Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Bush Latte: Obama, on Christian Broadcasting Network, says his supporters might not support Hillary if she's the nominee

Well.

Although Constitutional law professor Barack Obama declined to defend the Constitution today on the floor of the Senate due to "scheduling conflicts", he did take time out yesterday to sit down with the good folks at the Christian[ist] Broadcasting Network and send a mighty "Fuck you" to the loyal Democratic base by saying that if Democrats nominated Hillary instead of him, his supporters would take their balls and go home.

Pre-emptive sour grapes? Quote:

PROF. OBAMA: [After the nomination] I will get the people who voted for her. But will she get the people who voted for me?

Well, of course she will! Because you're going to personally urge them to, right, Professor? Not.

Seriously, most of the progressive blogosphere--leaving aside the "they're all the same" crowd--had a long sprawling conversation about what to do if our guy wasn't nominated, and the consensus judgment is in my sig: Any Democrat in the general. So, that trickling sound I hear is America's Favorite Baritone pissing all over the progressive blogosphere, its judgment, and its values. Yet again.

Worse, I remember being given a serious lecture--kisses, Booman, you know I love you, but--after Obama won Iowa, about sour grapes. So, I'll be expecting a post shortly on how Obama just issued a "Free Sour Grapes Card" to all his supporters.

Even worse, Obama's reinforcing the vicious and destructive (and profitable) right wing narrative of Hillary Hatred--just as the OFB already does. "Oh, she's so divisive!"*

Even worse than that, Obama's pissing on progressives, dogwhistling his supporters that the only Democrat they should vote for is him, reinforcing a vicious right wing frame, and all on the Christian[ist] Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson's vehicle for turning the United States into a theocracy.

Well, now we know why Obama keeps asking Republicans to pick the Democratic candidate in the primaries, don't we? That's where the stone Hillary Haters--apparently, a key part of the "coalition" Obama's building--are to be found.

Some "coalition." Seems like it's all about Obama, doesn't it?

But then, perhaps it always was.

Does this mean I don't get a Unity Pony?

* NOTE Last I checked, upstate New York is not notably liberal. Hillary does just fine there.

NOTE Via FDL.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

I believe that I propagated 'what Obama "really means"' with a week's hard work in the fever swamps at DK, and here. Mission accomplished!

It's like the OFB circle of life:

1. Obama sends out right wing dogwhistle.

2. OFB rushes to explain what he "really means."

3. Rinse, repeat.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Not the moderate Republicans we keep hearing so much about, but the Hillary haters? The real loons? That would explain a lot.

I mean, sweet Jeebus. They're going to start with the first ginned up scandal, and work right on through, yes?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Well, of course she will! Because you’re going to personally urge them to, right, Professor? Not.

You’re putting words in his mouth. In that clipped quote Obama didn't say anything about what he would do. To make a fair appraisal of whether he crossed the line between legitimately touting his appeal to swing voters and illegitimately encouraging supporters not to vote for the winning candidate would require more context. It’s far too serious a charge to hang on such flimsy evidence. The resort to “dog whistle” and “right wing frame” sounds hysterical rather than convincing. Get a grip.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

NY - It's mostly a red state attached to a huge blue city. There are pockets of Dems around Albany. Look up Erastus Corning 2nd, if you aren't already familiar with the man.

Now, he was machine politics at it's height. Makes my new home of Cincinnati seem bland by comparison.

Submitted by lambert on

The OFB seem almost pathologically unable to engage in argument. Rather, bot-like, they prefer to emit talking points. "Clipped quote" sounds great, until one notices that the fucking YouTube is right there, and the commenter could have actually, like, provided an alternative transcript and showed where the error was. But no. Bang! And first-person-shooter-like, the OFB is off to another thread....

Hey, though, great job your guy did on FISA today. Really put made Constitutional Professor schtick sit up and work. Oh, wait....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Actually Lambert I watched the YouTube clip you linked to at FDL. Olbermann had an edited clip from the CBN interview that he suggested was “hinting” at Obama not supporting the primary winner. You didn’t link to any source with the full context. You’re making the assertion that this edited clip shows Obama’s unwillingness to endorse the party’s candidate. The “error” was making an extreme claim based on flimsy evidence

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

bot-like, they prefer to emit talking points

You’re a shining example of civil discourse.

Submitted by lambert on

If you'd spent the time in the threads that I have, you'd understand that I am, indeed, being civil.

When Digby encountered nonsense like that, she ended up having to shut her comments down. We leave the comments open, and call bullshit. Civil? I'd say yes.

