OBAMA' S JUDGEMENT ?
After watching the news and looking here on the web and reading the statements by Sen.Obama's former pastor, I have serious doubts about Sen.Obama's judgment.
GOD DAMN AMERICA
Am I the only person on this blog that is outraged by that statement?
A man that desires to be President of these United States, and his pastor preaches from the pulpit, God damn America.
Sen. Obama knew this was coming but did nothing to deny it or refute it. When questions arose about Rev. Wright, Obama tried to pass it off as “just a member of the family that you don't always agree with." "Like an old uncle"
Well if my old uncle stood up at a family gathering and said “God DAMN America"
He would have a bloody nose before I threw his ass in the street.
If my pastor made such a statement in my church, I am sure that I would not be the first to the pulpit, to take him by the nap of the neck and the ass of his pants and throw him out front door.
And Rev. Wright's comments about Sen. Clinton, that she didn't know what it was about, that she hadn't been called a nigger. I admit that is true, but she has been called a bitch and a cunt and I really don't see much difference in the choice of language.
And then what about Mrs. Obama's comment about " this is the first time in my life I am proud of America" That has been spun and spun and spun by the Obama campaign. If she didn't mean it, why did she say it? And we are dealing with very smart people; both Sen. Obama and his wife are quite smart so what is the purpose of these comments, as they are not just misspeak.
And please stop comparing Sen. Obama to JFK.
When Sen. Obama has swam 5 miles from a burning PT boat to an island, while dragging a burned and broken comrade to shore, then you can compare him to JFK. JFK could give a beautiful speech, but he had steel in his spine. Beside John F. Kennedy, Sen.Obama is spineless for no man that aspires to be President of the United States would stand by and do nothing but make excuses while his pastor damned this nation.
In the words of his most famous speech, John Kennedy described himself,
I may have the quote little wrong but it went something like this
“Tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace"
What has tempered and disciplined Sen. Obama?
I am sure that since I have spoken out against Sen. Obama, I will now be held up as another one of the bigots. A racist white male from the south.
Those that know me know better. Those that think so, go to that America that Rev.Wright wants God to damn.
If these are the true feelings of the people that Sen.Obama has surrounded himself with he is unfit to be President of the United States.
- HLW's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
You obviously didn't read the response
I already posted it in another thread.
I'm sure you already saw the response though and choose to ignore it in an effort to keep this smear campaign alive.
In case you really missed it, here goes again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
I presume you go to church yourself, in that case are you personally responsible for everything your preacher says?
Keep this Einstein quote in mind folks:
I am sorry I don't read the Huffington Post
And I don't know what "other thread" I would have seen it in.
Your's is the reply I would have expected, with the " how dare you attiude" and the Einstein quote was priceless.
I have an MD, a PHD, and a Harvard grad in my gene pool.
I have a good mind, free will, and I choose with that free will and mind to say that the Obama campaign reminds me of the old fable about the Emperor that had no clothes.
Everyone is to scared to speak the truth that is only now become so evident.
how dare you attitude?
I don't see it.
By the way, you didn't reply to my question.
You're just a daring ferriner
When is your citizenship finalized? We need to have a party. :D
I have no clue
I'm at step 2 of 4, but I've been waiting for half a year now to get my test/interview. There's a huge backlog at the USCIS and there are conspiracy theorists saying that the Bush administration isn't interested in resolving that backlog anytime soon. You see, most of the applicants are latinos and they're not going to vote Republican.
I was thinking about contacting Mel Watt to see if he can do anything to speed things up, because I'm definitely not going to ask freaking Hayes for help.
Contact all the Democrats
.....and let's ask Robin Hayes PUBLICLY. :D We need to expedite this so you can vote in November.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
You don't read the Huffiington Post?
Ya should. It's often very entertaining. Perhaps not as wickedly so as Wonkette, but different moods call for different websites.
Democratic Underground is also quite good, and the clashes there over Barak and Hillary have made the ones on this site seem relatively tame.
It really is time for us to get a grip and tone down the bashing of these two candidates from within the party.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Your question
No I am not resposible for what my pastor would say, but I have the free will to stand up and walk out. I am also not a candidate for President of the United States.
I would hope we would hold anyone running for President to a higher standard.
Obama had a chance the day this happened to call it for what it was and walk away from this deluded " pastor" What does that say for his judgement? Only now, when the chips are down, does he choose to put distace between himself and Rev.Wright.
As for the " how dare you attitude" that refers to the posts I have read that cut the throat of ANYONE that dares to question the great Obama.
