Joe Klein falsely suggested Obama's focus on patriotism is new
SUMMARY: In his Time column, Joe Klein claimed that Sen. Barack Obama is aware of the "potential problem" of his "patriotism," as "patriotism replaced hope as a theme of his [March 4] concession speech [in Texas]." As evidence, Klein wrote that Obama "echoed John McCain in citing Abraham Lincoln, and called America 'the last best hope on Earth.' " Klein then falsely claimed: "That was the only 'hope' he mentioned -- a fascinating calibration." In fact, Obama mentioned "hope" at other points in the speech, and he has repeatedly used Lincoln's "the last best hope on Earth" line during his presidential campaign.
In his March 6 Time magazine column, Joe Klein claimed that there is a "largely scurrilous" issue of "[Sen. Barack] Obama's patriotism" and later added: "It seemed clear on primary night that Obama was aware of this potential problem, as patriotism replaced hope as a theme of his [March 4] concession speech [in Texas]." As evidence, Klein asserted that Obama "echoed John McCain in citing Abraham Lincoln, and called America 'the last best hope on Earth.' " Klein then falsely claimed: "That was the only 'hope' he mentioned -- a fascinating calibration." In fact, Obama mentioned "hope" at other points in his March 4 speech, and he has repeatedly used Lincoln's "the last best hope on Earth" line during his presidential campaign.
Additionally, Klein wrote of Obama: "There is a segment of the American populace that just can't get past his name. There are Internet sleaze purveyors -- a few, sadly, with roots in the Jewish community -- who have exploited this fact to spread slanderous nonsense about Obama. Hillary Clinton disgraced herself by playing into these innuendos by telling 60 Minutes that Obama isn't Islamic 'as far as I know.' " However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Clinton did not characterize the issue of Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. During the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton if she "believe[s] that Senator Obama is a Muslim," Clinton replied, "Of course not. ... [T]here is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked: "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." It was only after Kroft asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim ... or implying, right?" that Clinton stated: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" [emphasis added]. Then reinforcing her prior assertion that she recognizes that the Obama-Muslim rumors are false, she compared them to false rumors that have circulated about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."
Examples of Obama saying that the United States is the "last best hope on Earth" include:
- At the February 2, 2007, Democratic National Committee winter meeting -- before he officially announced his candidacy, but after he formed a presidential exploratory committee -- Obama stated: "We all have a responsibility to articulate a new foreign policy for the 21st century, one that refocuses our strengths on the wider struggle against terror and renews America's image as the last best hope on Earth."
- In an April 23, 2007, speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama stated: "I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more."
- At the April 2007 National Jewish Democratic Council Washington Policy Conference, Obama stated: "We know these are not the best of times for America's reputation in the world. We know that this war in Iraq has cost us an enormous amount, in lives, in treasure, in influence and in respect. And we know that over the last six years much of world opinion has turned against us. But I still believe and I think most of the people here believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth." Obama also stated later that "[t]he world needs America to lead again. [It's] time for us to turn the page and show the world why we are still the last, best hope on Earth, why we are still a force for good, still a place where weary travelers can come from all corners of the globe and find hope and opportunity at our doorstep."
- At the June 19, 2007, Take Back America Conference, Obama stated: "It's time to show the world that America is still the last, best hope of Earth. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open."
- In an October 8, 2007, energy speech in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama stated: "We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that have touched the lives of millions across the planet. And when that planet is challenged or when it is threatened, the eyes of the world have always turned to this nation as the "last, best hope of Earth."
Obama has also frequently referred to Lincoln during the campaign. For instance, Obama -- who wrote a June 2005 essay about Lincoln for Time -- chose Illinois' Old State Capitol, to announce the start of his presidential campaign on February 10, 2007. During his speech, Obama stated: "It was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people -- where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America." He referred to Lincoln twice more during that speech.
Klein also wrote that Obama's use of the "last best hope" line "was the only 'hope' he mentioned -- a fascinating calibration." In fact, during the introduction of his remarks, Obama used the word "hope" at other points in the speech:
OBAMA: You know, decades ago, as a community organizer, I learned that the real work of democracy begins far from the closed doors and marbled halls of Washington. It begins on street corners and front porches; in living rooms and meeting halls with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have within our power to remake the world as it should be.
