the party voice the second he had a career to risk anyhow.

    I guess I’m just sic of those blasted “Don’t Blame Me I voted For XYZ” bumperstickers, and anything that smacks of them. And that’s how Obama’s fans are flogging that — it’s not HIS fault! Yeah, but what’s he going to do to end it? After you have seen four or five iterations of those stupid “not MY fault” bumperstickers layered over the same car bumpers, they start to grate. The hell with who doesn’t have the mud clinging to them — especially when both Obama and Clinton voted to continue funding the thing anyway. Who can end it? Who can get elected, and who can end it?

    Don’t hand me a smug “It’s not my fault I voted XYZ” sticker again. I’m sick of those things. Everyone who ever stuck one on their damned car should get slapped in the head. What will be done to end it? Obama is a completely untouched rich field of dirt to dig up, and you know they’ve been working 24/7 to do just that, to trot it out the second he gets the nom, if he does. You are playing right into their hands. That’s where it begins and ends — you are dancing their dance, and they’ve set out the mines. And he will get creamed, and it’ll be back to “Not my fault I voted XYZ” again. I never want to see another one of those stinking bumpersticks again.

  29. Janis says:

    I have to say though, I can’t recall where I found the article, but I just recently read something about a Hillary volunteer in NY doing some work along with a number of Obama volunteers, and how there was some good-natured ribbing but generally things were happy and cordial and everyone was wishing everyone luck. That’s at least heartening to see, and makes me realize that I can’t be too quick to put so much emphasis on the foamier O-fans that I’ve run into. I guess everyone has their OTT fanboys and fangirls, and they’re just a bit louder than most.

  30. Brian Luce says:

    This is quite simple actually Janis, let me put it this way, for argument’s sake, let’s say Bill Clinton was the best president in the history of the universe. And let’s say, not for argument’s sake, but factually, that GW Bush is the worst president in the history of the universe. They’re two different clans but the are still part of the same continuum. And I’m still sick of them. It’s not healthy for two families to dominate the landscape for 36 years straight. A lot of us out here want new blood. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? uh uh. It’s time for a new face.

    Also consider that the Clinton political machine is the world’s finest. A lot better than McCain’s. McCain doesn’t even have pollsters and a recent press photo showed him deplaning from a luxurious Southwest Airlines 737. If anyone’s mastered opposition research, it’s the Clintons. If the dirt you say is there, the Clintons would surely be exploiting it at this point. Their only play so far was Hillary’s counterpunch about about Obama representing a slum lord. There’s been very ltttle follow up on that because it’s factually wrong. At the time of Obama’s 2 degrees of separation contact with Rezco, Rezco was lauded as a provider of quality low income housing. Aside from the slum lord rim shot, the only other dirt is Obama’s admission that he played around with drugs as a teenager 30 years ago. Bill tried to run with that one too–he was last seen, in vintage form apologizing for his remarks on MSNBC then immediately adding the qualifier that his remarks were all “Factually accurate”. Whatever Bill, at least Obama had brains enough to inhale!

    If you ask me, this is all a red herring, John McCain is an honorable man. I’ve watched this guy for a long time, he’s one of the few Republican’s whose all-american apple pie image isn’t a lie. He’s the real deal with crossover appeal. Hillary is big target, Obama seems fairly clean so far, but I don’t think it’ll matter, McCain won’t go there. Everyone thinks this election will be a replay of past elections–but the stars in the midst of realignment–we should expect the unexpected not business as usual.

  31. Brian

    Bush just endorsed McCain today incase you missed it. The money will roll in now for him. The idea that Obama, who has shown he is a weak debater can go against the guy is patently absurd. The idea also that Clinton’s vetted him is also patently absurd. Contrary to the belief that the Clinton’s play oh so dirty, we (meaning Democrats in general) typically don’t dig in the dirt the way the GOP will. It’s naive to assume so.

  32. Brian Luce says:

    Janis,

    I don’t agree with much of what you’re saying. Obama fought Hillary to a draw in the Hollywood debate–that’s what the punditocracy is saying at least–you probably saw it differently. The prior debate, the South Carolina massacre, obviously didn’t serve Hillary’s interests.

    Bill Clinton apologized for racializing the South Carolina primary, the video is on this blog. Maybe you don’t think racializing is bad or dirty–others do.

  33. Brian

    Do us a favor – if you are an Obama supporter, spend your time here telling us why you support Obama, instead of bashing Hillary and or Bill. You have repeated the same talking points here for days and it’s getting old.

  34. Brian Luce says:

    Policy wise, Obama and Clinton stand for pretty much the same thing. So the question becomes who can get it done. In my book, there are 3 great issues for the next president: Global warming, health care, and Iraq. Though possibly good to go on the first two, but on the third she IS the problem not the solution. That’s why I’m, voting for Obama. 4,000/100,000/one trillion. I can’t gloss over that.

