Media figures call Obama supporters' behavior "creepy," compare them to Hare Krishna and Manson followers
In recent days, numerous media figures have likened Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's (IL) supporters to members of a cult, and several have described his supporters' enthusiasm as "creepy." For instance:
- In a February 8 Los Angeles Times column headlined "He's got Obamaphilia," Joel Stein referred to Obama's popularity as "Obamaphilia" and his supporters as "Obamaphiles" and members of "the Cult of Obama." Stein asserted: "Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me." He added: "What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor."
- In a February 8 New York Times column headlined "Questions for Dr. Retail," David Brooks referred to Obama as the "Hopemeister" and compared his supporters to Hare Krishna members: "Obama's people are so taken with their messiah that soon they'll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings." He also wrote: "Have you noticed that he's actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that."
- In a February 7 column, Time columnist Joe Klein wrote of Obama's speech following the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries: "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."
- In a February 7 post on his ABCNews.com blog, Political Punch, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote of Obama's supporters: "Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand." Tapper continued: "It's as if [former Senate Majority Leader] Tom Daschle [D-SD] 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." Concluding the post, Tapper compared Obama supporters to followers of Charles Manson. Tapper wrote: "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..."
In an "UPDATE," Tapper added: "Let me be clear: I'm not saying there shouldn't be enthusiasm in politics. I'm merely touching on the fact that some Obama supporters' exhuberance [sic] seems to be getting a little out of hand."
From Stein's February 8 Los Angeles Times column:
You are embarrassing yourselves. With your "Yes We Can" music video, your "Fired Up, Ready to Go" song, your endless chatter about how he's the first one to inspire you, to make you really feel something -- it's as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read, "Do you like me? Check yes or no." Some of you even cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted for me, I would so never call you again.
Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me. Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote for him. She'd never even called me once about anything else. Not even to see "The Island."
What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.
All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold night desert air, just to see him up close, to make sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy "scapegoating" and "demagoguery." I'd never had even a history teacher argue that our nation's history is a series of brave people changing others' minds when things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man to hope all over me.
Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed about my feelings. In the "Yes We Can" music video that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I know. (His line is "Yes we can.") I called to see if he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped his Q rating.
Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his friends that contained these lines: "Nothing is more fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him. I stood, my hand embraced in his, and ... I felt something ... something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of Hope." That's the gayest e-mail I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen me on E!
From Brooks' February 8 New York Times column:
Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they're not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.
Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he's going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he's actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.
[...]
Did you hear the message of Clinton's speech Tuesday night? It's a rotten world out there. Regular folks are getting the shaft. They need someone who'll fight tougher, work harder and put loyalty over independence.
Then did you see the Hopemeister's speech? His schtick makes sense if you've got a basic level of security in your life, if you're looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama's people are so taken with their messiah that soon they'll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There's a ''Yes We Can'' video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn't creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.
From Klein's February 7 Time column:
His New Hampshire concession speech, with the refrain "Yes, We Can," was turned into a brilliant music video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities. The video, stark in black-and-white, raised an existential question for Democrats: How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?
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 would never be so tone-deaf, but he is facing a similar ceiling, a similar inability to speak to the working people of the Democratic Party (at least, those who are not African American) or find an issue, a specific issue, that distinguishes him from his opponent.
From Tapper's February 8 Political Punch blog post, titled "And Obama Wept":
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."
[...]
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...
jpt
UPDATE: Let me be clear: I'm not saying there shouldn't be enthusiasm in politics. I'm merely touching on the fact that some Obama supporters' exhuberance seems to be getting a little out of hand. Obama himself joked about this at a Hollywood fundraiser, as noted in Men's Vogue:
"When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. 'This guy was president before I was,' says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: 'This guy was God before I was.'"
This is totally not fair. Obama supporters have excellent reasons for preferring Barack for President:
1. Check out that great smile.
2. His speeches make me feel warm and fuzzy.
3. His speeches make me think "Yes I Can!"
4. He talks about Hope and Change and Changing Hope and Hoping for Change and the Audacity of Hoping for Change. And Hope.
5. If you don't vote for Barack, you are a racist.
6. Hillary is Polarizing. I won't vote for her if she's the nominee. But if her supporters don't vote for Barack, they are racists.
7. Barack has yet to lose a single primary or caucus legitimately.
8. I really like the way he speaks. He makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Did I say that already? Well, it's because they really do.
9. What was the subject again? I was thinking about Barack and I kind of glazed over. Gosh I like him.
About Hillary being the only candidate, that Obama can't win, that Obama supporters are not thinking clearly, ad naseum.
I supported Edwards. Now I'd like to see a reasonable discussion about POLICY, not horse race. I don't want to project as to what the opposition will do or say. Of course it will be ugly, but our decisions can't be based on fear. Speak the truth and fear no one. If you think Hillary is the best candidate because she brings the best proposals, speak for that, but don't attack Obama or his supporters!!!