It is with that hope that we began this unlikely journey -- the hope that if we could go block by block, city by city, state by state and build a movement that spanned race and region; party and gender; if we could give young people a reason to vote and the young at heart a reason to believe again; if we could inspire a nation to come together again, then we could turn the page on the politics that's shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle. We could write a new chapter in the American story.
Obama also said, "It is now my hope and our task to set this country on a course that will keep this promise alive in the twenty-first century. And the eyes of the world are watching to see if we can."
Klein further wrote that Obama has "given ammunition to the smear artists" because, among others, during a February 26 debate, he "played political word games before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan. The hesitation was noticeable -- and unacceptable." But, in fact, before stating he "would reject and denounce" Farrakhan's support, Obama had denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments and said: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements."
From Klein's March 6 Time column:
There was another issue bubbling, which I hesitate to raise because it is largely scurrilous. It has to do with Obama's patriotism. There is a segment of the American populace that just can't get past his name. There are Internet sleaze purveyors -- a few, sadly, with roots in the Jewish community -- who have exploited this fact to spread slanderous nonsense about Obama.
Hillary Clinton disgraced herself by playing into these innuendos by telling 60 Minutes that Obama isn't Islamic "as far as I know." Over the past few weeks, though, both Barack and Michelle Obama have given ammunition to the smear artists. Michelle's moment was her extremely unfortunate statement that the success of her husband's campaign had made her "proud of my country" for the first time in her adult life. The Senator's moment came in the Ohio debate when he played political word games before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan. The hesitation was noticeable -- and unacceptable.
There are other guilt-by-association problems floating out there: the occasional over-the-top racial statements by Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright; the fact that Obama has been described as "friendly" with 1960s dilettante-terrorist William Ayers. It seemed clear on primary night that Obama was aware of this potential problem, as patriotism replaced hope as a theme of his concession speech. He echoed John McCain in citing Abraham Lincoln, and called America "the last best hope on Earth." That was the only "hope" he mentioned -- a fascinating calibration.

















This gets so Goddam tiring, these pundits, hacks and other media wankers dreaming up these "problems" and then critiquing their own creations.
I'm sure I have my own personal definition of "Patriotism" as it relates to a politician, and it has to do with their policies and actions, and how well those things convey a love and respect for the ideals that our country stands for.It has nothing to do with lapel pins, or where a hand is placed during a song or pledge,and it has very little to do with how much that person tells me how patriotic they are.
Col., I believe that you're smart enough to know that, as a politician, you show your patriotism in ways that the people that vote for you want you to show it.
The flag lapel thing is just super-dumb. Although it's really not a big deal in principal, IT'S REALLY NOT A BIG DEAL, SO JUST WEAR THE DARN THING AND IT GOES AWAY.
Dex, that was my point. Politicians show their patriotism in the way that the people who vote for them want them to, or at least have been persuaded by the media to think is important. I would rather have pols show their patriotism by their actions, by the things they do to make this country better.
I don't really like the mindset of "I know it's stupid and meaningless, and it's not a big deal, so just do it, and everybody's happy". That's precisely the BS that I'm tired of. Put on a flag lapel pin, and the questions go away, no need to do any actual work.
I think it was ballsy of Obama to make the statement he did; passing on the empty symbol to focus on real patriotism. Unfortunately, our media, and those who are comfortable being guided by that media, completely missed the point, and saw Obama's gesture as a slap at America. That's the sort of backwards lazy thinking that I'm tired of seeing shoveled out to the public.
But, whatever. Guys like Joe Klein, who dream up these smears of decent people, simply can't help themselves. They're full of bile and it's no use complaining about them. They need to be dealt with in such a way that will make him think twice before they spread bs again. Boehlert showed the effectiveness of the letter writing campaigns.
I mean, really, to hell with these slimeball Republican tactics. Conservatism is morally bankrupt, it has ruined our country's common wealth with its market fundamentalism and destroyed our global credibility by menacingly pursuing the doctrine of pre-emptive war and torture. I have absolutely no desire to listen to the lies and distortions conceived by someone who subscribes to such a hedonistic ideology as conservatism.
The more someone feels the need to tell me how patriotic they are, the less I beleive them.
BTW...speaking of lapel pins...wasn't one on Sen. McCain's chest when he accepted Pres. Bush's endorsement. But his patriotism doesn't require a pin, right? Only Sen. Obama's.
I get it...double standards.