    Further, by history, she has a hard time getting things accomplished (health care, attorney general nominations) because she’s so polarizing. We need someone who can get things done, some republicans are already moving to Obama and he’s known as a consensus builder skilled at reaching out to the other side. 8 years of republican obstructionism is not what we need. GWB did a job on America, it’s going to take a lot to reset everything. I’m so tired of division, and that’s one of the legacies of the Bush/Clinton dynasties. I dislike the Tom Delays of the world but they have to be managed and finessed. Hillary will just antagonize them and they’ll find ways to block, distract, and harass. Meanwhile the ice caps melt.

  35. Brian

    Three great issues? Whew, you got those Obama talking points memorized I see. Funny how your 3 great issues are his. Isn’t it funny. Think for yourself much?

  36. Oh and Brian, you know Obama criticized Clinton for crossing party lines and working with McCain on some issues, but in fact that is what he is proposing to be bi-partisan. His criticism of Clinton is hypocritical. So too is yours.

  37. Marcia says:

    Brian,

    You remarked that Sen. McCain is such an honarable man. I just have a few statements about that.

    First, I live in Arizona, McCain’s home state. We in Arizona, have heard all about McCain and how he conducts himself.
    I do not know how old you are but you need to research why John McCain was part of the “Keating 5 “. He played quite a part in Charles Keating’s savings & loan version of junk bonds. How Charles Keating was the only one to go to prison for that is beyond me. Obviously, there was more than 1 person coordinating all those lies. Many Saving & loan customers were financially wiped out after that.

    Secondly, his wife Cindy, is the only heir to the Hensley beer distribution (trucking) company. Her family has ties to the Joe Bonano family (yes, as in mafia). The Joe Bonano family even invited Sen. McCain & wife to Joe Bonano’s 75th birthday. Which of course, Sen. McCain wrote a respectful letter to the Bonano family declining the invitation.
    While I respect his service for our country, I do not think he is an honorable man like you think he is.
    You need to do your homework Brian.

  38. Marcia: All you say is true, but beyong that McCain is a flack. He’s also an onld flack. And dull. All of which makes him the [erfect Repiblican candidate this time.

  39. TPL says:

    I am in extreme shock at the gullibility of such a large number of Americans in jumping on the Obama Bandwagon. Here is a candidate who one year ago was referred to by fellow Black Americans as a fake, a phoney, even an “Uncle Tom”, and yes I heard “Oreo” as well. Now all of the sudden he has become the “Black Messiah”, and I fail to understand where the sudden turn in opinions came from. All of Black America seems to have forgotten where they stood not more than one year ago. What brought forth such gullibility, and amnesia? Well, Obama’s campaign managers knew that he could not win without the support of Black Americans. They knew his weakness was that Black America saw no connection to Obama, as he was raised by a white mother, in middle class Hawaii, and when not there was either in Kansas, or attending an Islamic Academy in Indonesia (it is debated as to whether or not it is a Mudrassa, but it is fact that it IS an Islamic Academy). Obama never grew up through the struggles in a racially divided America, or even knew what it meant to struggle period as his entire education was bought and paid for all the way through Harvard Law School.

    So, just how did Obama’s campaign managers handle this problem? They gained access to every Black Church they could lay their hands on, made donations, and thus convinced the Pastors that Obama was a true Black American who understood the many issues facing Black America. They in turn convinced their congregations (mostly Black Americans), that Obama was their man, and that he would represent them and their cause in The White House. Thus began the change in attitude towards Obama and his connections to Black America.

    Race issues aside, Americans have become so brainwashed in following Obama that they fail to realize his speeches never make sense, and always represent contradictions. One week he speaks of pulling out of Iraq, then the very next week he speaks of invading Pakistan, which not only happens to be our ally, but also a Nuclear Power. So which is it, we cut-and-run in Iraq where we are currently facing a real enemy? Or do we invade Pakistan, cause a governmental collapse, and allow the radical terrorists to seize Nuclear Armaments?

    It is such inconsistencies that truly disturb me. It is as those currently following Obama fail to even understand where he stands, and fall head over heels for his double-talk.

    There are so many great Black Americans that have the experience, tenacity, and sound judgment to be our History making United States President. Obama however is not one of them, as his rhetoric is empty, his judgment lacking, and his past extremely controversial. We need a Colin Powell or Condi Rice to lead us, and to represent us, or at the very least a Black American with a similar amount of experience, intelligence, and moral character. It would be a great shame to elect our First “Black” American President based off of nothing more than their perceived race. We need to use more discretion, and elect our First Black American President not simply because of the fact they would be just that, but because they would be the best candidate, and one which we could all be proud of in taking the United States on into the future. Making rash judgments, such as many seem to be in line for now, never helps anyone. If anything, such compulsive actions lead to severe problems, and issues which we may all later regret. Remember, this will not be the last Black American candidate, and he is certainly not the best we have to offer. Be proud, but be wise. God Bless Equality, and God Bless America.