I supported Edwards. Now I'd like to see a reasonable discussion about POLICY, not horse race. I don't want to project as to what the opposition will do or say. Of course it will be ugly, but our decisions can't be based on fear. Speak the truth and fear no one. If you think Hillary is the best candidate because she brings the best proposals, speak for that, but don't attack Obama or his supporters!!!
BRAVO!!! WELL SAID!!!!
I listen to Air America on and off every day- every single one of their hosts is strongly anti-Clinton and pro-Obama. If they have to make crap up and ape the best talking points of the GOP and Fox NewsChannel, they will. And Air America is supposed to be Liberal Talk Radio, not Obama Talk Radio. Liberal Radio is supposed to be different from Right-Wing radio in that it assumes that listeners can make up their own minds and don't want to be told what to think or do by the hosts. But this season, they are doing exactly that- hour after hour of "this is why Obama is great, this is why Hillary sucks, if you don't support Obama you are Afraid or Corpo or Racist or just plain Stupid."
Sometimes, one can turn against a candidate not because of that the candidate says, but because of the obnoxiousness of that candidate's supporters. I am so sick of having Obama shoved down my throat, I'm compelled to vote for Clinton in my primary on Tuesday and send her money. Maybe this isn't Obama's fault, but that's how it is.
if you don't support Obama you are Afraid or Corpo or Racist or just plain Stupid."
Right !
I have been told that I shouldn't vote for Clinton because if she gets the nomination the Obama supporters won't vote for her. I think these are the people who are making the McCain matchup polls favor Obama. I would love to see MoveOn's full poll results. I don't just want to see that 70% said they were voting for Obama and 30% said they were voting for Clinton, I want to see the stats for the other question they asked ... would you vote for the other candidate. I want to see how many Obama supporters said they wouldn't vote for Clinton. I said I WOULD vote for Obama, but I've since changed my mind. I don't like this game that's being played, the wingnuts, the MSM, and the Obama supporters all conspiring to toss out a perfectly wonderful, credentialed, and viable candidate. I will not accept a candidate that has been forced upon me through such hateful and despicable tactics. I will vote 3rd party if necessary.
I don't like Hilary's tactics and especially Bill Cinton's use of white racist code to remind white people to vote white. Some white liberals are just better at camouflaging their racism than wingnuts.
Atheist, as always you make much sense but don't try to deal with most of these Obama supporters.
I think there's something kind of scary and irrational about it all, and in 20 years people are going to look back and say 'why in the world did they nominate that empty-suited Pied Piper when anyone could see that he was going to lose so badly.'
I'm going to have a hard time supporting Obama-- I think he just reeks of inexperience and inefficiency and it's a little alarming.
That's a falsehood. Thomm Hartman likes both and Bobby Kennedy is a strong supporter of Clinton.
You need to ask yourself if you are as off-putting as those Obama supporters you curse. Because if I were a shallow man I could easily point to your posts, along with a few others here, and make the exact same argument against Clinton that you make against Obama supporters.
Notice the key word, few, in the above sentence. That's what I think is driving this wedge: a handful of online hardline supportes from both sides. When I'm out in the neighborhood, when I'm at the local bar or at work and politics slips into the conversation it is nothing like the situations you describe. Obama people are clear headed and Clinton supporters are down to earth.
Please focus on objective differences because you do Hillary a disservice with your blind partisanship and politics of personal destruction.
Tom Hartmann was an Edwards supporter who, as you say, likes both Hillary and Obama, but if you listen to his show, and are honest, you'll have to admit he prefers Obama.
Bobby Kennedy's show is on ONCE A WEEK, not three hours a day, five days a week. Give me a break. And that's more than balanced by Sam Seder's show on Sunday- he can't stand Hillary.
XM 167 has Bill Press, who is anti-Hillary and pro-Obama, Lionel, who is just an idiot, I have no idea who he supports because I won't listen to him, Anti-Hillary Ed Schultz, Anti-Hillary Randi Rhodes, and more balanced, but still mostly pro-Obama, Rachel Maddow.
If you are trying to tell the people here that Air America is balanced, YOU are the liar.
What specifically, in terms of policy differences, makes you lean to Clinton? Perhaps you have no issue with mandated health coverage. Don't you see? It is policy stances like that which willunify the GOP and most certainly lose the independent vote. Not to mention that it is just flat wrong to have the government force me to do anything outside of it's constitutional limits. I imagine she would have no issue with penalizing folks somehwo who don't fall in line with her pie in the sky health care crap. For you to support that makes you just as guilty.
How right you are! I have made a beeline AWAY from DailyKos because of all the Obama pod-people (whether high on lofty rhetoric or too much java). They really aren't helping their candidate too much.
P.S. Not picking on DailyKos. I'm sure there's plenty of other sites that have devolved into tiny echo chambers.