How can Mr. Klein actually put all of these comments into one column without allowing a bit of honesty to come through? How can he say that Sen. Obama "played a political word game" when in fact it was the debate moderator and Sen. Clinton that created the situation? How can he ignore "Of course not" as an answer while accepting "as far as I know" as the be-all and end-all of Sen. Clinton's comments?
Isn't there someone at Time who can fisk the guy? :)
On a related note, how long before the talking heads bother to report that Obama is projected to win Texas, now that the Caucus results are coming in? I predict that they won't even mention it until the results are formally recorded, which apparently will be late March. Until then, they'll keep pumping the "Hillary revival" paradigm. Meanwhile, the catfight goes on.
Thanks, Tommy! :)
Yup...I heard Gov. Crist on NPR today spouting the same anti-DNC line...disenfranchised voters and all. They were told what would happen, people in other states understood what would happen, FL and MI wanted to bank on a power-play making it all "just right", and here we are...controversy land.
Funny part is that I didn't hear too much concern about the people that DIDN'T vote in the false primaries. They can be disenfranchised, but those people who voted and KNEW that their votes wouldn't count, their votes are sacred and can't be lost! Nice argument...
Well, it's not fair for anyone to pay for it, it probably should come out of the pockets of those that made the decision knowing full well the rules and the chaos that could ensue. I am sure they never figured it would, but it has.
So, if I lived there, and the person or persons responsible, the Governors from what I know, should take their sorry a$$es to the people, ask for forgiveness for their abject stupidity, take full responsibility, stop playing politics with people's votes, tell the citizens of their states exactly how much it will cost, humble yourself with honesty and integrity and ask them to pay for it.......I would say go ahead you bonehead, I wouldn't like it, but what other choice is there?
See I view it as a case where you have a party demanding a State not hold elections as they wish. If a party demands a new election then as governor I would expect that party to pay. If the party doesn't want delegates from the state then I would take that as a sign that the party doesn't want our Electors either. I would frame it that way and use every address to my state to say the same.
But then again I am not a political animal.
Steve, I am not sure we disagree. I do not think the delegates should be seated under the votes from January at all, she did not win these states as she won the others. People knew there would be no delegates sat as a result of the election. Yes, rules are rules. I am just saying that these two states will need to be seated at some point to settle this election outside the superdelegate mess these Democrats are in. So, they should have a re-do of the election, fair for both, let them campaign and may the best candidate win, and then award the delegates.
It's not fair whoever pays for it, but what is the choice? At least the voters will be heard in a fair election.
Tommy, you're probably right. However, I wouldn't have a problem with superdelegates tipping the scales so long as they vote in accordance with their respective constituencies. As a threshold matter, I still don't understand the point of having superdelegates. But nevertheless, since most of these guys/ladies are elected representatives, they should follow in line with the way their pledged delegates were allocated. Obama supporters will be rightfully pissed if HC grabs superdelegates whose constituents gave Obama pledged delegates
If these two don't retract their claws soon, get ready for president McCain.
In any case, I predict that the Democratic party is going to overhaul its primary system between now and 2012. This sucks.
Nerzog, do you have any idea how close the popular vote count is at present? I'm curious. Not counting florida and michigan though. Also, is there a logistical reason why the dnc should not stick to the rules they had from the outset, before the primaries? Everyone knew going into the contest that the delegates from those two states were not to be seated. Putting aside the clintons' newly-found concern about voter disenfranchisement in those two states, are their delegates needed to determine the democratic nominee. If not, then its bulls##t to change the rules in the middle of the contest. Whether the decision to not seat those delegates in the first place was wise is a different matter. But to change the rules now, at the request of one losing campaign, is bs.
Before last tuesday's vote, the pundits were saying that the math made it nearly impossible for Clinton to win without winning most of the Super Delegates. Apparently, that hasn't changed, but the press is so in love with the idea of this thing stretching out through the summer, they don't seem to be saying that any more.
Nerzog,
With all due respect, you can't blame the media for the Hillary/Obama catfight. In my opinion, the disrespectful things that Hillary has said about Obama, like complimenting McCain at Obama's expense, and the Obama staffer who called Hillary a "monster", even though she resigned......well, that is what is fueling the catfight, the media is reporting it, not making it up.