And when I'm not being civil, I'm showing how Republicans kill and barbecue dogs. That comment was a love tap. Glad I got your attention, though.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

You write:

You’re making the assertion that this edited clip shows Obama’s unwillingness to endorse the party’s candidate.

I wrote:

if Democrats nominated Hillary instead of him, his supporters would take their balls and go home.

Not the same.

Don't you see how bad you make your candidate look? Hey, he looked great on the Senate floor defending FISA, though, I have to hand it to him. Oh, wait....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I’ve seen plenty of threads full of people saying that if Obama’s the candidate they won’t vote for him, for example Taylor Marsh’s blog. Have you read the threads there?

Submitted by lambert on

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

You also wrote this:

Well, of course she will! Because you’re going to personally urge them to, right, Professor? Not.

From the evidence you used to back up this assertion it’s much more likely that Obama was simply making an “electability” argument. That’s not out of bounds. Edwards regularly makes a pitch for his electability that, were he a threat to either Obama or Clinton, would be denounced as both race and gender based. I hear no outcry over that.

Because I challenged the validity of your post you gleefully put me in a box OFB and justify your dismissive and frankly snotty tone, with an embattled righteousness based on past dealings with other OFBs. Clearly you have made the transition from arguing with wingnuts to treating anyone who appears to support Obama as a wingnut. So much for fidelity to the “loyal Democratic base”.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

…the commenter could have actually, like, provided an alternative transcript and showed where the error was. But no.

CBN Transcript

Brody: Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?

Obama: I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining democratic candidates. That's just a fact and there are some who will not vote for her. If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas. We got votes there, but we also got votes in northern Nevada and rural conservative regions of the state that traditionally don't vote Democratic, but were excited about my campaign.

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

Jane Hamshire at Firedodlake quoted Keith Olbermann's edited video clip minus the question Obama was answering. The clip at least had a flash in the edit to show the quote was truncated.

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

By the time it got to this blog all that was left was this:

PROF. OBAMA: [After the nomination] I will get the people who voted for her. But will she get the people who voted for me?

This is a great example of stripping away context to gin up controversy. Congratulations

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Let's suppose he had no clue whatsoever that him not including something, like, "Although it may be true that certain supporters of mine won't vote for her, I'll support her" or even, "Well, I'm sure there are also some of her supporters that won't support me if I'm the nominee" would've been much better. At best, this shows an astounding lack of "judgment." Only a fool could fail to see what the effect of him saying that would be. He's no fool.

And the anger over his statement is legitimate as it undermines the chances of our eventual nominee, especially since it's not true that she has the highest negatives or that they're significantly higher relatively; and considering that he hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) "clarified" his remarks. I hated when Bradley pulled the same stunt against Gore. Hell, Obama's campaign is based on his horrible example.

Here's a Rasmussen (I know) poll from late December on negatives: Obama at 51; Clinton at 50. Mind you, Obama hasn't even been touched by the press yet, let alone the GOP and already his negatives are too damn high.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The question was: Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?

He’s running against her. It’s ridiculous to require loyalty oaths every time he opens his mouth. None of the other candidates are held to that standard. This is a manufactured “incident” if you can’t see that you don’t understand the concept of spin.

…it’s not true that she has the highest negatives or that they’re significantly higher relatively;

Well according to the most recent poll at TPM polltracker:

(PDF) href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio...">NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey Study #6079

January 20-22, 2008 Interviews: 1,008 adults

Here are the numbers for Barak Obama:

Somewhat Negative 11

Very Negative 14

Total Negative 24

The numbers for Hillary Clinton:

Somewhat Negative 11

Very Negative 30

Total Negative 41

There are plenty of polls here to search through but I don’t think you’re going to find anything like those Rasmussen results. I mean really now, are you saying it’s out of bounds for a candidate to talk about poll results? That’s some some pretty selective outrage.

Submitted by lambert on

Good to see polling is how we're going explain what Obama "really means," since everybody and his sister's got a different one. There's plenty of time for Obama's negatives to rise as people get to know him better. And what's selective about my outrage? Since Obama's running to the right every chance he gets, progressives tend to be outraged. The inability of the OFB engage continues to amaze (and "manufactured" is, of course, purest projection...)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The inability of the OFB engage continues to amaze

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

what’s selective about my outrage?

When progressive bloggers play the Truncated Quote game it’s every bit as unacceptable as when the NYT does it.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Truncated quote: How does the full quote negate the, uh, gist of what he said, especially considering his audience were CBN viewers?

I mean really now, are you saying it’s out of bounds for a candidate to talk about poll results?