I don't know where they found a vat big enought to mix up as much kool-aid as has been fed to the american voting public.
i like your
vat of cool-aid imagery. It made me chuckle.
warning
hahahahaha
Is that what really happens when someone takes a firm stand against Obama here?
not really, no
just when they start baiting.
I don't get it
At the risk of looking really stupid, can you explain the sign?
You have to remember, I'm just a "damn ferner" :-)
i asked that same question.
click on it. It is a pretty damn clever way for the poster to show how he or she felt about thread
when i say pretty damn clever, btw,
it means i liked it, or at least thought it was funny and creative.
DUH
I didn't know it was a link..I sure get it now! LOL
Got it..don't feed them.
It's a fine line between not feeding the trolls and still responding to lies though. Remember that swiftboat stuff?
Someone who doesn't agree with your candidate choice
is not a troll. This is inappropriate and not the least bit clever.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
is trolling a very serious accuasation
in the blogosphere? Especially with a funny little linked picture? I thought it was kind of nicer, albeit somewhat passive-aggressive, way to say "quit making inflammatory remarks".
Plus, i don't think that will stifle the accused. If he's sincere in his motives--which i believe he is--he can (and just did) ignore the troll picture for the quasi joke that it was... That's what I did. I'm enjoying what HLW has to say. Different perspectives on the pres. race are good to have on here.
It's not nice and it's counterproductive
If there's something wrong with the blogger's post, point it out. A troll refers to something very specific on blogs and this person is simply ranting. He/she isn't a troll just because you don't agree with him or her.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Boys and Girls can I tell you a little story
I fear for a replay of 1972,a year that the grassroots ran the show, and the party regulars were cast out from the temple.
At 46, I am old enought to remember.
In NC, we lost everything but the shirts on our backs in that election. We got Jesse Helms that election day, a GOP Gov, and 4 more years of Tricky Dick that was only saved by Sam Ervin.
As for my warning, I am neither a hillbilly [ what I think is behind the red circle and the slash ] or an uneducated redneck. What I am is a hardworking democratic supporter.I work for the advancement of my party. But I also call it like I see it. There is a bad moon rising,here we are 3/4 of the way thru the primary season and someone has finally decided to vet Obama.
It is about time. I just hope it isn't to late to recover and we go into another November like 1972.
So are you going to vote for him...
..when Obama finally is the nominee?
neither hillbilly nor redneck
but troll.
in your post, you managed to go from "god damn america" to jfk in just a few paragraphs. you dredged up a "scandal" that has already been explained and moved past and is only being rehashed by the wolfsons and limbaughs of the world. and it would appear to some that this was an attempt to bait others of differing opinions to make emotional responses. you may be fueled by a genuine concern borne of past experience, and that's cool and understandable, but actions such as these do nothing to address the real issues of this election; they only serve to start mudslinging battles that get us nowhere. and while you may justify it by saying it represents "obama's judgment," the tone of your post is almost as bad as anything one might find on a red forum. all you're doing is baiting.
or, as some would say, being a troll.
thank you and good day, sir (or ma'am).
re- neither hillbilly or redneck
Democrat by birth, troublemaker by the grace of God.
The duty of the opposition is to oppose.
Winston S. Churchill
electability is a real issue
And just because Obama has spoken does not put the matter to rest. He often admits the least and then more if it doesn't go way, as with Rezco and how much money Tony contributed to his campaigns. Senator Obama is running as having superior judgment, and since he has little experience and few legislative accomplishments he says it trumps experience and clearly spelled out plans. He's made this his issue, since it's a judgment one. have you heard the acronym WORM - what Obama really means? His defenders are always spinning him, not quoting him. We need a candidate who is well qualified and who has a record of legislative accomplishments and we have one. Why would we want to take a chance on a fellow who hasn't' shown the best candor, whether or not we still think he's a fine guy and whether or not he's 'explained' to your satisfaction? Not only you will be voting in the GE and this thing looks like he can't now win.
Legislative experience may not be
the wisest campaign stance for the Clinton camp.
Obama was a state senator for seven years before being elected to the U.S. Senate, so he's got more years "legislating" and more campaign victories under his belt than Hillary. Best leave that one alone.
Not to mention, whichever of these two win the nomination has to face a guy with 21 years in the U.S. Senate and 4 years in the U.S. House before that. Giving him more legislative experience than both the Dem candidates combined...
Pandora
We can smell bullshit from a distance. You don't have to put it in caps to flag it for us.
HRC has already dissed NC. Trashing Obama does little more than bloody the Democratic slate in a red state, (which we are trying to turn blue)
If you want to open this little can of worms I'm calling Pandora over. She's got a big-ass box tagged Clinton with all kinds of crap in it.