JJ:
Somehow, I get the impression you're a "MORNING IN AMERICA" kinda guy, who went all warm and fuzzy over Ronald Reagan. Of course, that was normal and natural, because, gosh, he was a true "CONSERVATIVE", so all that blind love and hero worship is all wholesome and refined!
You couldn't be more wrong. I was at the Catholic University of America in 1984, and except for my girlfriend, I was the only person on campus who wore a Mondale-Ferraro button on my jacket and had a Mondale sticker on my car.
While the mainstream media may end up using this against him, i have to say that i feel the same way. they are acting like a cult. check out www.democraticunderground.com.
the stuff going on there between likeminded people is just gross!
Let's not leave this little Corporate Media gem that Media Matters seems to have missed:
Slate editor calls Obama speech style 'fascistic'
One must be deliberately obtuse not to realize that these Corporate Media narratives are centrally planned, thought out, organized strategies. It simply is not possible that these outbursts are mere serendipity produced by a beltway culture. Somewhere there are strategy sessions and marching orders given out to the talking heads. I suggest that the media strategy sessions at the White House that Karl Rove used to conduct are still in full force and farther reaching than previously imagined.
It's beyond cynicism, it smacks of conspiracy.
obama is no more or less a politician than anyone else in the democratic race. it's really the fault of the public that campaigns are reduced to such basics, but that is what the public responds to. blanket a market with tv ads and a candidate generally sees a rise in the polls. i will vote for the democrat, but i think hillary is the more electable. the republicans are not going to hold back on the word "cocaine". [rush will mouth it while he listens to callers with his ear implants, made necessary because of overdosing on oxycontin.] they are not going to hold back on the fact that obama wanted to ban handguns. [he said that was a mistake, that a staffer answered yes to a questionaire, but i don't think that explanation will get anywhere.] it's already obvious where they will be coming from. mccain said the democrats want to wave the "flag of surrender", and romney said they want to "surrender to terror". on the issue of who would be a better commander in chief, hillary consistently has higher ratings.
Many Democrats,, Obama supporters (not ALL, don't jump on me) are employing the same smear tactics against Hillary that the wingnuts are employing. Why is this ?
What a waste man.
I thought I would post some Obama supporter comments from Daily Kos. This is just what I could find quickly from a single thread:
YES WE CAN!
I'm not voting for Barack Obama because he's black. I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's brilliant. --Oprah Winfrey
"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from day one, you have to be right from day one." Barack Obama 1.30.08
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away. Donate to Obama '08!
LOL Barack said today there are people that think he needs to "stew" in Washington DC awhile longer, so they can "boil all the hope out of him" LOL
This one is the creepiest:
They see a liberal Democrat against whom they are utterly, completely powerless, and who (if nominated) would walk right through their most formidable weapons as if they weren't there. All they can do is stand there, mouths agape, staring at him and saying things like "Wow, that's really something" - as if watching a mushroom cloud rise over the ruins of everything they've built. Barack Obama is the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse as far as the Republican Party is concerned, and they all know it - they cannot do other than praise him, because there would be no other way to rationalize their total defeat if he is nominated. They must acknowledge that a giant approaches.
And we should give a damn what Toni Morrison thinks because.......?
Here's the big problem with enthusiasm for a candidate based on emotion rather than actual, concrete issues- that's a balloon that tends to pop at very, very inconvenient times. And I notice that Morrison's endorsement is as light and airy and hollow as the candidate she's pulling for.
I would be more impressed if Morrison had endorsed Hillary- for celebrities to announce their support for Obama has become kind of a ritual these days, like lemmings falling in line to march over that cliff.
Here one thing: 8 years of experience in the White House.
Yes, she was just First Lady, but Hillary is an attorney and an extremely intelligent and motivated person. You don't think she spent her time decorating and baking cookies, do you ? You have to know she knew everything that was going on. If she wasn't able to directly observe, she spoke to Bill afterward, and in great depth. She knows how the office of the President works. She's already met most of the world's leaders ... and they LIKE her. If she becomes president, she will have this valuable head start to help her make a quick transition.
And to be fair, Hillary has addressed NAFTA. She offers some nuanced change. I'd like to see the corporate mindset that put that agreement together deconstructed. That's just me.
My qualm with Obama on the matter of trade is that he supporrted the NAFTA style Peru-trade deal.
Kinda six to one, half dozen to the other. See you later, Pearlene.
