New Statesman: We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

[Raejeanowl]

I'm always interested in reading presumptively less biased (my racehorse vs. your racehorse) reports about American politics and this is a particularly good article from a British journalist assigned here.

Andrew Stephen
U.S. Editor, New Statesman
21 February 2008
We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

<<<snip>>>

...ironically, the US media is waking up to some of the realities about Obama just as British enthusiasm is peaking. Jake Tapper of ABC likens Obama's supporters to Hare Krishna chanters. Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times says that at first he was mesmerised by Obama's nonsensical lines ("We are the ones we've been waiting for"), but now talks about the "Cult of Obama" and "Obamaphilia". The reality of Obama, Stein concludes, is that he is a politician who is "not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one".

That is the point which so many commentators, both here and in the UK, have been missing. You have to have lived here for a decade or two before you fully understand why the evil legacy of slavery will be extant for generations to come. You just have to read the 1848 "Black Code" of Georgetown to begin to comprehend the sheer wickedness of what was happening in my own neighbourhood 150 years ago.

Crucially, however, Obama is not a descendant of slaves. He is a biracial, prep-schooled Ivy Leaguer whose upbringing in Hawaii was in effect white; his entire political career has been choreographed by David Axelrod, a political tactician described by the New York Times as "post-ideological", from the day they first met when Obama was just 30 (and four years before the publication of his first memoirs).

Fast-forward to the 2008 election. David Greenberg, of Rutgers University, who is at present writing a book about political spin, says of Obama that "no one claims his agenda entails radical innovation or differs much from Hillary Clinton's", but that supporting Obama makes whites "feel good about themselves" and their country. "He lets them imagine that a nation founded for freedom yet built on slavery can be redeemed by pulling a lever," he says.

In contrast, Greenberg adds, the media barely noticed when Hillary Clinton became the first woman in US history to win a major-party primary. Exit-poll data bears out exactly the bias Greenberg detects. In Virginia - Virginia! - white men voted more for Obama than Clinton, as they also did in nine other states. Yet in racial melting-pot states such as Nevada, California, Massachusetts and New York, it was Clinton who won; it is the whitest states that are the wildest about Obama (such as Idaho, which the latest census figures show to be 96.8 per cent white, where he beat Clinton 79-17 per cent).

Those earning less than $50,000 a year are consistently voting for Clinton, while Obama is scoring resoundingly with the so-called "millennium generation" earning over $150,000; the journalists who have been so starry-eyed about Obama fit neatly into the latter demographic bracket themselves, and seem to have avoided scrutinising Obama's record lest they be accused of racism. Michelle Obama, too, is still being afforded constant favourable exposure. In contrast, it is open season on both Clintons, the most scrutinised couple in history; for Hillary's candidature, Bill and the prospect of his being back in the White House have become her biggest liabilities.

Perversely, therefore, the brilliance of the Axelrod strategy has meant that Obama has become the beneficiary of America's racist history, while Clinton has been the victim of its sexism. The Obama team's deft use of race has also worked magic. Hillary Clinton said on 7 January that Martin Luther King's dream needed to be realised in concert with Lyndon B Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964, and on the same day her husband dismissed Obama's claims of consistent opposition to the Iraq War as "a fairy tale"; an Obama press aide seized the moment and put out a four-page memo that somehow accused the couple of using racist tactics against Obama.

<<<snip>>>

http://www.newstatesman.com/200802210027

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Ah, I see Obama has gone all white on us again.

How original. If he isn't too black to be president he is too white to be really black.

[LizW]

3. Now, click the link and read

the whole article. :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Couldn't get past this paragraph.

"Crucially, however, Obama is not a descendant of slaves. He is a biracial, prep-schooled Ivy Leaguer whose upbringing in Hawaii was in effect white; his entire political career has been choreographed by David Axelrod, a political tactician described by the New York Times as "post-ideological", from the day they first met when Obama was just 30 (and four years before the publication of his first memoirs)."

That was it for me.

[ObamaFan]

11. Obama is white..he's white..ain't no black there...

ugh

[noiretextatique]

43. if he wasn't biracial, he wouldn't have made it this far

he is not the first black person to run for president, but he is the first bi-racial person to run for president. i don't understand why people have a problem with that or pretend it doesn't matter. in that regard, he embodies the coming together of different races and cultures, which i do believe is a large part of his appeal.

[NashVegas]

17. Too Bad You Don't Get That Enough to Put a Good Spin On It

I do, but I ain't giving it to ya.