Pandora's Box
I have worked all week and I am beat. But I will leave you with this.
This week I have spoken with Every statewide campaign, helping them set up a voter forum in Eastern North Carolina. I work with my local party, and have run for public office. I lost, but I stayed active.I am on the State Excutive Committee.
I promote this party and it's candidates thru out the east.
I try to work across the ticket.However, I do not believe the Obama campaign in in the best interrest of this country or this party. If that make me a troll, so be it.
However, on the first Wendsday in November when McCain is President-elect and we have had our asses handed to us here by the GOP,I hope you will remember the warning I gave you here tonight and the sprite in which it was given,and not have to resort to your bullshit smelling comments.
So get real, and get involved on the ground not just trying to beat-up on someone on a blog that doesn't agree with you.
And be warned, I am an old sailor, and my graps of the profane vocabulary will surely exceed anything you can muster in reply.
Bring it on
If you've got a better candidate let's hear about it. If you truly "do not believe the Obama campaign in the best interest of this country or this party" then let's hear why instead of ranting in sailorspeak.
For the record, JFK had a bad back.
It is expected that HRC will drag the state slate down as is. Your post and your comments undermine what you claim to work for. Tell us why you think she is better for NC.
I'm an old sailor too
And I'll match my "graps of profane vocabulary" against yours any day.
In case you haven't noticed, you've just walked into someone else's virtual living room (in this case, mine) spewing Republican talking points, slime and crap all over the place. While I'm sure you think you're trying to be helpful, the "sprite" in which it was given, in my opinion, was rude and obnoxious. Obama is no more responsible for what his preacher says than you are. And his repudiation and rejection of the comments was swift, clear and unequivocal.
If you're a Clinton supporter, fine. Let's hear some cogent thinking about how she'll be able to beat McCain. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. You're being used by people like the drug-addled Rush Limbaugh who want nothing more than to see Hillary somehow manage to steal the Democratic nomination.
Clinton has already lost this primary unless you want to use (1) new math or (2) old-time back-room deal-making that subverts the will of the people. She will not win in the North Carolina primary.
Which raises this question: How the hell are you going to work for Obama after taking the stand you took in your original post? Do you "try" to work across the ticket . . . or do you actually do it?
As Yoda says, there is no "try" ... there is do or do not. Looks to me like you're setting yourself up to be party of the problem.
Way...way over the top
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Yep. Over the top.
Sorry about that.
Nice articulation
I agree with some and disagree with other of your points on Obama, but you make them well. I also disagree that there is anything remotely "trollish" about your remarks, or that your points are those of the GOP as opposed to a passionate and thoughtful Democrat, or that you've said anything that can be fairly characterized as "slimey."
I think there might be a wee bit of cliquishness (that might not be a word -- sure looks funny typed) in some of the responses you've triggered. I've seen far more inflammatory comments (and many more spelling errors) go unremarked by "regulars" here, which I've assumed had to do with the general crowds' familiarity with that poster.
Anyway, I hope you will not be discouraged from continuing to contribute.
Brunette
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Nice articulation?
You are so full of shit sometimes.
Dude,
Chill out. So you're are regular, long-time poster. That entitles you to be nasty to folks and attack them personally?
completely unnecessary
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Yes, I thought so.
I'm sorry that you are still upset.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Contrary to this statement, you've been looking for opportunities to take pot-shots at James, just as you did above. There's a fine line between speaking your mind and engaging in a personal vendetta, and you've crossed it.
Now I'm speaking my mind.
We all have differing opinions and various ways of expressing those opinions. We don't always agree about said opinions or the methods used to express them, and we learn from each other in the process. But personality conflicts that endure and rear their ugly heads frequently impact more than just the antagonists, it brings us all down.
Now, you can marginalize my comments by writing them off as merely a defense of James, or you can take a few moments to step back and figure out what you're really trying to accomplish here.
I'm sorry you are upset
But you're wrong. I really am sorry that James is still upset. No, I have not been looking for opportunities to take shots at James; I think the opposite is true.
And isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that my standing up for someone James attacked is "attacking" James? Are there certain people here who it is understood are supposed to get a free pass at slamming people? This new guy gets slammed, I am told I'm full of shit, but my sticking up for the first guy and responding to being told that I'm full of shit by saying I'm sorry James is still upset are heinous in some fashion and must be righteously denounced?
This is what I mean by there being a bit of a clique-like attitude. You don't know me quite well enough to make assumptions about my sincerity, but you plunge on ahead anyway because one of this forum's hosts -- who does indulge in more than his fair share of catty and snide remarks -- got his fanny tanned.