Hi Pearl, I think you need to look closer at what Hillary Clinton has said because she has most certainly spoke of NAFTA and the damage it did and the chnages she wants to make. ANd if you think Obama is against NAFTA I suggest you look closer at his record. My support of Hillary Clinton is based on several factors: I like her style, I think she has an amazing command of the subject matters, and I think on the policies that have been discussed and compared I think hers are both more detailed and in some preferable to Obama's plans. I think Obama's health care plan is lacking and will not bring us closer to where we need to be. He just discounts the fact that americans are burden with a huge backend cost due to the unisured. He claims everyone will get it if he can make it affordable but that is not true and facts back it up that there are those that can afford but don't chose to get it and we end up footing the bill if they do get sick. Clinton's like Edward's plans are the only plans that realistically bring us to where this country needs to be on health care. I prefer Clinton's grasp of diplomacy and tactical advantage. She understands that the president does not give up the advantage and that lower level begins negotiations. I think Obama is wrong to commit to personally meeting himself in his first year. Clinton has a more detailed economic plan including how to handle the sub-prime mortgage issue. I fel Clinton understands that you can not claim to know a date certain that the troops will be out of Iraq until you see what you have inherited a year from now and what the administration has kept hidden. She understands that a plan will have to be developed at that point when you actually have the information. Obam in what I consider pandering makes a promise to have them all out in 16 months. There is no way he can responsibly mak this claim at this time and he is either making an emty promise or he really doesn't understand the issue. All around I feel Clinton has provided more detailed and thoughtful plans and ideas then Obama has. I think Obama has lacked sunstance in every debate and seems to stumble when forced to discuss policy that concerns me. I think he lacks understanding of what is meant by universal healthcare and why it is important based on his plan. So, yes I have a problem with the Obama worship and I have a problem with the media bias but my reasons for supporting one over the other are rooted in substance and policy. The reason her experience is talked about is because her policies and detailed plans and grasp of the issues illustrates her dominance in that area as oppeosed to his, or at least what he is showing. I could go on but space is limited so I hope this answers the issues question that some claim haven't been addressed.
Currently, I'm still weighing the respective arguments of each candidate.
You correctly point out, in your reply to Pearlene, that, "He (Obama) claims everyone will get it (coverage) if he can make it affordable but that is not true and facts back it up that there are those that can afford but don't chose to get it and we end up footing the bill if they do get sick." The fact is they both offer what amounts to a tax break to cover the cost of insurance and they both talk about affordability. Both fall far short of the progressive value of healthcare as a human right. But they both offer one the choice to enroll in a public plan if one is not satisfied with their private plan. It's a draw on healthcare.
Hillary wins on education. She recognizes the neccessity of ending the stupid, stupid NCLB affliction.
Neither one recognizes the environmental importance, or strategic goals, of investing in public transportation for all. Both have cap and trade plans, incentives for the transition to a green economy and higher CAFE standards. Hillary has a slight edge in the energy debate in as much as she doesn't dwell on biofuels as the answer. I say this because the fixation on fuel does nothing to change the way we think of energy as a renewable source.
I have further details to sift through from each website but I would be remiss if I didn't address this comment: "I think they are both substanctive differences and differences in atual detailed versus vagueness of policy and plan." In fact, each website offers a great amount of detail in regard to policy. It's the public persona of each candidate that fits your description. Hillary is the classic liberal policy wonk in person, which suits many lefty's, like myself, but doesn't stir the bi-conceptuals (aka would be liberals or independents). Barack leads off with values in public and is a big picture orator. This does stir the bi-conceptuals and has great importance because it captures the interest of people who would otherwise identify as conservative. It has the negative impact of shocking the liberal faithful into perceiving him as a salesman.
So far for me, pending further examination of the issues, the deal breaking difference is still leadership approaches. I prefer Barack's call to participate and organize over Hillary's take charge, leadership by executive order frame.
Also, there is much to be said for a leader who can inspire the people to work on behalf of the greater good. Because in the end, I believe it takes a movement.
Uh… well, may we have links to the following:
* your Nobel Prize in literature(Toni Morrison has one),
* Titles of the books you have written,
* you teach at what Ivy league school (?),
* your Law degree, and years you were editor of your school's law review,
* your bar license,
* you are a senator from what state?
I notice that Ms. Morrison makes NO mention of ANY of Obama's relevant experience in her letter. Just gush about how he inspires her. Blah blah blah. Inspires her to do WHAT?
Why, endorse Obama, of course.
And that's the thing that really bugs me about Obama- his main talent seems to be to inspire people- to vote for him. Great. And then what? Do you people really think that Obama's going to sit down with actual Grown-Ups to discuss policy when he's president, and they are just going to swoon all over him as all differences are forgotten, beer falls from the sky, flowers bloom and Eternal Peace spreads throughout the world?
1. Tony Morrison has a Nobel prize- not Obama.
2. Here are some other people who've written books- Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly....
3. Like everything else in his life, Obama taught at an Ivy League school for roughly fifteen minutes before moving on to the next, shiny prize.
4. I'm not running for President, I don't need to compare my resume to his.
And we should give a damn what Toni Morrison thinks because.......?
Here's the big problem with enthusiasm for a candidate based on emotion rather than actual, concrete issues- that's a balloon that tends to pop at very, very inconvenient times. And I notice that Morrison's endorsement is as light and airy and hollow as the candidate she's pulling for.