However, in all that time, they didn't mention the fact that Hillary may not end up winning Texas after all. Right now, Obama leads her by about 10 points in the caucus results, which are still being counted (40% complete). A Democratic party spokesperson told NPR yesterday that if the current trend holds, Obama will end up winning 3 more delegates from Texas than Hillary.
Seems to me that this would be a bigger story than an ill-advised, offhand comment from an Obama staffer.
Facts are never a bigger story than a narrative that can be used to make more money.
NPR is one of the few non-written media outlets that still at least attempts to base their reporting on facts, and not cherrypick some statements to support a pre-conceived narrative.
I have had MSNBC on during the day for the last few days, and it's really depressing that EVERYTHING political is about the PROCESS and about the STORY, not about issues. How exciting it would be to watch "Hardball" for example, and see them debate actual policies represented by each candidate, instead of the endless and depressing debate about strategies.
These guys are essentially doing everything they can to prolong the Obama/Hillary catfight. Is it just for the sheer joy of it, or to help McCain win in November?
Sheer joy. IMO.
These guys are at least part of the reason Obama caught up to Clinton in the first place. Sure his support was growing, but without the media swooning over him, & bashing Hillary every chance they got I don't think we'd be where we are today. The media got what they wanted...a real battle for the Democratic nomination instead of the earlier predicted coronation of Hillary.
Well they are having so much fun [plus it gives them plenty to opine about] that they want this race to continue...hopefully right to the convention.
I don't think the media's part in this has diddly squat to do with helping McCain.
They just want an interesting race to cover, even if it means helping to manufacture that interest.
"These guys are at least part of the reason Obama caught up to Clinton in the first place. Sure his support was growing, but without the media swooning over him, & bashing Hillary every chance they got I don't think we'd be where we are today."
-J2
I don't know about that. Obama has a bottom up campaign that is unprecedented in modern American politics. Rolling Stone did a cover about it.
Everyone should read that too, it's a great article.
I believe that had Obama not won Iowa, we would not be where we are today, and Hillary would have wrapped up the nom. a long time ago.
I believe that had Obama not won Iowa, we would not be where we are today, and Hillary would have wrapped up the nom. a long time ago.
Dbeden,
I agree. But do you remember how the media acted after Iowa? How they were ready to hand the nomination over to Obama right there & then? How they were caught flat-footed when Hillary won NH?
So much of the media became Obama cheerleaders & Hillary bashers that I strongly believe they at least share in his success.
BTW, thanks for the link to the Rolling Stone article. I'm gonna pour myself a cup of coffee & read it :-)
I hear ya J, but even when the media's love affair with Obama got a jump start right after Iowa, Hillary still won New Hampshire. The media may have annointed him, but their influence over the voters didn't sway those in NH enough. Clinton overcame it and won anyway.
Dump the coffee, have an adult beverage, it's Friday!
Riiiight. These candidates couldn't have possibly made gains or suffered losses on the strength or deficiencies of their tactics and strategies.
Obama built his support by taking a persuasive message to the people, Hillary slipped because she's wonky, she's stuck in policy speak.
At any rate, I'm glad this primary struggle is continuing for many reasons. It makes the eventual candidate who earns the nomination stronger, it shows the people our Democratic candidates have something worth fighting for and any press is good press at this point. It makes McCain the opening act while the public awaits for the headliners to take the stage.
Nerzog,
I disagree. This is Hillary's only shot. If she can't win against a Freshman Senator who came out of nowhere, she will not get any backing four years from now. Too much Clinton fatigue.
Obama will win the nomination.
I think the theory is a little thin, too, but it sounds intriguing.
Exactly. And then she can point right at Obama in the fall, after he loses to McCain probably because of the crap she is pulling now will be used against him by the Republicans, and say "see, I would have won".
It's always about them.
Exactly. And then she can point right at Obama in the fall, after he loses to McCain probably because of the crap she is pulling now will be used against him by the Republicans, and say "see, I would have won".
It's always about them.
Tommy, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Triple true
And the media and the Republican party are loving every second of Hillary trying to tear down the Obama campaign which is leading in states and delegates. And this is how our party blows it 3 times in a row against the worst president of all time.
And I sincerely hope that if Obama is the nominee and he does lose to McCain in the fall, and the exit polls indicate that it was due to his inexperience and the fact that they trusted McCain more, that all these stauch Clinton supporters, as well as Mrs. Clinton herself, accept responsibility for their part in defeating their own nominee and giving the White House back to the Republicans.......who will keep us Iraq indefinitely.