[Raejeanowl]

8. Thanks For Saying It

Before I had to.

[islandmkl]

2. wow....

looks like this was plagiarized from myriad DU GD:P posts over the past several months...

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Interesting. From the article:

"The non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics says that Obama has doled out $698,200 to the campaign funds of super-delegates (via his political action or campaign committees) since 2005; 43 per cent of those pledged to support him have been recipients of Obama funds. Clinton's team has handed over $205,500 to super-delegates, meanwhile, and received only 13 per cent of pledges from recipients."

[ObamaFan]

14. That's because Hillary's was collecting them on name recognition and being the

presumptive, inevitable nominee..at least IMHO, so one has to dole out less.

Truth is..maybe she should have given more, especially since her campaign mismanaged the trillion dollars (lol) she had to run for office with..

Or maybe, she was too busy paying herself and her loyal pals...and there wasn't enough to go around.

[cali]

6. You need to educate yourself:

If you don't understand why this is repugnant, you should at least make an attempt to.

"Crucially, however, Obama is not a descendant of slaves. He is a biracial, prep-schooled Ivy Leaguer whose upbringing in Hawaii was in effect white; his entire political career has been choreographed by David Axelrod, a political tactician described by the New York Times as "post-ideological", from the day they first met when Obama was just 30 (and four years before the publication of his first memoirs)."

It's a hit piece. That simple. I'm able to discern Hillary hit pieces. How sad that you can't do the same, but instead proudly post disgusting crap like this. Glad to say I'd never stoop to such a level.

[Raejeanowl]

10. I'm Glad You're That "Discerning"

Now, please explain rationally why this author is writing hit pieces for Hillary.

[cali]

16. please read for comprehension

I did not say that the author was writing a hit piece for Hillary, now did I? I said it's a hit piece. And it's obvious that the attack on his ethnicity is ugly and either ignorant or purposefully deceitful. Obama identifies as a black man. Most people of a bi-racial heritage do. For one thing, his appearance is black. For another, it's entirely his business how he chooses to identify. He has never denied his background and upbringing. Far from it, he's embraced it. And furthermore, the article makes it appear as if he came from a privileged background. He didn't. His grandfather sold furniture. His grandmother worked her way up in a bank. They didn't even own their own home. Obama lived with them in a rented apt, and attended Punahao on a scholarship. He went through college on scholarships and student loans that he only recently finished paying off. Lastly, why is it important that he be descended from slaves? Does he claim to be? No. What's the point of making that distinction? For anyone not blinded by Hillary adulation/Obama detestation, this is all obvious.

[Raejeanowl]

26. Cali, We Just Don't "Get" Each Other

You said it was a "Hillary hit piece." Now, what DID that signify? That I'm the "hit man?"

I neither adore Hillary nor detest Obama, but she is my preferred candidate. I'm not "blinded" by either simply because I don't see it all your way.

And I will never for the life of me understand why anyone's attempt to address either the racial or gender dynamics in this campaign is automatically perceived as being on the "attack" against the candidate (unless the candidate is abusing his or her audience). It's the old elephant in the room syndrome.

I appreciate listening to anyone who doesn't have a visible axe to grind, someone outside of DU and not on a campaign payroll. There are so few here. I'm sorry that I don't see his critique of the Obama phenomenon (if you will?) in the same light as yourself.

[cali]

31. I thought I was clear.

I can tell when a piece about Hillary is blatantly a hit piece and I steer far away from posting or endorsing that kind of swill. I can't explain to you why this is a blatant hit piece on Obama any better than I have- and I explained it quite clearly, I thought.

This article does not address racial issues in the campaign. It takes a swipe at Obama's racial heritage, his upbringing and his choice to identify as a black man. It explains nothing and it's dishonest in portraying him as a son of privilege. There are actually good articles out there that parse the "Obama phenomena" in a thoughtful way and that try to maintain some objectivity yet still criticize it. This is not one of those of pieces.

[beachmom]

107. The German press has anti-Obama writers. Why not the Brits? nt

[noiretextatique]

46. it is not repugnant....and it is not a hit piece

if obama was a "regular" african-american, he would not be doing as well as he is now, nor would he have anywhere near the support he has. it's not just about his oft-repeated message of "hope and change"...it is that he is the messenger. amd the messenger is a privileged biracial man, which proves america is ready to elect a privileged biracial man as president.

the conclusion of the article: obama will be subject to the same swift-boating as kerry.