I SO agree ! It's a beautifully crafted letter, I would expect no less of a great author. But it merely contains a series of fluffy expressions of adoration. Lots of hope and change. >:-) There is nothing in that letter that truly distinguishes Obama from Clinton with respect to the issues that will confront the next president.
We are all entitled to like and dislike who we want, but when has support for any candidate been deemed "creepy"? I've never called anyone who disagrees w/ Obama based on policy racist. But if you bring race into the picture, what do you expect his supporters to say? Noone is going around calling John McCain the "white candidate". I don't hear Obama's camp highlighting the fact that he's black. Who's making an issue out of his race? The Media and Haters. Who's the one making fun of his middle name? The Media and Haters. Who's going around trying to make his supporters seem loony and high on "ecstasy"? Need I say more?
Who's making an issue out of his race?
Uh, here I have to chime in. A half white man who chose to align himself with blacks is the first to play the race card. Then he decides to join a civil rights law firm and he hooks up with a black church (and finds Jesus). Then he is continually touted, not by his haters and the MSM but by his supporters and his campaign, as "the first African American president". (I listen to black radio stations, I've heard some of these ads.) Then we witness blacks overwhelmingly vote for this black candidate, in some cases 80% of them.
I don't have any problem with any of this. But I'm not going to pretend like I don't see it.
No wonder you have issues with some black folks. You are clueless. Obama is only half black to ignorant white folks ,like you. Yes I called you ignorant cause ANYONE who has studied American history knows that since black folks were shipped to this country in boats packed like sardines that if you had ONE drop of black blood, WHITE folks considered you black. Black folks didn't make those rules WHITE folks did.
- atheist / Saturday February 9, 2008 3:11:21 PM EST
"Whites" overwhelmingly voted (twice) for Dubya, but we will not hold that against you!
In a PERFECT World, Hillary and Obama would be running mates. Unfortunately, I don't think either of their ego's will allow them to do so.
In recent days, numerous media figures have likened Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's (IL) supporters to members of a cult, and several have described his supporters' enthusiasm as "creepy
Jim Jones springs to mind.
A youth vote to a Repub is picking up the endorsement of a 45 year old.
A Repub candidate could never engender such enthusiam or a youth vote.
Right. People in their 20's, especially early 20's, think 40 is ancient. They must think 70 is near-death.
Here's an AP age demo summary of the Feb 5 primaries and caucuses:
The Democratic electorate was a bit younger than Republican primary-goers. More than one in 10 Democratic voters were under age 30 and one in five were over age 65. Among GOP primary voters fewer than one in 10 were under 30 and a quarter were over 65.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-rJkxLbJTFVe7_sztS_x_XcNpQwD8UKEFQO0
It's interesting to me that only 1 in 10 Dem voters were under 30 and twice as many were over 65.
want silly stuff like more jobs, a strong economy, respect for law and
the Constitution, an end to the situation in Iraq, serious change in the
way government is managed, etc., stuff like that. I guess we'll have
to keep an eye on him, huh? Thanks, "Media" for your warning. We
will have you to credit if we have another conservative reich to further
our downward spiral in the rest of the world. I had the mistaken idea
that we, the people, elected our political bosses, not the Media. I must
have missed something here. When did the Media decide who we vote
for and for what reasons? Since when did the Pundits take over?
Here is a perfect example of what this article is all about. I'll provide the link to where this was posted below...tell me, is this over the top or what? SCARY!!
Come join the Church of Obama!!
Obama will take us to the promised land!!
Obama will defeat the wicked witch of the north!!
FIRED UP, READY TO GO!!!
Lead us to the Promised Land, O, Obama
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/09/low_turnout_in_louisiana_worri.html
You can't complain ABOUT the media coverage and then use the media coverage to make your point!
When you criticize Obama supporters you are criticizing 50% of the Democratic party, that's right 50%. The same 50% that you will need IF Hillary wins. You notice Obama supporters criticize Hillary for her vote on the war, her flip flopping on NFATA, her vote on Iran. But your criticism of Obama is simply his supporters, people who post on Daily Kos and media outlets. Face facts, if Oprah supported Hillary you have have NOTHING to say. If Toni Morrison supported Hillary you would have NOTHING to say. If Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver or Robert Dinero supported Hillary you would have NOTHING to say. If Hillary had an audience of 20,000 standing in the freezing cold at 8am to here her speak you would have NOTHING to say. It's called jealously and it's petty and small minded.
Your post would make more sense if so many Obama supporters were not insisting that if Clinton is the nominee, they WON'T support her. I hear this ALL THE TIME, but the reverse is NEVER true- I have yet to hear a SINGLE Clinton supporter on tv or radio say that they will not support Obama if HE is the nominee.