That's exactly what I'm saying. So true! It had nothing to do with the fact that polls are not infallible, or that even if you insist on polls that they don't indicate that she's not competitive, even more so (in some) against McCain than Obama--in spite of nearly 20 years of being the target of widespread demonization by the right and the press whereas Obama hasn't even been subject to the press routinely bashing him, and it's certainly not about pushing a potentially damaging narrative that if repeated ad nauseum can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Davidson, it sounds like you would prefer a coronation based on seniority rather than a primary. What Obama said was absolutely uncontroversial. It was not “a big fuck you to the loyal Democratic base”, it was not “pissing on progressives, dogwhistling his supporters that the only Democrat they should vote for is him, reinforcing a vicious right wing frame”. The full quote is a slab of mundane, boring campaign rhetoric. No mud was thrown, no smears, nothing.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Call me politically naive if you will, but I can't get past the part where he grants an interview to CBN. Who is Obama courting, at this stage(primaries) in the game, with that move?
(Given that CBN viewers will be told, early and often that Democrats are the devil. And that they have been told that Bill and Hillary are e-e-e-e-v-i-l. And thus that the likelihood of CBN viewers voting for Barack Obama is very low...but of voting for Hillary is nil...)

What the interview does offer is the chance for Obama to remind CBN viewers about Hillary--they
already have the memes firmly in mind from years of CBN, all he has to do is set himself up as a contrast.
Before I read the transcript of his interview, I thought he would go with a subtle approach that forced CBN viewers to fill in the narrative with their own presuppositions about Hillary. But he didn't. He was very straightforward with his criticisms. (I'm sure the CBN audience gets that frisson of schadenfreude when Dems devour their own, just as we do when the other side does likewise.)
What disturbs me is that Obama talks about bipartisanship and unity while cultivating the attention of groups who have a vested interest in the failure of the Democratic party. He won't win their votes, but he will feed the anti-Hillary machine. If he is the eventual nominee, I'm not sure he's is doing himself a favor.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i'm a progressive, and an atheist. i would like to have my views at least protected, if not represented in my gov't. no one does. or at least, i think the one open atheist in congress isn't there anymore. i could be remembering it wrong.

anyway- i'm not the only doubter in this country, not by a long shot. when is obama going to reach out to us? i'm much more likely to vote for him than people fed a steady diet of "democrats are all going to hell, along with those who vote for them."

do you people even know how horrid CBN really is? never mind the hucksterism, or the hypocrisy, or the wealth and absurdity of the people in charge. every day, nonstop, they blatantly breach the line which states religious orgs lose taxfree status when they take sides politically. every fucking day. this is the group obama wants to communicate with? these are the people with whom he courts for support? at what price? me, and my rights? i have a very legitimate reason to be worried. CBN grade fundies hate me, want to jail and oppress me, they are quite blunt about it. some of them even do things like blow up clinics and shoot doctors and murder gay people.

...it astonishes me that i even have to make this argument. please, spare me the line that this is a 'smart' move that will 'help' him. it won't, i promise you that if he's the nom, the number of formerly republican CBN viewers switiching over to him will be negligible, while the loss of people more angry about this than me may well prove significant. we've got months to go, how much more of this am i supposed to take before i go nadarite? it's not an unreasonable response, if this is what i can expect from his administration.

kissing up to fundies, going on their shows, having them on the campaign stage, lecturing me how i need to make more space for 'faith' in the public square when it's at record levels already.../malcom x voice/ No. Nooooooooo. i don't have to stand for that. i certainly will not let it go unchallenged on my blog.

so when can i expect him to shake hands with richard dawkins or noam chomsky? what, that's ridiculous you say? well then why is everyone treating it as "normal' and "wise" for a Democratic nom to keep hanging out with these people. never mind what he said, why in the fuck is he talking to them and not me in the first place? what the hell have they ever done for this party other than beat the shit out of it every last chance they get?

Submitted by lambert on

Especially since I spent so much time harshing on the OFB for doing just that, and on Obama for sending the dogwhistle that this was OK. See here, and eyes on the prize: "Vote for the one that's not a sociopath!"

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

why is everyone treating it as “normal’ and “wise” for a Democratic nom to keep hanging out with these people. never mind what he said,

Well then the issue is that he went on CBN. I don’t have a problem with that as a criticism. It’s factually accurate.

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

Antiphone, when your Dear Leader goes on a Dominionist station and swears his supporters will take their little ball(s) home if they don't win the primary game, he is talking like a wingnut.

In the context of wingnuts.