[cali]

50. ho hum. yet another

DUer living under the illusion that he/she knows what would happen in some alternative scenario. How absurd. And try and get it right: He's in a position of privilege because of his abilities. He wasn't born to it. Of course he'll be subject to swift boating. It's how he handles it that counts. And to date, he's handled any negativity thrown his way. To all but the most clueless, that's an indication, at least, that he's aware of the pitfalls and deft at handling them. It's about learning from Kerry's mistakes. And boy did he make them.

[noiretextatique]

53. obama grew up as a poor black child...not

not taking away from his natural abilties at all, but it's foolish to deny that this man grew up fairly privileged.

he has done remarkably well handling the attacks against him, but he is not the nominee yet. i hope he learns from kerry's ineptitude.

[cali]

58. um no. he did not grow up in a privileged way.

His grandparents didn't even own their own home. He lived in an apt in Hawaii- first with his Mom and then he lived in an apt with his grandparents. To call that privileged is simply ludicrous. And he went to Punahao on a scholarship. I went to a prestigious prep school to, but not on scholarship. And NONE of the kids there on scholarship came from what could be described as privileged backgrounds.

[noiretextatique]

72. sorry...i was wrong about his youth

he did not grow up wealthy...i apologize for the error.

[cali]

74. no problem. thanks for being gracious about it.

[noiretextatique]

75. thank you for being gracious eom

[Usrename]

68. I'm not sure what you mean by this use of the word privileged.

Do you mean like the way it is used to describe white privilege?

Otherwise, I don't see what you are talking about. He wasn't born with a silver spoon or anything.

on edit> ignore this question, i see your response above

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Hmm... This Writer Seems To Be "Fair and Balanced"

"Those earning less than $50,000 a year are consistently voting for Clinton"

I think this changed as of Wisconson.

"accused the couple of using racist tactics against Obama"

Writer accidentally forgot the incident that gives credibility to all race-baiting charges, Bill's "Obama is just like Jesse Jackson" hand grenade - very unlikely that this wasn't racist. Also the Duplicitous Duo's charge that Hispanics don't vote for blacks.

and so forth.

[jackson_dem]

87. One state overturns a 36 state pattern?

Only in Obamanation.

There is nothing racist about the Jackson comment. There is only one analogue to Obama's South Carolina win: Jackson. Both did poorly with whites but won over a split white field with 80% black support. Who else was he to cite? Edwards 2004? Many Obamites, including the guy on CNN point to that but the fact is Edwards won both the white and black vote in 2004.

The Clintons never said Latinos don't vote for blacks. To blame them for a supporter saying that is like blaming Obama for his supporters saying, drumroll please, Latinos (and Asians. Time ran a racist piece claiming since Asians vote for the wife of the guy who made them Democrats in the first place insteacd of St. Obama they must be racist!) don't vote for blacks.

[MannyGoldstein]

99. Edwards In 2004 Was A Far, Far Better Analogy

But Clinton picked Jackson - only one plausible reason for that.

[Cha]

97. Didn't it change around The

Potomac Sweep, too?

[MannyGoldstein]

100. I Think You're Correct

[babylonsister]

9. Yea, and those 'risky positions' Paul and Kucinich took served

them so well. This guy needs to at the very least review Paul's history to recognize we don't want or need someone like that.

This whole article is b.s., and why do you claim Andrew Stephen is less-biased? He sounds really biased to me.

[Raejeanowl]

12. What Is His Possible Angle?

He, unlike denizens of this board, has no declared favorite, and no pushable buttons, I presume.

[babylonsister]

21. We're not alone in seeing this for what it is:

and FWIW, Obama's constitutional law prof from Harvard claims Obama was the best student he's ever taught. I doubt the prof gave him B's. I don't know why this guy is writing hatchet jobs, only know that he is.


http://myfellowamericans2008.com/blog/2008/01/16/who-will-win-the-2008-american-presidential-election-find-out-after-these-messages/

snip//

This is why we’re not doing much predicting. Reporting on people and issues, capturing atmospheres and talking to voters is considerably more satisfying than pouring gas into or onto phoney bandwagons all day long. Also, it means you don’t have to follow up unexpected results by desperately walking back your erroneous predictions until you trip over your own feet.

There are a lot of bandwagons about in US election coverage. For my esteemed New Statesman colleague Andrew Stephen, the Obama bandwagon is on fire, and there’s no driver at the wheel. Stephen spent 2,000 words cynically outlining every single thing that Barack Obama has ever done wrong, and omitting everything he has ever done right, as some kind of weird backwards-facing explanation of why the Senator for Illinois didn’t in fact overhaul Hillary in New Hampshire, as the polls had predicted. (”What’s going wrong for the man who would be President?” begged the Statesman’s front cover. Erm, nothing actually. He failed to secure New Hampshire’s miniscule number of delegates by a small margin. Big whoop.)