Way too many Obama supporters act like petulant little children who are fully prepared to stamp their feet, hold their breath, and take their ball and go home if they can't get what they want. And through their surrogates in the media, they are constantly looking for excuses for the next defeat that have nothing to do with Hillary's popularity. This weekend, the narrative has become "Superdelegates are unfair and Undemocratic, they should be abolished, let the People decide!" But Caucuses, which rely on peer pressure and intimidation and erase the votes of "non-viable" candidates, are at least as Undemocratic as Superdelegates are-- but you wont hear ONE WORD of protest from the Obama supporters about them, because Obama tends to win them.
I personally think that most Obama supporters will stay home in November if their candidate isn't the nominee, figuring a GOP win is better because it opens the door for another run in 2012. America suffers for four years under President McCain? We get involved in another war? Just the price we have to pay to get President Obama.
Your post would make more sense if so many Obama supporters were not insisting that if Clinton is the nominee, they WON'T support her. I hear this ALL THE TIME, but the reverse is NEVER true- I have yet to hear a SINGLE Clinton supporter on tv or radio say that they will not support Obama if HE is the nominee.
I'm calling bs - I caucased in washington yesterday, and that's ALL I heard from Obama supporters - that they will vote for whomever the dem nominee is, that they all think she is a great person, but just not who they support for a VARIETY of reasons, it's their personal choice and to mock and deride and call people "cultish" or "fanatic" it almost sounds like repugs saying dems who are critical of Bush only have a BDS or are "loons". (how's that for a run on sentenence?) I support Ombama, but I would never call people who support Clinton "crazy" or "cultish" and I will support whomever is the dem nominee!!!!!
Your post would make more sense if so many Obama supporters were not insisting that if Clinton is the nominee, they WON'T support her. I hear this ALL THE TIME, but the reverse is NEVER true- I have yet to hear a SINGLE Clinton supporter on tv or radio say that they will not support Obama if HE is the nominee.
Get out more cause according to a CNN poll only 50% of Obama supporters wouldn't vote for Hillary while 63% of Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama. The Clintons have issues with this campaign and as long as those who support her don't acknowledge the problem it will continue to haunt them. Face facts, 50% of the Democratic party DOES NOT WANT HILLARY, PERIOD! and the way she and her husband are campaigning is not making that same 50% willing hold there nose and vote for her.
Uh, according to your own numbers, fifty percent of Democrats won't vote for Obama, either. Are you star-struck and blind that you can't see what you yourself posted?
I posted that I have heard many, many Obama supporters say on the radio and on tv that they will NOT support Clinton if she's the nominee. It's a mantra you would hear constantly if you listened to Air America, which might as well change it's name to Obama Radio. I hope you are right that they'll get behind Clinton if she's the nominee, just as I will vote for Obama if he is, but I have my doubts.
J, while 63% of Clinton supporters are less willing to vote for Obama, I sincerely hope that the same large number of folks that are coming out to vote in the primaries will vote in the general. Obama said last night that the most important issue is that we elect a Democratic no matter which one wins the nomination. That truly is the big picture.
My anger with you and others who post here is your need to make offensive and malicious remarks about Obama in your support of Hillary. It's not necessary and uncalled for since the main objective is to not elect a Republican. You seem to take his message and belittle it as if somehow Hillary's approach will be vastly different. When you are hated by half of your own country how will change be achieved because I'm truly tired of the same old sh*t? When you are a woman and hated by half of your own country how will you govern?
My dislike of Hillary is stems from my extreme anger at her co-running mate, Bill. I don't doubt Hillary is smart and qualified for the job but I don't make offensive and malicious remarks about her just because I support Obama. I will admit that I change my mind constantly regarding if I will vote for Hillary or simply sit it out, but it has nothing to do with her qualifications and all to do with Bill's tacky campaign tactics.
Pearl, I will speak for myself as a Hillary Supporter. I think it is disgusting the way you and others have tried to paint the CLnton's with these ridiculous race baiting charges. It all began with Donna Brazil and the "leaked" memo from the Obama campaign twisting and misrepresenting their words and meaning. FIne it worked Obama now has over 80% of the AA vote. It is time you all backed off because nothing positive will come from using race this way.
Lost, let me say this and I truly hope you understand where I'm coming from. While I like and respect your posts YOU don’t get to decide when and what I speak about, OK. I don’t need Donna Brazile or anyone else to help me form MY opinion on Bill Clinton and race baiting. I‘m sick and tired of YOU trying to tell me WHAT constitutes race baiting. Has it ever happened to you? Do you actually know what it is? I don’t hate the Clintons and I’m damn sick and tired of having to say it over and over again. Bill and his support of black folks DOES NOT exempt him from criticism, PERIOD! Criticism IS NOT hate and you should know the difference. YOU actually sound like those rabid right wing 30% Bush supporters who can’t find ANY fault with him. Again Bill support of black folks DOES NOT exempt him from criticism. Criticism IS NOT hate! Hillary lost support from some black folks due to Bill and surrogates like Robert Johnson, period! Obama started seeing large support from black folks AFTER seeing and hearing Bill play the race card before, during and after the South Carolina primary.