Your opinion that I'm engaged in a personal vendetta is something I can't help, but I can call bullshit right backatcha, because it isn't true and I'm not going to step back or step down just because it would please you to think you've got an infallible b.s. radar.
There is a lot of b.s. going 'round, but when I write something, I mean it. I really and truly am sorry that James is still so steamed and I'm really and truly sorry that you've decided that I couldn't possibly mean it when I said so.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Steamed?
You give yourself too much credit. I'm not steamed or upset. More like amused. Or maybe just disappointed.
Because for you to weigh in and declare this post "nicely articulated" borders on ludicrous. As scharrison says, the original post doesn't have a single link to the year-old story it's reporting. And it completely fails to cover Obama's strong and clear rejection of the pastor's comment. Furthermore, the reference to Michele Obama's quote carries the right-wing's widely used misrepresentation of what she actually said, while also ignoring the context of the comment.
Assuming you really do mean "nicely articulated" when you describe this post, the only choice I have is to question either your judgment or your motives.
James
PS Just to be clear, I don't consider HLW a troll. A tool maybe, but not a troll. He has made no effort to plead the case for his candidate, and he is using the Fox News approach to make his points.
That's beneath you
Just because you disagree with HLW's candidate choice doesn't make him or her a tool.
Consider yourself spanked.
Spanked
Tool is a lot more benign than troll. This person is spreading Obamalies either on purpose (troll) or by accident (tool, as in being used).
You don't agree?
I don't see that you are taking pot shots at anyone
I've always found your responses thoughtful and they are typically spot on. In my opinion you are right far more often than you are wrong.....or maybe that should read that I agree with you far more often than I disagree. Maybe it isn't a matter of right and wrong. It looks to me like you've been the recipient of the pot shots.
I have never seen Brunette take pot shots at James
I've often agreed with Brunette and I think they are both capable of handling this. I don't think Brunette differs with James just for the fun of it or as part of a vendetta. She actually disagrees with him.
Thank you
Yes, this is getting a little nutty. It's as though there's a premise at work here that I can't possibly, honestly disagree with James without either "having bad judgment" or bad motives.
What's puzzling about this stance is that the very fact that we're all seeing such strong differences of opinion being articulated daily on television, newspapers and blogs -- differences among Democrats about their two primary candidates -- should be a CLUE that people can actually differ without one or the other being a bad person or an idiot.
I've weighed in to say this both when Obama was the target and when Hillary was the target, because I feel strongly that demonizing someone for having a different perspective sets a poor example for what liberalism or progressivism is supposed to promote. Surely the regulars on this blog have the emotional grip and rational capability of accepting that a wide range of views can have validity, that persons can honestly differ without one being "the bad guy."
As for James, well, I'll direct this to you, James . . . James: I will say it again, I'm truly sorry that you do appear, in fact, to get upset when challenged. I read your denial, but have a hard time accepting that you'd call me "full of shit" unless you were upset, and I have a hard time accepting that in a recent post, in which you lashed out rather heatedly and accused me of just lying in wait to pounce on whatever you had to say didn't indicate a bit -- more than a bit -- of pique. Really, my best guess is pique or paranoia.
Back to the idea of there being legitimate perspectives that vary on issues . . . It shouldnt' be necessary for me to add that I'm not suggesting that there are no lines to be drawn on speech or behavior or that tolerance means that anything goes.
But at the very least I think that it's over the line to assume you (Scharrison) can "call bullshit" on someone's expression of her own feelings without knowing that person awfully well (and you don't), and at the very least I think a person who is genuinely interested in fostering discussion would want to refrain (James) from being so quick to accuse another of bad faith.
Maybe, Scharrison, if you had written what I wrote, you would be bullshitting. Maybe, James, had you expressed the opinion I expressed, YOU would be doing so from bad motives, but for either of you to tell me what I can or can't mean is not fair, not "wise," and not likely to uplift any level of discussion.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
So what is this?
It's a "meta" comment, taking a shot at not only James, but others in his so called "clique". It was not technically a reply to James' post, but it was (in reality) a reply/repudiation of his comments to someone else.
Because of this focus, it appears (to me) that her comments are more about James and less about the subject at hand. Ergo, a "pot-shot".
What is it?
I think it's a suspicion that you've reinforced. I see this on the blog, but by no means was it supposed to refer only to James, who did recently include a bit of snideness about a poster's spelling errors in his response. It's not even supposed to refer to a specific set of names. I think that with any blog that has been around a while, this mentality develops. It's natural the way it is natural for us to identify with our family, or our team, our state, our party, etc . . . .