Stephen’s hatchet-job gives us such relevant insights as this:

“Far from being the brilliant student his image suggests, Obama was a consistently B-grade pupil.”

Phew. Thank god the voters know the truth now. Only ‘B’s: shocking. And never mind Obama’s Harvard degree, of course, which goes unmentioned.

[Raejeanowl]

38. It Refers To An Earlier Article

The "hatchet job" from the article you've linked refers to an earlier piece written by Stephen, NOT the one I linked. And yes, THAT article is extremely critical of Obama specifically.

Still,(quibbling about less critical issues like A vs. B grades notwithstanding), if it is factually true, if the criticisms are in any way valid, how is it a "hatchet job?"

[babylonsister]

40. You asked what the angle was; I don't presume to know his motives

and don't really feel like digging (but you could if you cared about the truth); all I know is he has a pattern of bashing Obama. If you can't see that, you're not looking/reading.

[texas_indy]

13. Anti-Obama smear article, what a surprise! We're unable to vote for the man himself, eh?

"You can't even take your dog for a walk in Georgetown without seeing them. The signs for Senator Barack Obama's campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination that sprout from immaculately manicured lawns are strikingly simple: the legend "Obama '08" stands out from a dark-blue background, topped by a symbolic sun rising from patriotic red-and-white rays. It's the same in similarly all-white, wealthy DC neighbourhoods such as Cleveland Park or Chevy Chase. But drive a few minutes into almost entirely black or Latino areas of the city, and there is nary an Obama sign to be seen."
.
.
.
"Yes, this is a truly complicated election. We will come to the convoluted role race is playing in it in a moment. But it is positively surreal, meantime, to be told by normally rational and informed friends in Britain that America is in the midst of a glorious democratic uprising that is being led by this phenomenally messianic figure called Barack Obama."
.
.
.
"Yet, ironically, the US media is waking up to some of the realities about Obama just as British enthusiasm is peaking. Jake Tapper of ABC likens Obama's supporters to Hare Krishna chanters. Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times says that at first he was mesmerised by Obama's nonsensical lines ("We are the ones we've been waiting for"), but now talks about the "Cult of Obama" and "Obamaphilia". The reality of Obama, Stein concludes, is that he is a politician who is "not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one".
.
.
.
"Those earning less than $50,000 a year are consistently voting for Clinton, while Obama is scoring resoundingly with the so-called "millennium generation" earning over $150,000; the journalists who have been so starry-eyed about Obama fit neatly into the latter demographic bracket themselves, and seem to have avoided scrutinising Obama's record lest they be accused of racism."

============================================

Gosh, an article that claims we're part of a cult and that black and latino neighborhoods don't show signs for Obama, only the guilty white ones do. Yep, if you hate the message, then attack the messenger. Too bad Obama has to be much better than another candidate just to be taken seriously.

[Raejeanowl]

18. I've Heard That Line Before

Only it used to go, "A woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be be considered half as good."

As for attacking messengers when you don't like what's being said...can't wait to see this place during the General Elections.

[texas_indy]

36. Yep, goes to show just how exceptional Ann Richards was to get elected as Texas gov. on her own

and not because of who she was married too. She was one hell of a woman/politician/person and would have been in the top ranking of presidents.

--------------

I still remember the "whites only" signs on water fountains, seats, and restaurant's which I saw in the 60's. AAs had to be out of my town before sundown or else they would get beaten and thrown into jail. Remember the "eni meni mini moe" thing? We used different words for it and saw nothing wrong with it. It still amazes me now that AA men were expected to go to Nam and fight and die for a country which treated them as 2nd class citizens. And it was even worse for them in WWII and WWI. Yet they did it.

Lot of people can't stand the idea of an AA male becoming president. Heck, they even tried to stamp him as not black enough earlier.

He'll make an excellent president for all of us Americans and an excellent leader for the world.

[NashVegas]

15. Good Article, But an Exception

Shirley Chisholm was the first woman to win a major party primary, IIRC.

[Raejeanowl]

19. Thank You!

Not my authorship, of course, but I welcome factual corrections.

[NashVegas]

20. Cool. PS -

You should edit that down to 4/5 paragraphs, per DU copyright rules.