My little ole' advice to those hardline Clinton defenders is to write her and tell her to stop and try to repair what she has already done. Otherwise, don't come here and rag on President McCain.
We don't agree often Tommy but we do here
I carried Clinton water all the way to this election but I can't do it anymore. What she has been doing is running a Karl Rove campaign, complete with 3 am terror ads and if it is wrong when the Republicans do it than it is wrong when the Dems do it too
My consistency hasn't been popular thus far
I disagree, it was Obama's extra something that has put him where he is.
Lynn,
No doubt Obama possesses that extra something, however without an enthusiastic media jumping on his bandwagon thereby assisting his ascent I don't think he'd be where he is.
BTW the queen is so pissed she's ready to hand power over to an enemy combatant.
I agree Hillary made a colossal blunder in saying she & John McCain could handle the job, while Obama only made a speech. Should Obama win the nomination [and I fully expect he will] these words will be played over & over by McCain's campaign.
But I've watched all this persona changing, she's done sweet, she's done pathetic, she's done crazy woman, sarcastic woman, and now she seems to be in a Glen Close Fatal attraction big pay back mode
Lynn,
You sound like Maureen Dowd ;-) Did you happen to read the column when she wrote the following:
"After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Boy how a political season can turn the tables. I remember when you said that she was too calculating for your taste and I thought you were being unfair to her.
I mean I am really not feeling these people right now and now you’re the one ready to vote for her. Who woulda thunk it.
I know, sometimes I can't believe I'm sticking up for her ;-)
In all honesty I think a part of the reason I've taken a second look at Hillary began when I thought the media was piling up on her in NH. I'll admit I'm a softie when I think a woman is being picked on. Suddenly she didn't seem to be that cold calculating lady I always thought of her as. But from there I began looking at her & the other candidates a bit more carefully. I knew I wouldn't vote for McCain or Huckabee. I was iffy about Romney. I had no use for Edwards.
So it came down to Clinton or Obama.
I like Barack Obama, but I began to seriously wonder if he was ready for the Oval Office. Not that Hillary had oodles more experience, but she seemed to be better versed on issues & policy.
Lynn, I'm happy the campaign season has been extended so that I can better assess both Hillary & Barack.
No offense Jeter, my hometown fellow, but you are a rational conservative and of course want the Dem primary to drag on forever.
Lynn,
I agree. I've defended Hillary for years. No more. She needs to pick up her ego and move on. She has no more experience than Barack does as there is no junior varsity for this job, and after all the years and with her name brand name that an upstart skinny kid with a funny name can slam her doors says all that need be said.
Hillary is not change, she's not as bad as the GOP but she is McSame
Versed on issues and policy? So? What does that prove, that she has a good memory?
Sure, you have to know the ins and outs of the game, but you gotta play the game in a way that's in accordance with your highest ideals and principles. You can't go around doing damage to the common cause of liberalism and expect people to believe you have convictions. Hillary demonstrates that she's a political chameleon with her 3 A.M. ad and her earlier invocation of a possible terrorist attack to test a new President Obama.
This fear mongering is purely a Republican way of thinking about terrorism. Republicans think the world is a frightening place and they need a strong protector to keep them safe. That's the kind of leadership Hillary offers, she's the protector.
But liberals aren't that afraid of the outside world because we seek to engage our enemies in the arena of ideas, we know that as Americans we have each other's back and all we need is each other. That's what Obama offers, intrepid engagement and conquest of our fears by changing the nature of how we deal with threats. We will not be afraid anymore.
Well said Roundhouse
I'm at a loss why others here that claim to be Libs are defending that damn 3am ad
But the fact that she is willing to go to such lengths is an indication, for some, that she has convictions.
I simply disagree on a visceral level that fear mongering is a liberal value.
I remember when you said that she was too calculating for your taste and I thought you were being unfair to her. But I've watched all this persona changing, she's done sweet, she's done pathetic, she's done crazy woman, sarcastic woman, and now she seems to be in a Glen Close Fatal attraction big pay back mode. Now I'm the one of the mind that both she and Bill are these political animals that will do anything to attain their political prize. I’m so freaking disappointed in them. I mean I am really not feeling these people right now and now you’re the one ready to vote for her.
Lynn, I'm one of those "will stay at home" if Hillary get the nomination. I've never missed an election since JFK but I've never been as angry and disappointed as I am now.