You claim that you respect my opinion but then you try to tell me that “it’s time I backed off”? Listen, I’m 73 freaking years old and I lived, seen and heard just about everything. I was born in the south and know quite well when the race card is being played. I Do Not need your approval to have an opinion! YOU claim respect for my opinion then you should know that I don’t make the claim lightly. The fact that you disagree DOES NOT change what I and many others feel.
NAFTA was included in my reason for preferring Obama over Hillary. I did not accuse Hillary of flip flopping. Iraq was included in my reason for preferring Obama over Hillary. Iran was my reason for preferring Obama over Hillary. I choose valid reasons for preferring Obama not the small minded petty silly crap that others (not you) post about.
Oprah in no way denigrated women with her comments. She responded to some women who made foolish statements saying they felt “betrayed” by Oprah because she didn't support Hillary. Why must she support Hillary? Because she's a woman? How can one complain about black folks supporting Obama because he's black and then turn around and expect Oprah to support Hillary because she's a woman. What does Oprah a black woman do? She choose to support who she CHOOSE and it's not for ANYONE to say sh*t about her choices, period!. If there are some who don't like it, to damn bad.
I'm fully aware of what's at stake if McCain becomes President. At the same time I don't like Hillary and I truly don't want to re-live the Clinton years. They were good years financially but I'm tired of 24/7 Bill and Hillary, period. Although never being thrilled with Hillary I have always said I would probably hold my nose and vote for her. I do believe she's a smart woman but will I vote for her? I'm like Michelle Obama, I'm thinking about it. Can't say much more than that.
Oh and I too apologize for my tone but I'm tired of explaining. I would say you have to be black to understand but that's not true, there were many white folks who understood exactly how Bill operated. I would say you have to be from the south but that's not true either cause there were plenty of non-southern folks who understood exactly how Bill operated.
When you criticize Obama supporters you are criticizing 50% of the Democratic party, that's right 50%. The same 50% that you will need IF Hillary wins. You notice Obama supporters criticize Hillary for her vote on the war, her flip flopping on NFATA, her vote on Iran. But your criticism of Obama is simply his supporters, people who post on Daily Kos and media outlets.
Above is an earlier post of your Ms. Scott. I see in this post you claim that you did not accuse Hillary of flip flopping. Now, I understand that you are 73 and maybe the memory just isn't what it used to be, but you got to do better. At best, I would suggest a couple of days before you change your arguement, or maybe posting on different sites where its not so easy to find YOUR flip flops.
You sound like a right wing radio host.
Lost, you are right about the Bush dig it was unnecessary but while I admit it was wrong it was in response to your "you sound like a right wing radio host" comment as if any dislike of Hillary automatically makes you a right winger. Your tone of "It is time you all backed off" set me off and I apologize.
Part of the beauty in Bill's actions is it wasn't obvious. He didn't do a 'in your face' attack his was a much more subtle. Obama up and until New Hampshire was not known as a black candidate. He won in 95% white Iowa. Bill's approach was two fold, bring out the race card, make black folks angry enough to become vocal in their anger and make white folks who had looked past Obama's race take a second look based on all those angry black folks. Hey white voters maybe he IS more like Jessie Jackson and less of that one America stuff he says in in speeches. Bill wasn't really worried about those angry black folks cause we sure as sh*t weren't going to vote for Republicans, we already know they have no use for us. We simply would have to either sit out the election in anger and screw ourselves or scurry back and vote for Hillary. It was a brilliant plan and it pissed me off cause I've seen this type of divisive crap pulled before. Did Jim Clyburn became disturbed about Bill's remarks because of the "leaked Obama memo"? Did Rahm Emanuel tell Bill to cut out the dirty crap because of the "leaked Obama memo"? I suppose Ted Kennedy also got the "leaked Obama memo" and decided to give Bill a call on his conduct. Robert Johnson? Another great move, take a billionaire black man and have him introduce Hillary at a rally in South Carolina. Have that same billionaire black man tell the audience that he as a black man is offended by Obama questioning the Clintons loyalty to black folks (which he did not do)and then hint at a drug dealing past by Obama is a hell of a lot more than a freaking low blow IMO.
Oprah's comment was in response to several e-mails that were being read in the media. The women accused Oprah of being a traitor to women by not voting for Hillary since a lot of the format for her show involves empowering women. They also claimed they would no long watch her show and had lost respect for her. That is offensive and IMO deserved mocking. This is an article that you should read to understand http://www.theroot.com/id/44656
Lost I must say quite honestly that I don't give a damn that you think I'm race baiting but I will continue to call out Bill Clinton and anyone else who does race bait even if they are the man known as the first black president.
On the flip flopping charge, I plead guilty.
On the flip flopping charge, I plead guilty.
