Hey xan,

Your learning lesson taught me that you're voting for Obama because he's not Hillary. Where's the part about why you're for Obama?

The only paragraph where you seem to be saying something positive about him, other than he's not Hillary, is this one:

"But I have to say I’ve never heard him give a speech in which a large segment wasn’t devoted to the theme that getting good work done depends absolutely on the continuing involvement of the people, not just politicians, in the process. Not just voting, and not just nattering on blogs."

So why are you for Obama? Speeches about how "good work depends on the continuing involvement of people" (see, I don't have a lot of faith in "the people". Look who've they've been electing the last 8 years.) doesn't really tell me a lot about why I should vote for him. (Other than he's not Hillary or McCain.)

Just asking. Please don't backhand me just yet.

is disingenuous.

Pro-Obama lead bloggers say that he'll reinvent politics. That he'll move Dems from the errors of the DLC (even though the DLC endorsed him) to a new way of non-partisan politics. No one that I've read who has trashed Clinton's campaign tactics has said Obama's platform is similar, or his tactics comparable. They say he's the new way, and Clinton represents the old.

Oh, and just because we choose to question Obama's spokesmen and followers about their beliefs and tactics does not make us idiots arguing over obscure schismatic details. If you take the business of electing a president seriously, give us the same respect for our seriousness.

that Zan is an advocate of the Obama Rules -- specifically the one that states:

Obama and his campaign can say anything about Hillary Clinton they want to. At any time. But if Hillary Clinton says anything critical, its bad for the party".

Well before Clinton merely demurred on the Commander in Chief question, the Obama campaign -- with Obama's consent -- went out of its way to portray Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists.

When it comes to things Democrats should never do to each other, Obama would have been disqualified well before Clinton's CinC remark.

And I agree with Darrow --- I'm just as capable of any Obama supporter of listing Clinton's flaws (the difference is I don't include the imaginary ones.)

But I have very good reasons for supporting Clinton, not just opposing Obama. Not the least of which is that even though she's been forced to play by Obama rules, the results from the primaries over the last two -plus months demonstrate conclusively that anyone who thinks that the most important thing is beating McCain has to pick Clinton.

Clinton never ran as the "inevitable" nominee. She ran to win in November, not September. That's how someone who can win in November runs -- there was none of this "pandering to the Democratic base, then shifting your positions to pander to the rest of America" stuff from Clinton. Obama's campaign hasn't even been that -- its been "pander to the Democratic base, and then try and figure out how to pander to the rest of America."

Hey, who ya' talking to?

seriously, good to have you back.

And you don’t get political experience credits via marriage. If your spouse/SO dropped dead tomorrow, would his or her employer’s first impulse be to hire you as a replacement? Really? If your plumber died would you call his wife to fix your busted pipes? Gee, I bet they talked about plumbing at home a lot, so why not? Talking isn’t the same as doing, you say? Hmmm.

This might be valid if she were relying on the fact of her being married to the president, versus the experience she herself gained while participating in and representing his administration, and serving as an adviser to him.

Not to mention those two terms in the Senate.

straw man in the morning!

Saint?

Whatever. Typical non-substantive "give me a pony" post.

Hope! Change! Love! Puppies!

Your learning lesson taught me that you’re voting for Obama because he’s not Hillary. Where’s the part about why you’re for Obama?

As awful as the Obama-cultists are, there is one thing the Clinton supporters don't get. The above sentence is a demonstration.

It isn't up to the level of anybody-but-clinton but there is a burden of proof that she has that Obama does not. That is her double-edged sword. Many people have seen somethings they can't look past like the Bosnia lies that she refuses to admit to.

This wasn't anything like you read from pony-worshipers and people really need to re-examine what they are thinking when they write, "Whatever. Typical non-substantive “give me a pony” post."

This might be valid if she were relying on the fact of her being married to the president, versus the experience she herself gained while participating in and representing his administration, and serving as an adviser to him.

to use Xan's own analogy... would anyone have a problem with hiring the plumber's wife to fix the plumbing if she'd been working as the plumbers assistant for most of her life, then spent six years on her own doing plumbing -- and displaying impressive levels of competence on the job?

I sure as hell wouldn't. But its indicative of the extent to which misogyny pervades the thinking of Obama supporters that they try and argue that Clinton's experience during her eight years in the White House isn't relevant, because she was "the wife" (And you don’t get political experience credits via marriage) as if Clinton spent all her time as First Lady picking out china patterns.

Indeed, this aspect of Xan's argument is so specious that I'd like to suggest that Xan is really running an experiment here -- that she wants to see if Obama supporters automatically get flamed here, or if the response is to rebut their arguments in a rational manner.

"That did it. You. Do. Not. Say. Such. A. Thing. Against. A. Fellow. Democrat."