You know how I felt about the Bill & Hill machine after South Carolina but time passed and I simmered down. No more Bush policies became a priority. Then came the Wisconsin primary and that sour feeling returned and my anger started to boil but the McCain crap was the last straw for me. NO WAY! NO Supreme Court appointment or a woman's right to choose issue will allow me to vote for backstabbing Hillary if i can't win one can Clinton. She did not care that she insulted a fellow Democratic. She did not care that she gave HER friend McCain a perfect ad to run against a fellow Democratic if he gets the nomination. Hillary cares about Hillary so when I see her on television I hit the mute button, enough bull sh*t from the Clintons for me.
I share that anger and wonder why others have blinders on while Hillary does what we all have railed against for years
3am ad was the last straw
If Hillary was smart she would do well to listen to principled Democrats like you Eden, Pearl, Lynn, and many others here who have had it with her tactics.....is winning so delicious that she will poison anyone in her own party's chances if the voters choose someone else but her?
And we want that in the White House after 8 years of Bush and his Rovian arrogance? Not that I will vote for.
Fear mongering is fear mongering no matter what party you align yourself with. This is about change and change is not doing the same dam thing your rivals are doing. Not only that but he has math on his side, even if Florida and Michigan counted.
Hill needs to get out of the way before she becomes this years Nader
I just read a great quote;
We've all the term politics of personal destruction, well Hillary Clinton is practicing the politics of Party destruction.
We've all the term politics of personal destruction, well Hillary Clinton is practicing the politics of Party destruction.
I agree!
Do what is best for the long term. If it means suffering a huge setback in one election to not help elect another Clinton, then so be it. The act of voting with your principles sets a better example and is a larger victory than voting for a wishy-washy triangulator.
Barack ain't perfect but his fundamental assumptions about how the world works is more in line with my way of thinking than Hillary's.
Also, he holds the greater potential for neutralizing the conservative worldview and calling more people back home to the Democratic Party. He engages and defeats conservatives where the actual struggle is taking place, not in the office of the president, but in the guts of the American people.
Having said that, I have to admit I have changed my mind. I will not support Hillary if she gains the nomination. I will not vote for someone who abandons their values for the sake of winning.
That's what Republicans do, just look at the candidate they selected. Instead of sticking to their guns and promoting a thorough conservative like Tancredo or Thompson, they compromised their vision (much like we Democrats have done again and again) and selected someone who tries to be all things to all people.
The Republicans blinked this time around, they no longer truly have confidence in conservatism and we, as proud liberals, the original American values people, need for the sake of our future, to take advantage of this situation. We need to win hearts and minds by living up to the example of our astounding liberal traditions. Liberals delivered our country from the hands of tyrants; saved it from slavery, saved it from the robber barrons, saved it from fascism and on and on.
Go forth and live out loud, Lynn.
Do what is best for the long term.
That is also the way I'm looking at things, but it brought me to a different conclusion. I will hold my nose and put the mark beside H. Clinton's name if she is the nominee. The key to me is the Supreme Court. Right now there are too many of those young conservative activist justices. Too many of the more moderate to liberal justices will be retiring/dying in the next four years. McCain nominees could have an impact that would last decades. For the good of the country, we need a Democratic President making those choices.
It's tragic that I feel that way. As recently as a few weeks ago I still felt as though I could enthusiastically support Clinton, even as I leaned toward Obama. I still think some of those who demonize her go overboard, but she's certainly campaigned recently in a manner that gives credibility to those who charge she will do anything to win.
True enough though, that kind of pushback probably can't be expected from our Dems if we are saddled with a McCain presidency. Which is a damn shame because you know as well as I do that republicans would stop at nothing to destroy the appointment of a justice chosen by any Dem.
She will reach some sort of compromise with the insurance industry to keep them happy which means she will protect their profit concerns which and I know this from working in the health service delivery industry are usually contrary to achieving the best health outcomes for the patients, my concerns of the kind of people that are appointed to the Supreme Court, and a hope to see some movement toward resolving the Iraq war. This is some weighty stuff, but when do we teach these people the lesson that we are truly truly unhappy with kill or be killed politics, and electing people to office whose number one concern is their own egotistical needs as oppose to the BEST interests of the people. If we once and for all make sure the Clintons, the Bushes, the Roves know these tactics are abhorrent to the electorate maybe we can once and for all banish them and those like them. I wish that people in both political parties felt like this. I am so disgusted with these people.