The Guardian, Thursday January 10 2008
In the words of that Clinton adviser: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Rally for Hillary Clinton on January 13, 2008 at Columbia College in South Carolina.
That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life."
"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved ... According to Johnson, Barack Obama was doing drugs while the Clintons were emancipating black folks. South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford February 13, 2007 "Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket. We'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything. I'm a gambling man. I love Obama. But I'm not going to kill myself."
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford January 7, 2008 "Of course you're going to have white liberals in a Democratic primary vote for Obama. That's why I'm concerned," Ford said. "You've got people in this country who wouldn't even vote for a black for dogcatcher, and now you want to ask them to vote for one for president of the United States?"
Bill Clinton January 23, 2008 "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here." Bill Clinton implied that if Hillary Clinton were to lose South Carolina, it would be because Barack Obama is black. Bill Clinton, January 26, 2008, in S.C. In response to this question: "what does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" Clinton says that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88, and he ran a good campaign. And Sen. Obama’s run a good campaign here; he’s run a good campaign everywhere. He’s a good candidate with a good organization.”
Oh and that Uncle Tom comment was pathetic and beneath you.
Excellent post. Obama DID call the Republican party of Ronald Reagan the "party of ideas," and did NOT say those ideas were bad. Obama supporters attack Hillary for her vote on the war, but have no problem with Obama voting to continue it's funding, or just plain ducking out when a tough vote comes to the floor. Obama supporters complain about Superdelegates, but have no criticism of Caucuses.
Speaking of which....a few days before the Nevada Caucuses, Obama and his supporters complained that Hillary Clinton was arguing against holding some of the caucuses in casinos, saying that Clinton was being a whiner for agreeing to play by the rules, and then complaining about those rules. Now we have Obama's supporters complaining about Superdelegates, which have existed for two decades. Who doesn't want to play by the rules NOW?
Here's a solution- subtract the Superdelegates AND all the delegates selected in Caucuses. Count ONLY the delegates selected in primaries, where the secret ballot is used (you know, like real, democratic elections.) Obama supporters- ready to agree to that?
Interesting math. All I hear is how Obama is a big hit with Independents and Republicans who cross over to vote for him. Now you say that his supporters represent fifty percent of the Democratic party? Gee, if both those things are true, shouldnt he have locked up the nomination by now?
In fact, Obama's not doing very well at all in primaries where only Democrats can vote. Better luck next time.
I am amazed at the Democrat Party... that should get someone's attention. For the first time in quite a while we have not one but two viable and electable candidate -- who differ on most points only slightly -- but in a time when we should be dancing the two-step to the White House we are desperate to hand the GOP'ers another term in the WH.
I truly did not believe we could lose this election until these last few months. And I say it McCain is going to win, unless we get our collective @^*% together and quite attempting to sink our own candidates. GOP'ers are brillant they have picked a fight with the help of the MSM and they are quite willing to let us tear ourselves apart. Obama is dynamic... Obama is a cult leader (ps the analogy to the Nativity I am sorry is funny)... Coulter likes Hillary better than McCain... Hillary will unite the far-Right (who cares, Democrats should not). They whisper these rumors to us and then let us at each other. We'll beat on each other until we disenfranchise enough of one group or the other then tired and weary we just hand over the WH to them.
I am disappointed in my party (I usually vote Dem. as I am sure most here do) and McCain will win unless we quit throwing our collective gential on the table with measuring tapes and hachets for the losers. Jimminee Christmas, I can not believe we are this scared of winning or each other -- you would think one half of us was rooting for Rove or 4 more years of Bush. And if that scares you realize that is what another GOP presidential victory will mean because even John " the Maverick " McCain will be beholden to someone and they by-and-large will not be anyone who wants what we do. I am not saying do not support your choice or argue the points but the attacks have to stop.
So, I think Bill did race bait in SC, I think the Obama campaign used that to their advantage, they would be insane not to. I watched a clip of the interview with Michelle Obama when she said she would have to contemplate seriously wether or not to endorse Hillary. I think people are blowing that comment way out of proportion. She never implied she would or would not support Hillary. She said she would have to take time to consider before deciding. Considering the election is next year and Hillary may not even be the nominee whats wrong with that?
Um, everything.
The only proper response Mrs Obama should have used was "of course if Hillary is the nominee I will support her, because the most important thing is to bring eight years of Republican corruption and incompetence to an end." The idea that Michelle Obama "has to consider" the question of whether she will support the Democratic candidate if it's not her husband I find disturbing. Talk about considering taking your ball and going home if you aren't allowed to pitch.
Imagine if Bill Clinton said that about Obama- "I'd have to consider it.." Please. The media would eat him for lunch, and for good reason.
The most important thing is to get a Democrat in the White House. I'm for Hillary, but of course I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee. As will all good Democrats, and all Americans who really care about our country.
Michelle Obama needs to grow the hell up.