Thanks for posting it. It's past time the press started calling BO on his campaign's shit.

[DURHAM D]

83. The article is correct - the poster is in error.

Damn facts.

[DURHAM D]

82. What state did Shirley win? n/t

[jackson_dem]

89. NJ

[DURHAM D]

96. McGovern won New Jersey n/t

[jackson_dem]

88. True but she wasn't a realistic contender

Isn't that the rationale offered for Obama's novelty? Jackson, although he won all types of states and finished a strong second--even becoming the front runner at one point (yes Obamites, races don't end just because someone takes a lead ;) )--was deemed not serious by the msm and punditry, especially after the fact. Compare Chislom, Braun, and Elizabeth Dole to Hillary but the msm didn't want to make that comparison.

[QC]

22. Blasphemy! Stone him! Stone him! n/t

[jackson_dem]

90. lol yup, welcome to Obamanation

[Apollo11]

23. Here is the comment I just posted on the New Statesman website

The New Statesman should be ashamed of publishing this article, which reads like an anti-Obama hit piece. According to Andrew Stephen, "waking up to some of the realities about Obama" involves seeing his campaign as some kind of religious cult. Presumably because it involves inviting people to feel included and then motivating them to do something (even if it is "just" voting and encouraging all your friends to vote too).

Is Andrew Stephen trying to suggest that Barack Obama's campaign is significantly more personality-driven and less issue-based than those of JFK in 1960, Ronald Reagan in 1980 or Bill Clinton in 1992? Or is it just time to have a go at Obama because he appears to be on something of a roll?

[Raejeanowl]

28. Good Decision

If you believe as you do, say it there.

[depakid]

49. Sounds to me like he's thinking critically

and quite frankly, when reading some of the responses on this and other threads, it's easy to see why people make parallels to cults. Whenever anyone raises legitimate questions or observations- the writer is attacked, and the arguments dismissed as a "hit piece," often with some nefarious motive ascribed.

Like or no, that's classic cult like behavior....

[Raejeanowl]

62. That's What I Find Most Difficult To Comprehend

What possible devious and destructive motive can be projected into his thought process? Wrong, unfair, incorrect, even biased, I can deal with, but targeted to smear and destroy? What is it that doesn't bear criticism?

[jackson_dem]

91. Yup but when anyone dares mentions the parallels they go bananas

The best example of the cult was the Krugman thread the other day. He wrote an article on poverty but since he doesn't worship St. Obama they, without reading the article, in a 100 reply thread conducted an internet stoning of the heretic.

[bpeale]

61. i do not see this as a hit piece at all & think that most educated people won't either

try reading the whole thing. it is INFORMATION about a candidate that we currently do not have. and it's about time we got some information.

[AlertLurker]

24. It is difficult to believe that "white guilt" is responsible for Obama's success.

People LIKE "fairy tales," goddamnit. People ENJOY it when the "good guy" wins.

THAT'S what makes people feel good - not some mythical "racial atonement movement."

[QC]

27. It's definitely a factor.

Here's what Barbara Ehrenreich says on the matter: "We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption."

[AlertLurker]

32. My family kept slaves for generations, but I do not feel the need to atone.

I don't even LIKE Obama, but I don't for a minute believe that this is racially motivated. I don't like Hillary, either.

[eShirl]

25. "Those earning less than $50,000 a year are consistently voting for Clinton"

I call bull! If that were true she'd already have the nomination in the bag. There are so many more of us who earn under $50,000.

[Apollo11]

30. It's true that on Super Tuesday, they were breaking for Hillary.

Based on exit polls, of all the people in households with an income of less than $50,000 who took part in the Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday, more voted for Hillary than for Obama.

In Wisconsin, Hillary only had a narrow lead among (a) white women and (b) seniors (over 60).

I remember seeing all this stuff from the exit polls on CNN. Try www.cnn.com

Edited for factual correction! - Apollo11 B-)

[ShortnFiery]

33. But he posted the article today! Either he's not current OR the FACTS don't support his bias?

You make the call?

[Apollo11]

34. He admits to writing this before the Wisconsin results came in.

It is for a weekly news magazine. I guess they have deadlines.

I guess the Clinton campaign will be hoping that Wisconsin was a "blip" - or something.

Something about Obama doing well in States around Illinois (remember Iowa!)

[ShortnFiery]

44. OK, but he really was incompetent to publish it because increases in the "white electorate"

basically blew the premise of his argument out of the water.