I guess one example would be the way folks don't seem to get all that he't up with Max, though Max certainly gets "out there" sometimes (he grows on a person), and the way others who we've come to know and think of as a "regular" can make some pretty inflammatory remarks without having their motives challenged. I didn't mean to suggest that there was just one little bitty group of players who were a "clique," but that a cliquish mentality develops among regulars on blogs because they have come to feel that that know one another -- and are thus more likely to forgive one another's outbursts or other slips.
I would ask you to reconsider HOW you're reading what I write.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Okay, let's look:
So, James posts this as part of his comment to the OP:
And you post this as a comment to the OP:
From one writer to another, it appears you are not really talking to the OP, you're using him as a foil to argue with James.
Frankly, what I believe you failed to notice in your desire to chastise james for his admittedly heated rhetoric is this final comment from the OP:
So the frontrunner and likely nominee on the Democratic ticket is deemed "unfit" by the OP, but keeping James straight is more important.
That's what I was talking about when I mentioned figuring out what you want to accomplish earlier.
take a look at yourself, Steve
And since you're into the cutting and posting, go back (hey, take all afternoon~) and look at everything I've posted -- first to last. Build a case or whatever.
But I stand by my posts to the newcomer, or so I perceive him to be, who I saw as being attacked unfairly. I empathized, since I've wondered, given the string of attacks I've received lately, whether I should continue to contribute to this blog. I couldn't help wondering whether the newcomer would have the same reaction. He comes on and gets called a troll and all other manner of things, though what he said and how he said it haven't been so different in content or tone from posts made by lots of "regulars."
I certainly stand by my observation on the clique mentality.
Maybe you just can't stand to admit that you were out of line when you told me you were "calling bullshit." I think you're going to put a lot more energy into refuting that suggestion than the effort is worth -- because as a matter of common sense and common decency, you really can't tell someone else what she meant by what she wrote. And you really were out of line for presuming to do just that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Point taken.
I was out of line.
I think you are reading something into Brunette's posts that
simply isn't there.
Brunette was agreeing with me when she said she also didn't see anything trollish about the post.
Honestly, I think they can handle this.
It's true, Steve
There is a cliquishness here. That's not a pot shot. It's a shot of the truth.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Of course there is.
That's only natural, and it can and does impede objectivity. But that's one of the things that sets us apart from children—we can recognize our own loss of objectivity and work towards restoring it.
Speaking of cliquishness...my first-born male child made his debut here on this thread (I just found out at lunch today). The first one to find him wins a kewpie doll (I don't have any kewpie dolls, it's just a saying). :)
Holy Moly!
Geez, now it's "of course there is," but when I mentioned it, it could only be interpreted as being a potshot at poor James?????
Ya wanna work on that "restoring objectivity" thing?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Let's do it together!
Hold my hands and chant,
"Objectivity, objectivity,
that's the...thing I want for me,
la la la la"
ok
But I'm going to start us off with a few rounds of
*om mani padme hum*
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I can dig it.
And we can dedicate a few of the chants to the folks in Lhasa.
:(
Steven or Stephen in GSO
Duh....you could have at least made it challenging. You could have named him Hannibal or something....... :D (sorry I didn't look at the name more closely.)
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Bingo!
Yeah, that wasn't very challenging.
Come on down, I need to welcome him properly. ;)
HLW, I haven't read enough
HLW,
I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you're trolling or not, so let me just assume you made them in good faith.
You didn't cite the source of your phrase, "God damn America", and I haven't read much about Obama's pastor and don't know if he said it. Nor do I care: to me, freedom means that people can say that sort of thing.
This morning's NY Times does quote him as saying:
Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run, and accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.I lived on the South Side of Chicago, 1966-68, and seen how true this is (only the drug importation phrase is too vague for me to be sure if I agree). This kind of statement seems unexceptional.
Nor am I in the least offended by Michelle Obama's statement: it's the kind of thing that countless Americans have said when our country does the right thing after waiting too long. It's hyperbole, not a statement of fact. Get over it.
You fear a replay of 1972. I fear a replay of 1968. That year Gene McCarthy won the popular vote in the primary as I remember, but the party insiders gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey. I wrote in McCarthy's name in the general election because I was so angry. We got Nixon. We got the reforms that brought on "1972". I was wrong, but if Obama is denied the nomination, it will happen again.
- ge
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
http://george.entenman.name
Re- I haven't read enought
ge,
going back to 1968,the convention was hyjacked, not by the smoke filled room but by President Johnson.