Lynn, well said.
My decision not to vote for Hillary came in part from a conversation I had with my grandson. He is a big Obama supporter in Northern California and he made the comment that he wasn't going to vote for Hillary if she got the nomination. I of course gave him the story of all those who have fought and died for our right to vote and how important it is that we don't pass it up. I explained that by not voting, he was as my Momma says " cutting off his nose to spite his face" and besides not voting is a plus for Republicans who care nothing about us. My grandson said that finally there was a politician who spoke to him, told him that the kind of country he as a young black man always wanted, was possible. This politician didn't pander and tell him all he was going to do for him, which they all do, he told him that he has a part to play in deciding the future of his country. After a long discussion I thought back to the first time I voted and how I felt. Promise, hope and change were the feelings. Promise of a better America for black folks, hope that we truly would be seen and accepted as simply Americans and a chance to change our lives and the lives of our children. There were no guarantees but to folks like me who had lived a long time on simply hope and hoping for change, that was OK. Since that time it's been disappointment and the lessor of two evils. My conversation with my Grandson got me to thinking. I'm 73 and this may or God willing may not be the last time I vote. Because of Hillary I'm explaining "playing the race card" to liberals and being told I'm wrong. That was always something that I was used to doing with Republicans and they never got it. I watched Hillary belittle, demean and degrade Obama. She's even gone so far as to say in so many word "If you can't vote for me vote for McCain". She has literally left me speechless. My brain says don't ever pass on your right to vote, it's a way to make your voice heard. My heart say make your voice heard by not selecting the lessor of two evils again. If Hillary gets the nomination she will heard my voice telling her that I don't accept "anything goes", there is a limit and some conduct is simply unacceptable.
And Lynn, deep prayer is never silly, I'm not sure that I would have survived all these years without it.
Of course. It must be as such. Afterall, the alternative scares the wits out of conservatives.
I know, I know, it's a scary world for Republicans. Obama is setting the masses on fire with a liberal message, he's making it crystal clear that liberals are the smarter, more trustworthy alternative to the same ol', same ol' Republican fear mongering pap.
They just want an interesting race to cover, even if it means helping to manufacture that interest.
I agree.
Jeter, the reason Obama caught and passed Hillary is because of one reason only. Hillary ASSUMED. Hillary ASSUMED that she would be the nominee therefore she did not take Obama, Edwards or any of the other candidates seriously. Hillary ASSUMED that with her bankroll, name recognition and status as a senator her path to the nomination was guaranteed. Hillary ASSUMING has more to do with where she is than the media.
It is the media‘s fault that the Obama’s campaign mapped out a better strategy where he received more delegates in his small states than she received in larger states like New Jersey?. NO The media may have caused some to notice Obama but Hillary is where Hillary is due to Hillary. Hillary said she was the most experience to take on the Republicans slime machine so whining about media coverage seems like sour grapes.
I agree that it is inappropriate to falsely claim that Obama is a Muslim, although I don’t believe that being a Muslim in and of itself should be anything about which someone should be ashamed. I do think, however, it is important for America to better understand the kind of “Christianity” which has so fascinated Obama for the last 20 years. Obama claims to belong to a Christian Church called Trinity United Church. He considers the just-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to be his “mentor and spiritual advisor.” According to the church’s website, their members are “unashamedly Black and unashamedly Christian,” and swear allegiance to the mother continent, Africa. Obama’s church gave the racist and Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan a “lifetime achievement award” last November. Rev. Wright teaches Black Theology, and thinks about everything pretty much in terms of black versus white. He called 9/11, for example, a “wake-up call to white people.” Commenting on the recent murder of Natalie Holloway, he decried the press coverage by stating that “one 18—year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months.” Rev. Wright likes to throw around the name of James Cone a lot when it comes to his theology. James Cone is another proponent of Black Theology. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140]. (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 15] (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24] (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 40] (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 73] **** Need I go on? These are the kinds of concepts that Obama has been soaking up for 20 years. The focal concern or center of black theology is the white oppression of blacks. Therefore, the usual theological discussions about God, Christ, and salvation are much less relevant. Although I respect anyone’s right to belong to any religion they wish, this does not sound like a positive form of "Christianity" for any of those who are not members of the "chosen people." And, maybe Obama needs to be a little more candid about the brand of "Christianity" to which he adheres.