It just makes him look petty. Sort of like how Pat Buchanan, early on, would go on RANTS about how Obama would NEVER win the white vote. America was NOT ready!?! He looks stupid now ... and, IMO, so does the author of your article above. What 527 supports him - Racial Baiters-R-US for Hillary?

[Raejeanowl]

52. What?

Why would a political action committee support a British journalist?

[cali]

35. um, wrong.

In VA, MD, DC, ME, WA and many other states, she most decidedly did not win most of the under $50,000 vote.

[Apollo11]

37. What I meant was - on Super Tuesday as a whole.

If you look at all the results from all of the Super Tuesday states, Hillary did better than Obama with voters in this low-income category. At least - that's what I saw on CNN.

[cali]

42. yes, but as we all know

campaigns are anything but static.

[jackson_dem]

94. 36 states voted. She's won the working vote in almost all of them

Obamites can cherry pick a few states but those analyzing the race can't. We have to see if Obama's Wisconsin success holds or is an anomaly.

[jackson_dem]

92. In primaries the affluent are more likely to vote

It isn't about raw numbers but who shows up at the polling places.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Smutty article highlighting the contention of poor Hillary being the perpetual VICTIM.

Oh how I wish that the late Sam Kinison were still alive. He loved mocking that shameless "I'm a victim - give me privilege for NOTHING" argument.

It was BILL CLINTON who played "The Southern Strategy" before a national audience in SC. Those performances have irrevocably damaged his standing with people of color. I'd like to believe people of ANY color.

[Fly by night]

39. So now the advice of the Hopi Elders is "nonsensical"?

"We are the ones we've been waiting for" is the single most powerful sentence for mobilizing involvement in the public arena that I have ever been exposed to. It is why I read the entire Hopi Elders prayer (within which the "nonsensical" sentence above is the last line) at least once a week.

You know what is nonsensical? Expecting any Rethugligan leader to behave in a moral, honorable, consistent and altruistic manner.

"Where's the beef?" I'm not sure. But the "pork" is down McCain's pants. And his "collateral" is evidence of just how bankrupt the Rethugs are these days.

Eat the Rich.

[noiretextatique]

41. the point of the article: we haven't seen anything yet

and obama, if the nominee, will be subjected to the same swiftboating as kerry.

as for the more provcative comments regarding america's racist and sexist legacy...i couldn't agree more.

[ShortnFiery]

45. Perhaps some 527s, but I don't see either John or Cindy McCain getting "in the mud" real soon.

Oh how I love when the republicans eat their own! :-)

[noiretextatique]

47. yep...that is great fun!

but if obama is the nominee, i do believe the author is correct. he will subject to the rw attack machine just like any other democratic candidate.

[ShortnFiery]

51. I don't if you've noticed, but the American People as a whole are SICKENING of "divide and conquer"

politics as usual. We should not be afraid to run the best candidate ... that candidate, IMO, is Obama. :-) Now if you wish to provide us hard facts to counter his ability to win the general election other than "dated wishes for racial prejudice" then, please do so?

[noiretextatique]

56. the american people have short memories

and maleable loyalties. i think we have grown as a country so the bradley effect has demonstrably diminished, but i never disregard the power of racism. a plus for obama is that he has captured young voters who are less controlled by that habit.

[rodeodance]

59. so far many Obama folk have just done the Rovian tactic of killing the messenger-but

as times goes by-----don't think they will be able to keep up.

[noiretextatique]

73. the worst is yet to come

but i am not sure it will matter, if the obamentum continues. it seems he has tapped into something that the republicans may have a hard time swiftboating. we will see.

[rodeodance]

79. true--we will see.

[Big Blue Marble]

84. And if he is.

what will you do about it? You sit there and smugly claim that he will be swiftboated.
Do you think Hillary Clinton would not be?

This is such a lame argument used to attack Obama. Someone throws it up at least 5 times
here everyday. So what. Any one we pick will have to deal with crap unfairly thrown
at them from the 527's and right wing talk radio. That is politics today.

Obama's campaign message of unity will be the most effective counter to these attacks.
Americans in large numbers are fed up and want a different kind of politics.
This is why he will have more immunity than Hillary or anyone else.

This is not 2004 and Obama is not Kerry.
Stop fighting the last war and do something constructive to elect
a Democratic President, Senate, and House.

[jackson_dem]

95. Hillary already has been swiftboatin, numerous times by rethugs and once by a Democrat...

No offense but empty slogans like "different kind of politics" and "unity" won't defend him from swiftboating.