Bobby Kennedy had been killed less than 2 months before and that threw the convention into a mess. Rep. McCormick was the chairman of the convention. On Johnson's orders McCormick was removed and replaced by Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois after McCormick lost control of the convention.
The war in the streets between the war protesters and the Chicago police was not the result of the convention, but Mayor Daily run amouck.
It that nomination was stolen from McCarthy, the thief was Lyndon Johnson, not the democratic party. All of the Kennedy delegates were loose, and Johnson was trying to blunt the effect of George Wallace on the election by nominating Humphrey. It almost worked. Kennedy had kicked McCarthy around in the last primaries and his star was on the wain. By the convention he was damaged goods.
Many times we read into history what we want. And as the old saying goes " History is for the victors"
I am posting a very good article from the Washington Post, written by former Gov. Jim Hunt. I hope it might enlighten.Why the Superdelegate Idea Works
By Jim Hunt
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; Page A17
In presidential election years, Americans see the face of a political party most clearly in the personality, views and character of its presidential candidates. But a national political party is about more than just the president. Its senators and House members pass the nation's laws and budgets. Its governors lead the states. All must work together for progress in America.
I chaired the 1982 Democratic Party Commission on Presidential Nominations that created certain automatic delegates to the Democratic convention -- the "superdelegates." It was a good idea then, and it is still a good idea. The superdelegates will be crucial to Democrats winning the presidency in November and governing successfully for the next four years.
In creating superdelegates, the Democratic Party recognized the expertise that its top holders of public office have gained by running for office themselves. They are experts at winning. They know the issues. They are in a unique position to evaluate presidential candidates. They have a well-honed instinct for how candidates will be received in their own states and districts. In short, they can help the Democratic Party pick a winner.
But the superdelegates' value extends beyond the convention. If they play a role in picking the nominee, they will be more likely to campaign actively for the nominee in the general election.
I vividly remember the presidential election of 1972. George McGovern, a great senator and a war hero, had been nominated at a convention that included few top Democratic elected officials or regular party leaders. The Democratic Party that America saw on television that year and the platform it adopted seemed out of step with mainstream Democratic leaders. We felt the backlash in the elections.
I was a 35-year-old candidate for lieutenant governor that year. As a loyal Democrat, I attended every party rally I could in the fall. But it was right lonesome; I was often the only top statewide candidate there. Leading Democrats were so upset by what had happened in the nominating process and at the convention that they stayed away from party activities in droves. As a result, we got a licking in November. I won my race, but we lost the governorship for the first time in the 20th century. And Jesse Helms was elected that year to the U.S. Senate.
The Democratic Party has done a lot to make itself more democratic. We no longer have winner-take-all primaries and caucuses. We have made a special place for young people, women and minorities in our party organizations. The decision we made 26 years ago to include in the Democratic convention and nominating process our top elected officials and party leaders who get out the vote is consistent with that history.
I don't know how the superdelegates will vote this year. None of us will know until they actually vote in Denver, though I expect the superdelegates will split in a way not too different from the votes in the states and the nation as a whole.
But I do know that the Democratic Party needs these elected officials and party leaders to be involved. They need to help choose our nominee, shape our platform and return home from the convention invested in the nominee's campaign -- on fire to help the Democratic Party win in November.
Yet it's not enough just to win. We have to lead America, and we have to govern successfully. That is another reason our commission created the superdelegates. We saw what happened in Jimmy Carter's administration. President Carter was a good man with the best of intentions. But he came to Washington without a good working relationship with Democratic members of Congress, which played a big part in his administration's problems.
I am proud of both of the candidates who are headed toward our convention, as I was of my original choice, John Edwards. But we Democrats should not kid ourselves. This is going to be a close, tough election. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, will have broad support. To win the general election, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will need every bit of enthusiasm and hard work they can get from Democrats across the country. Having the confidence and all-out efforts of governors, members of Congress and effective state party leaders may well provide the margin of victory.
Too often, the Democratic Party has been split between its grass-roots activists on one side and its elected officials and party leaders on the other. It's important to remember: We need both wings to fly.
The writer served four terms as governor of North Carolina, from 1977 to 1985 and from 1993 to 2001.
I may be wrong on the history ...
but I'm not wrong on my anger and how I and others voted. That will happen again if Clinton gets the nomination without winning the popular vote.
Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
http://george.entenman.name
Obama reacted well, I think.
And the story isn't anything even REMOTELY new (though the MSM playing videos left and right IS.) Obama has gone on record, even last year when it first came out that his pastor had some extreme views on things, that he didn't agree with his stances.