Oh: and to set matters straight, in my humble justifiable opinion the last thing we need is Hillary, either, who pretty damned much votes identically to the Oborg Prime Unit.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by lambert on

The words are bad enough, despite the attempt to explain that what they "really mean" has to do with polling data, under the aegis of factual accuracy (oddly redundant phrasing, come to think about it). The words on CBN are even worse--which is, of course, one of the points in the original post. I'm with VL: nice move, though I'm not sure that VL's catalog is exhaustive. Perhaps we can expand it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Oborg Prime Unit!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i am trying to demonstrate how some people like me could be pushed in that direction, however.

OFB, everyone: Little People have only one thing in the end that has real value. That is, the only thing we trade that is utterly our own, is our Pride. Integrity, moral values, however you describe this in yourself. We all draw our own lines, we all decide what that thing will be worth, for what we will trade it, or give it. Some people, not me, but some, will take the association with the xtian right as a bridge too far. and they're not fools, nor unreasonable, to do so.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i don't object to going on CBN per se. i would Love luvluvluvluvluvluv a chance to go into that den of hucksters. i'll even skip out on the bible refresher course, i can quote enough parable and scripture to wipe the floor with those people. i'm salivating at the thought of what i'd do, given that chance.

i formally object to obama going there an treating them as if they were Christians when they have shown, literally thousands of times, that they are not, and that they abuse the trust and faith of those who are. he should go meet with people like these, face to face, and confront them in Righteous indignation. if he's a Christian, like he keeps reminding me over and over and over he is, he totally failed in his Christian duty, to speak 'Christ's Truth' to power.

so in terms of his mistake here, it's doubly so.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

No doubt Lambert you pride yourself on your sense of fairness. If the standards you want others to observe apply to you as well you might want to look upthread. Davidson brought up the polling issue, which is reasonable given Obama’s reference to “negatives”, polling shorthand. It seems to be a reasonable inference. Of course it could be dogwhisle code for pissing on progressives and fucking the loyal Democratic base as you insist.

Submitted by lambert on

You write:

Of course it could be dogwhisle code for pissing on progressives and fucking the loyal Democratic base as you insist.

I "insist" for a reason. Look at the words in context.

I keep hearing that Obama's going to appeal to Republicans. And I keep seeing Obama appealing to Republicans to cross over and help pick the Democratic nominee for President even if they're Democrats only for one day. And I keep seeing Obama making appeals to the Christianists. And he's certainly appealing to Hillary Haters, as the threads show again and again.

So, when Obama goes on CBN, Pat Robertson's theocratic fringe network, which clearly targets exactly those voters, and says "I will get the people who voted for her.* But will she get the people who voted for me?" he's not talking about "people" in the abstract. He's talking to those people, because that's CBN's demographic (which Obama and Axelrod, as highly skilled professionals, must know). So, look again at the rhetorical question: "But will she get the people [i.e, you, my electoral target] who voted for me?" And since the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously No, that's a dogwhistle. It's easy translated by the target audience to "Even if you vote for me, you don't have to vote for Hillary." It's an obvious dogwhistle, one of many. You can just see the audience--especially the Hillary Haters--shaking their heads "No, of course not" as they answer Obama's rhetorical question in their minds.

Does this help?

NOTE * Thanks, Obama, for hammering home the point that I have no place to go. Always feels good.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Looking back, Obama sucking up to the Christianists was a really bad sign. And that was awhile back, and it's telling that he felt he had to do that first. I only got serious when Atrios called bullshit on his deking with Social Security.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Davidson, it sounds like you would prefer a coronation based on seniority rather than a primary

How so? I'm discussing why this strategy, targeting any Democrat, is dangerous the eventual nominee. Good Lord. Did I say that myths regarding Obama were somehow acceptable or that there shouldn't be any more primaries, caucuses? What are you talking about?

I say, "Bring it." I can't wait until February 5th actually. I'm looking forwards to your, uh, "explanations" then.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

When I write eventual nominee, I honestly meant it as whomever it may be. Clinton is not a guarantee, although she does seem like a safe bet.

This is a Bill Bradley move on Obama's part because it fuels a negative narrative regarding a fellow serious Democratic contender. What Bradley did to Gore was outrageous and his polarizing tactics did play a role in hurting him in the general election (Remember, Bradley was the media darling back then, too, and he exploited that to smear Gore). This is about making sure every Democrat is not undermined by one of our own.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

"...his polarizing tactics did play a role in hurting Gore in the general election..."

Apologies.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

My guy, Pete Stark (D-CA13) is still in office and well-loved in this district. After many years of private discussion and worry he finally decided to come out of the closet and shockingly did not immediately go up in smoke. We're all very proud of him for his courage, and you should know that around here absolutely no one - including the local fundie ministers - has had anything other than supportive things to say about him.

We could use a few more out-and-proud leaders. Maybe an Atheist/Agnostic parade is in order. Some serious party potential, don't you think?