[noiretextatique]

113. for f&*#'s sake...do you believe this nonsense?

:wtf: "change and hope" will stop the republicans from attacking obama :wtf:
good fucking grief.

[Big Blue Marble]

115. Your condescension speaks so of your ignorance

Did you read my post? I said he will be more immune to the attacks. Where did I say
it will stop the Republicans from attacking?

If you read much other places, you might learn that many Republicans are very worried about
how to campaign against him. They recognize he is a different kind of candidate.
He has different kinds of supporters.

Your nastiness is oh well just so pathetically nasty.

[noiretextatique]

117. you call me "smug" and i am condescending and nasty?

typical. it's possible obama will weather and attack better than clinton, but that is little more than speculation since obama is somewhat of an unknown. at least with clinton, all the memes are already known.

[Big Blue Marble]

114. Your naivete continues.

He is not running on empty slogans. That may be a Clinton talking point. That does not make
it true. He is running a different campaign and he will be tested.

He is being tested now. And he is doing great. We will find out if his message
supersedes the rancorous hatred that others will throw. We will find out
if his inclusive messages trumps the slings and arrows others will aim in his direction.

And if he wins anyway, will you be glad?
Because if he does win, the political dynamic will be changed. I think that hope
more than anything drives his deep support. Many sense we have to get past the
divisive politics you expect. The only way to get past it, is to stop it from working.

That is the premise of Obama's campaign. That is why it is so important that he win.

[noiretextatique]

109. you are a fool if you think he won't be attacked viciously

just as every democratic cnadidate has since the 70's. :wtf: are you going to DO about it? i am not "attacking" obama, IDIOT, nor am i being "smug." if you are so pathologically naive as to believe republicans are simply going to roll over and annoint your chosen one...you are worse than a fool. of course clinton would be subject to the same thing, or worse...DUH! "hope and change" is one thing, but fantasy is quite another.

[Big Blue Marble]

116. Gawd, you do not read much do you?

How many times do I have to say yes they will attack. And it will not be as affective. That is
why the Republicans want Hillary. They know how to attack her. They know her negatives are as
high as her positives. What do you not understand about the Republicans begging to run
against Hillary.

They have been planning their attacks for years. They know how to beat her. They
do not have a clue how to beat Obama.

Thanks for calling me and over half of all Democrats who have voted and those who will vote for
Obama fools. And a whole bunch of senators and house members and a few unions and some
governors too. Yes fools we all be because we want a different kind of politics and are will to
stand up for a better way to campaign and a better way to run this country.

[Raejeanowl]

48. Any Further Morbid Curiousity About Stephen

Unless you're totally convinced and immovable that the man's got a vendetta out for Barack Obama, and wouldn't take the time to look anyway, you'll find remarkably few articles about that candidate in Stephen's New Statesman archive.

[ShortnFiery]

54. He makes so many unsubstantiated "assumptions" ... well it's breath-taking -

In a "I just got sick off of that ride" kind of way.

[workinclasszero]

55. Racist claptrap

Typical garbage from a Hillary supporter playing the race card one more time.:puke:

Will they ever learn?:eyes:

[Raejeanowl]

67. Sorry, Won't Wash

That's a very tired and old button. Put it to rest.

[ProSense]

70. Are you going to ignore the false claim " first woman in US history to win a major-party primary"?

This article is spinning Hillary as a victim, and it's completely obvious.

[DURHAM D]

81. What is false about it? n/t

[ProSense]

85. Um, she wasn't!

This was posted below, but I'm sure a lot of people are ignoring the blatantly false statement in the OP article:

Chisholm joined the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969, as one of its founding members. In 1972, she made a bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, receiving 152 delegate votes, but ultimately losing the nomination to South Dakota Senator George McGovern. She did however make history by becoming both the first black person and the first woman to win the presidential primary by taking New Jersey with 66% of the vote. Chisholm's base of support was ethnically diverse and included the National Organization for Women. Among the volunteers who were inspired by her campaign was Barbara Lee, who would go on to become a congresswoman some 25 years later. (Currently, Barbara Lee has a couple of pieces of legislation that would honor Shirley Chisholm, including H Con Res 9, calling on the US Postal Service to create a stamp honoring her, and HR 176, which would create a program to encourage educational exchanges between the US and Caribbean nations.) Chisholm said she ran for the office "in spite of hopeless odds, . . . to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo."

link

[DURHAM D]

86. Have you added the bold print to the Wikipedia entry? n/t

[ProSense]

98. Why?

Did someone edit the entry in an attempt to distort?