Congratulations, on your conversion Xan. I'm relatively new here so I don't know you but I do know a double standard when I see one and your post has some fairly glaring ones.

As Cicero quoting Ennius would say, "Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur." or "A sure friend shows himself in an unsure time."

On the subject of Obama conversion (general -- not specific to Xan or anyone in particular):

I don't mind dissension or disagreement but one thing that does bother me and has bothered me this entire cycle is the need, dare I say compulsion, that too many converts to Obama have to announce their conversions by listing off a series of Clinton's alleged sins. This strange shahada of Obama and subsequent rebuke of Clinton is too often made to known or supposed Clinton supporters. I've never once felt the compulsion to announce my support of a candidate by listing the alleged faults of another and I've never sought out those I know or suspect to be supporters of my newfound candidate's opponent to say such things to -- the whole process reeks of both guilt and condemnation.

Frankly, that this is a rather codified process, even down to an almost uniform list of 'sins' from which a given convert recites, and the optional but often present profession of past love of Clinton and statement of how the convert should belong to a given Clinton demographic, scares the hell out of me. That fact alone tells me that, at the very least, there is entirely too much uniformity/bias in election coverage both in the MSM and in the blogosphere and that it is at the level of outright propaganda.

I don't support Obama because of hate. Sigh.

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

I don’t support Obama because of hate. Sigh.

Obama's supporters may well be a serious problem for him. His paper thin resume and amorphous campaign themes and proposals leave potential voters at a loss when it comes to understanding where Obama really stands and who he is.

And that means that undecided/unconvinced voters have to look elsewhere for clues about Obama -- and that includes using his supporters to define him.

The answers that people get from Obama supporters about why they support his candidacy (which seems to come down to "Hillary is Satan") and what he'd do as president ("bring change! achieve unity!") will simply reinforce the impression that OBama is an empty suit.

Obama's supporters desperately need to come up with talking points that provide a positive reason to support him that will resonate with the "average voter."

My belief was that you endorse and support candidate whose views are the closest to you provided that the gap between you and that candidate is too large in your judgment.

This election cycle, I find that way too many, to my taste, individuals make emotional decision. There is a lot of racism in the opposition to the Clintons; it's retargeted from racism against Bubba, against small towns and against outsiders. Racism is an extreme emotional reaction.

Support for Obama, a candidate whose values people are guessing, is similarly emotional aided by the need to replace one racism with another. Namely, support the black candidate while hating a new group.

It's still a democracy, you can support the devil (or you may already be doing it).

"She finally pushed me over the cliff with the “Of course I’d be qualified to be commander in chief*, of course Sen. McCain would be…as for my opponent you’ll have to ask him.”

That did it. You. Do. Not. Say. Such. A. Thing. Against. A. Fellow. Democrat. Was that just before or just after that fawningly “gracious” gesture at the (SC I think it was) debate where she ended with patting his arm and gushing how “honored” she was to be on the same platform with him, yada yada. Talk about smarmy pandering in front of a virtually all black crowd. I did not care for the gesture. So by the time the “sniper fire in Bosnia” crap came around I was already in the lifeboat and rowing for the other ship."

First of all- the debate of which you speak took place in Texas, and it was not in front of a mostly black crowd. Your take on it is offensive and ignorant as are most opinions based on things that are not true.

Secondly, what Hillary said about Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief was true. You don't even deny that. You simply imply one should not say such things about a fellow democrat. I guess what you mean is that we have an obligation to be dishonest to help our party out. Funny, the Republicans believe the same thing, so how does that make us any better? When Bush I choose Dan Quayle to be his VP we cried bloody murder because we claimed he wasn't qualified. He had twice the experience Obama does. Granted he couldn't spell potato, but he did at least know there were only 50 states.

Could you please spend a little more time outlining how evil the Republicans are? You seem to skim over it, and it is worth emphasizing. No need to even mention Obama. Far too many people are past the point were they will vote for him, but I am positive they will vote against the Republicans if reminded of how terrible they truly are. That would be a lot more productive than this silliness.

this puppy says welcome back xan

seriously, lets say Obama wins the nomination? are we going to keep this up? or just blog about house and senate candidates we do like?

suppose Hillary does pull a miracle and gets the nomination? Is anything we have been blogging about likely to reconcile the Obama supporters? Time to think about the general election. If you can't say anything nice about Obama, blog about something else.

I don't see a need for Xan to focus her fire on Republicans; I do most of my content-creation work supporting my candidate. (And with a 5 year back catalog of posts on Republicans, and successfully tagging Huckabee and the Republican elite as dog killers, which will no doubt come in handy in the general, I feel I've more than discharged my anti-Republican duties. Ditto Xan, on separate topics.)

So, answer Xan on point, and don't ask her to be doing something she doesn't need to do.