We'll see if this story is still alive in a week (I doubt it will be.) If anything, I see it rallying more people to Obama's defense. Watching someone being dragged through the mud over comments that they didn't even make seems ridiculous, and much like the republicans gathered strength over the McCain/Lobbyist Times article, I see this as a chance for Obama supporters to make some noise about the noise (or just ignore it like they did last year.)
The big question is what is more important, rhetorical stances a candidate's pastor makes or a Bush-lite voting record (Clinton) and a "100s years in Iraq" imperial policy (McCain)? HLW clearly has the priorities straight.
As someone else on here said, it might actually be good
This story evolving into the firestorm it has become might be a blessing, at least nobody will believe that "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail anymore.
Wrong.
They'll still think he's a Muslim and that going to a Christian church all his life is just cover for being a secret terrist.
The truth is that
Obama worships Xenu and will have Tom Cruise as his vice-presidential candidate, but shhhhh, don't tell anyone.
Welcome, young padwan.
Don't be ashamed to show yourself:
You sure were a snappy dresser back then. What are those, lederhosen? And little satin ballet shoes? :)
And for those who are wondering, yes, he still worships me, raising his little hands and cooing whenever he sees me. :)
Alright, this is way too much fun. He's going to shit a solid gold brick when he sees this, followed by some form of retribution (hopefully) just short of patricide.
Thanks for the cover earlier
I can see where I was out of line ... and where I wasn't. Gotta do a better job keeping those separated.
Cute picture.
Great pic!
Welcome, son of scharrison. :D
We promise we won't give you too hard a time because of your dad. We give your dad a hard time.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
He's going to shit a solid
I'll just be nice and say "nice haircut, Showwalter..."
Heh heh :)
You got me. And I can't even really claim "it was the style back then" because the lady who cut my hair (every six months) was always arguing, "I can do so much with this if you'll let me try."
That's not me folks, it's a snapshot from the movie "Wet, Hot American Summer", which is hilarious.
speaking of judgement
It seems really funny to me to be questioning Obama's judgment when your own candidate voted for the worst foreign policy decision in decades.
She said she didn't vote for war, yet the title of the bill she voted for was "Authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq".
Almost 4000 soldiers are dead so far, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi's.
So yes, please question the judgment of our candidates.
you would hold the other Senators who made that same vote
to the same standard? John Edwards?
of course
Why do you think I've been supporting Obama ever since he announced he was going to run? I've never been an Edwards supporter, even though I like a lot of what he was saying.
My original decision to pick Obama over Edwards was exactly because of the war vote. Since then I've found numerous other reasons to pick Obama over any other candidate, but my original decision was based on the whole Iraq war issue.
of trolls and peace
first, an apology: when i logged on last night and saw this post, i wasn't gonna touch it. it was late, i was tired, and experiences on other forums led me to think that the person who wrote this was probably just someone out to stir up trouble (believe me, there are democratic forums where republican trolls go to start fights, and it's never pretty). i already listed in a previous comment the things that led me to that conclusion, so i won't reiterate here. when hlw got snarky and snippy with the first dissenting comment (a comment that, to me, seemed to be an honest attempt to point out that hey, the candidate in question has already responded to this scandal), i took it upon myself to post my trusty troll graphic, a tool i have used many times in many forums. it means "do not feed the troll," and it basically is a signal that someone's out to get tempers riled. after reading everything here, it's clear to me that the spectrum of political opinions on this site is much, much broader than i'd at once thought, and i not only apologize to hlw and any others that were offended by my comment, i apologize for the comment itself. by doing what i did last night, i took part in something that i'm trying my hardest to avoid (and get others to avoid): in-party bickering. nothing i posted last night did anything to contribute to the discussion, and i actually could have been considered a troll myself.
but look at what's happened here...what are we doing, folks? do we really expect to win in november by driving wedges in between ourselves and making our party so much weaker by tearing each other down? if you can't make logical, fact-backed arguments against the opposing candidate, if the best you can do is toss around unfounded rumors, talking points, spin and personal attacks, you may as well be on fox news or ann coulter's quick dial. we're hurting ourselves here. all of this fighting is just distracting us while john mccain courts the moderates and undecideds who are all getting sick of the constant bickering and ugly politics of the democratic party. don't believe me? check the poll numbers that are showing mccain's odds against hillary AND obama getting better and better. it's not because he's the best choice for president. i believe it's because more people are starting to think that a party divided against itself is the last group of people to lead this country out of the quagmire in which the GOP has parked it.
but you don't have to listen to me. if you want to go ahead and continue to bloody each other up, by all means, continue. but when rush limbaugh (may he choke on his cigar) and bill o'reilly are doing the happy dance in november because we've shot ourselves in the foot in what might've been the most monumental presidential victory in this country's history, i hope your vitriol and venom will comfort you through the following four years. and that applies to clinton- AND obama-backers, because we're all guilty of it. it's just a question of how long we're gonna let it hold us back.