Here, facts on Shirley Chisolm and the 1972 NJ Dem primary.

[DURHAM D]

101. I used your link and it was not in the Wikipedia entry.

I don't know how to edit it so I didn't remove it or whatever. It was probably previously removed because it is not actually true.

McGovern won the N.J. primary - pledged delegates. Shirley beat out Sanford in some sort of non-binding secondary thingie that did not include the Democratic front runners in the race. It was not relevant to the process.

[ProSense]

111. No it was probably removed to

distort.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Do you even know who Shirley Chisholm was?

How old are you?

[DURHAM D]

103. Of course I do.

How old are you you asshat?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Old enough to remember Shirley Chisholm.

Without needing to be reminded.

[DURHAM D]

105. Who was President when you were born? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. William Howard Taft.

Just kidding.

Too close for comfort, though.

[rodeodance]

57. Some in the media are finally scrutinizing him-and that is a good thing!

[cooolandrew]

60. This article is a bit behind the curve. Obama is gaining in all demographs, they are voiing him for

they are voting him for a vision and rarely for hsi colour. If it was about colour Condi would of stod a good shot at being president or powell.

[bpeale]

63. very well thought out piece on Obama. not much is known about him

and i want to know more. i will not blindly follow anyone. the electorate blindly followed Bush and look what we got. no thanks to that. if that offends you, then you need to get a grip.

on edit: there are many people who do not have computers STILL in this country. and these people are going to get information from other people. don't keep telling people to read his website. that tells me that you do not know what your own candidate stands for.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Then by all means bpeale, why don't you go to Obama's site and PERUSE his position papers?

His achievements are out HERE too via FrenchieCat.

Why don't you make yourself *SMART* on the PERSON who is Barack Obama before considering a race-baiting article as gospel?

[bpeale]

66. i want to HEAR him voice his positions not just write about them

and why don't you curtail your animosity? as for frenchiecat, i have her on ignore for very good reasons and you will be too after i post this message.

[ShortnFiery]

69. I don't know you but I'd suggest that your willingness to accept race baiting assumptions

may not have anything what so ever to do about Obama?

I've admitted my resentment of women who use their husband's superior careers as a way to get to "the front of the line" in political campaigns? Perhaps you have some prejudices also? If you do, that's fine (we all have our blind spots) but at least be aware of them so you can READ some more and perhaps, reconsider?

[weezie1317]

93. Then listen to his victory speech after Wisconsin. He's done what you asked. ()

[Apollo11]

110. I posted the whole speech up in the DU Political Videos Forum

You can also find the transcipt on the New York Times website.

[bpeale]

118. i don't want to hear a friggin speech. i want to hear discussion.

big difference. and that you don't see the difference tells me everything about you.

[ProSense]

64. "barely noticed when Hillary...the first woman in US history to win a major-party primary"Utter BS!

Chisholm joined the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969, as one of its founding members. In 1972, she made a bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, receiving 152 delegate votes, but ultimately losing the nomination to South Dakota Senator George McGovern. She did however make history by becoming both the first black person and the first woman to win the presidential primary by taking New Jersey with 66% of the vote. Chisholm's base of support was ethnically diverse and included the National Organization for Women. Among the volunteers who were inspired by her campaign was Barbara Lee, who would go on to become a congresswoman some 25 years later. (Currently, Barbara Lee has a couple of pieces of legislation that would honor Shirley Chisholm, including H Con Res 9, calling on the US Postal Service to create a stamp honoring her, and HR 176, which would create a program to encourage educational exchanges between the US and Caribbean nations.) Chisholm said she ran for the office "in spite of hopeless odds, . . . to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo."

link

[nomorewhopper]

71. Note: Clinton is NOT winning among those with less than $50k income

she was, but she's not anymore.

[Cameron27]

76. Bookmarking,

I don't have time to read it right now, but it looks interesting.

Thanks.

[K Gardner]

77. Thanks so much for posting this LESS BIASED story.. ! sheesh

[Rosa Luxemburg]

78. The New Statesman LOL!

distort

[donsu]

80. quite awhile ago I replied in a thread that Obama didn't have 'soul'

not the xian soul but the 'soul' that got the blacks in slavery through that hell.

[SteppingRazor]

108. One point I see as patently absurd:

"it is the whitest states that are the wildest about Obama"


Er ... Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, anyone?

[CyberPieHole]

112. Excellent read. Thanks for posting. Kick and recommend n/t