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

If my candidate doesn't win, the next best thing is for the policies and the constituencies I support not to be thrown under the bus as part of a "new kind of politics." Maybe sitting down and shutting my mouth is the best way to achieve that, since what I want will then be magnaminously vouchsafed to me. Somehow, I doubt it.

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

Look into his approach to women and you may not be so pleased....
He is the most coddled candidate I've ever seen....
I fault the whole Democratic poobah establishment for foisting him on us. But I also fault him for letting his ego rule over his statement a few years ago when he admitted he didn't have the experience to run for President just yet. What has changed? Nothing.

He needs to go back to Chicago and help clear out the Rezko slums that he somehow didn't know about and missed the first time around..."Community organizer" --well, he even failed on that score...

I am not familiar with Xan, so I will take your word that she is sufficently Anti-Republican. My only point is that instead of trying to prove to us why we were all so wrong in this primary, it would be more productive to emphasize why the Republicans are so wrong for the country. She is the one ready to give us the back of a hand for even considering not voting for Obama. Fine, but the back of her hand isn't nearly as persuasive as really reasons why we can't afford a McCain win. If Xan is going to focus her fire on Hillary Clinton then she isn't doing anyone but John McCain a favor. I am personally not coming here to figure out who I should vote for, I am long past the point where a Republican gets my vote for President. I come here to hopefully read something that will make me feel a little bit better about what is going on out there. Xan's smears of Hillary Clinton aren't helping that, and I can't imagine how they must be taken by people who might actually vote for McCain or sit home. An Obama victory will be a hollow one if the reasons people have chosen him are false and empty. A hollow victory beats a loss, but the long term damage done to the party by their attempts to destroy Hillary Clinton and her supporters will come back to bite us in the butt when we are forced to confront a Republican party who no longer has the albatross of George W Bush around their necks.

first of Arkansas and then of the United States is unfair, as zuzu and Paul Lukasiak have explained. This is a way of dismissing the relevant experience only of women politicians, and it doesn't take into consideration the real generational disadvantages Clinton had. She couldn't run for Congress right out of law school the way her husband did (albeit unsuccessfully)--women in the 1970s weren't welcomed back into their home communities and given all kinds of connections and credit. Many of them were fortunate to find jobs in the law at all. Secondly, the position of First Lady is an unpaid position (although it comes with a staff and a budget) that nevertheless requires hard political work on behalf of the spouse and his administration. This dismissal of her work as First Lady also doesn't respect the fact that she wasn't a Laura Bush/Mamie Eisenhower, rather, she was an Eleanor Roosevelt-type First Lady, who went beyond ribbon-cuttings and poetry-day speeches and delved into serious policy details and politics.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to support Obama--but please don't do it because you unfairly trivialize the tremendous work she did as First Lady, both of Arkansas and of the United States. (N.B.: If you don't like the work she did or the policy positions she took as First Lady, that's fair game--just don't say that it wasn't relevant work experience.) If you dismiss this work, you're putting up an unjust and heavily gendered barrier against taking seriously the vast majority of women her age who are in national politics. (After all, Nancy Pelosi had strong family connections she used to launch herself in politics, as did Elizabeth Dole, Mary Landrieu, etc. So do many men--consider the Bushes, Kennedys, Dodds, Jacksons, Fords, etc.--but for some reason, we're supposed to be all hostile and suspicious when women benefit from family connections.)

senior member of the Mighty Corrente Building

not quite nothing.

My assumption is that Obama said he wouldn't be ready to be President thinking that no one with his complete lack of experience could win in November.

But once Bush's poll numbers completely tanked, and it looked like a Democratic "lock" on the White House, and the "evil cabal" that is behind the Obama candidacy showed him how a candidate could get the nomination by relying upon delegates in Deep Red states that nobody was going to be terribly concerned about winning in the primaries, Obama "realized" that the only thing that mattered was not having an "R" next to your name -- his "plan" for winning in November consisted solely of not changing his party affiliation.

We've had the convention? Did I miss the memo?

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

But at least Xan didn't try to suggest Obama had qualifications for which they could use to convince us of supporting Obama. Anti-Hillary is sufficient to endorse Obama. But hey, when Kerry/Kennedy/Richardson make similar non substantive endorsement speeches, how can I expect more from the underlings.

Until that happens Democrats do not yet have a nominee.

I'm for Clinton because I think she is vastly more qualified to fix the problems left behind that is Obama. The presidency is not a place for "on the job training."

Clinton has a better understanding of how to deliver health care to everyone, bring the troops home safely, and restart the economy that, while once good under her husband's administration, has now gone to shit under GWB.

I simply don't think Obama is ready to be president of -- his words -- the "57 states" he has visited during the campaign.

BAC

I am happy to have sane Obama supporters here, and Xan is sane. (Not that anyone needs my permission for anything)

I don't like him as a candidate, and I think his chances of winning the general election are poor, but I'm kind of hoping for getting some other perspectives without having to put on a Racal suit to visit the bloggerboyz.