Who said? He said. They said? She said.
With apologies to the good Doctor, I offer ....
Did he say bad words?
No, he flipped no verbal birds.
So why all the fuss
about his pastor, Gus?
Should he control others' mouths?
In case they let slip a WoWse !!
Or is she to muzzle her man?
And put ole Bill in a can?
Others may say bad words all day
But that doesn't make it bad on they
"til someone sez from the other side
Sez "that was bad and oh so snide."
So she, not he, must apologize
And use the right words without any sighs
or ifs (god forbid) that she should say
and use condemn not re-pu-di-aye
The others' words are not the issue
Our nation's troubled, and needs a tissue.
And heaping bile on one another
Over little things, Oh brother!!
Will not help us come November
Against the cane of the pretender
Speak of issues, be positive
And to our brothers, goodness give.
Person County Democrats
Shameless~
Hey, I thought *I* had no shame when it came to doggerel, but this is . . . oh argh!!!
This is so punishment-worthy. This is like something that people get sent to Dante's inferno for doing. I'm thinking that you're bound to occupy the circle between people who wait seven seconds before moving forward on green and the one where they send folks who take six items through the "five items only" express line.
Repent, Persondem, repent.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Yep, I put the fleas on the doggerel
But just because it wasn't Camelot
Doesn't mean I didn't say a lot.
(ducks and runs)
All with a wink and a smile, my dear.
Person County Democrats
it's always
a bit embarrassing to have one's post better conveyed (and in rhyming verse, no less) by someone else.
nicely done. ^^
Obama's judgment
There's really only one issue of judgment that matters very much to me. Clinton voted to give Bush the power to start a war and has not yet apologized for that terrible mistake in judgment. Obama spoke strongly against it.
Many thousands of innocent human beings have died because of that mistake in judgment. This matter of attending a church with a lunatic pastor pales in comparison.
Amen to that
To keep things in the preacher context :-)
I've been away for several days.
Mostly judging high school students debate the Presidential Primary Process and whether or not it was counter to democratic values. On breaks from judging, instead of hanging out in the "cushy" judges lounge (read that as high school cafeteria), I hung out with kids from our team, helping them improve their timing, their professionalism, and their arguments.
After reading the incredible vitriol, maliciousness, and opprobrium that exists on this thread, by someone claiming to fully remember details of a Presidential election that occurred when they were ten years old makes me want to stay away from BlueNC and continue to hang out with High School Students who actually look up their facts and attempt to make arguments based on logic rather than emotion.
I heard better fact-based theories from actual 14 year olds than the emotion filled tripe on this thread.
Thank goodness for our young people, Democrats and Republicans alike, though after reading this monstrosity of multiple diatribes and responses, I am of a mind to encourage them to indeed, trust no one over the age of 30, including yours truly, for I got sucked into this morass. Do not register as part of a political party to be bound by partisan rules that leave you betraying your own Democratic Values by decrying the grassroots, calling each other names, and devalueing the opinions and votes of others.
Stay true, stay Democratic, and stay away from the adults. Follow your heart, listen with your minds, and stay unaffiliated so the so-called grown-ups don't suck you into their games.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I was almost 11
I guess not only do I have memories I have studied the 72 election in detail. Also,I had a good teacher, a grandmother that was not only a democratic activist, but an MD, and a 3 term member of the North Carolina General Assembly. She hated Jesse Helms and all he stood for.
You see, my family has had more than a passing interrest in democratic politics,and it has been a lifetime study for me.
We may not agree on this, but you would be shocked on how much we could agree on.
When I was that 10 year old kid I sent $10.00 to George McGovern.
I was the only kid in class that didn't vote for Nixon in the class vote.
You see, some of us have lived long enough to see this train wreck before
72 was a disaster, and those not willing to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
More shocking video from Obama's church
Also from Kos.
kos,
otherwise known as daily obama, is hardly a source i would cite on the presidential race. and no, hillary has not abandoned nc, for the man who delivered california and ohio to hillary will manage her campaign in the state. perhaps i should broach a discussion of rezko at this blog.
You Should
And then you can explain...
...the Clinton connections to Rezko...
...and Norman Hsu...
...and David Rosen...
...and Richard Scruggs...
...and Whitewater...
Honest to blog, if there's ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
rezko