Being against Sen Obama and for Sen Clinton is not a good excuse for leaving the reality-based community, just as the Blight (*) took over GOS.

What will I do if (as seems very likely) Sen Obama wins the nomination? Work against McCain, big time. What will I do if (as seems very unlikely, under 1 in 10) Sen Obama wins the presidency? First, be real happy McCain lost, then start a rearguard action to keep Social Security public, and keep health care from getting worse.

* "A Fire Upon the Deep", Vernor Vinge

will be? What he plans to actually do?

Why does he tend to support Republican Lite (or even full strength) things such as saying SocSec is in danger and must be changed? Why does he use Harry and Louise type attacks? Why does he use (or permit those in his campaign to use) charges of racism and race-baiting against fully normal statements of historical and political reality?

I am not being snarky. I have asked these questions of others who have either rationally chosen Obama or have "seen the light." The answers are usually that I am stupid and can go read his blog.

Which I have done, with unsatisfactory results for me.

Why did he initially take a strong stand against Excelon's pollution of ground water (the low level radiation leaks), then move to essentially giving them carte blanche in the form of the (ultimately unpassed) legislation giving the AEC "guidelines"?

What is his actual stand on the death penalty?

What is his stand on universal healthcare? Will he fight for it, or go the Excelon route?

Etc., etc. There are so many questions, so much to try to understand about the Hopeful Change(s). He does tend to used the singular of "change," right?

Thanks! I look forward to a member of the reality-based community educating those of us who are, somehow, resistant to "the light," who have not had epiphanies, and are, indeed, not likely to support a politician on those grounds.

Note: While I have tried to learn about his political history, it's not always easy. I am so not an expert. But who is? What did he do as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge director of the board (my term may not be exact--so hard to find info)?

One of the indicators of candidate strength is the endorsement, which politician is popular enough that other candidates want them to campaign for them. Obama won the endorsement primary going away. I can see his point of view, why should he run around campaigning for these other politicians, why not campaign for himself?

You know, Booman was right, had Clinton voted against the Iraq war authorization vote, she would have walked away with this nomination. It won't be a bad thing for this country or the world if voting for a war is seen to be a career killer.

I understand the dissatisfaction with the unity pony, really I do, I am just coming to understand why people might prefer him to princess conventional wisdom.

You don't praise the Republican nominee to be president and then say of the Democratic candidate who is beating you "he gave a nice speech."

That’s how someone who can win in November runs — there was none of this “pandering to the Democratic base, then shifting your positions to pander to the rest of America” stuff from Clinton.

Tell that to the NRA gun nuts in PA and the gas tax holiday fans who think she's going to make the oil companies pay this summer by waving her magic wand and getting Bush to sign a windfall profit tax. The first lady who lobbied congress for NAFTA as manufacturing fell in this country to 13% of the economy all of sudden is Eugene Debbs and now cares about jobs in PA and OH?

Xan: The rest of us, churchgoers and nonbelievers alike, used to quietly sit back and giggle over what idiots these guys both sounded like. I leave that as my Learning Lesson for this Sunday night.

From a slow learner who finds herself occasionally distracted by cosmic shadow-play, welcome to the idiot class.

*Good night

...if you ask me. Just like Obama's record. This isn't "American Idol - The Next President". Unlike being "Class President", Obama will actually have enormous responsibilities. He won't be able to just roam the hallways acting cool, trying to get free cafeteria ice cream for the kids.

Support for Obama, a candidate whose values people are guessing, is similarly emotional aided by the need to replace one racism with another.

Nobody has to "guess" about Obama's values, the man has written two best selling books spelling out his values, his governing philosophy, his life story for crying out loud. They are available at your public library in print and audio form.

can you sell some ads here?

I'd like to respond to markg by thanking him for commenting, and reminding him to visit your advertisers.

I know why Hillary's asking for my vote: The boring bullet points about policy, and a determination to make government work again.

Here is what I see in Xan's post about how Obama asked for, and got, her vote:

... [G]etting good work done depends absolutely on the continuing involvement of the people, not just politicians, in the process.

Apparently a lot of people felt exactly the same way and became dedicated supporters of Hillary. I wonder why?

Obama's not the only candidate who can boost turnout -- though he is the only one who gets written up, on a regular basis, in our famously free press about it.

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

Hillary has not gotten credit for the millions of new voters her campaign registered and the number of volunteers she has recruited who have never previously volunteered.

If I hadn't had so many other things on my plate I would go through the turn out figures for the primaries back in the days when the Republicans still had a contest. I looked at the numbers for New Hampshire, almost twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary as the GOP. Online we have gotten pretty cranky, but in the field voters are charged up.

is this something that matters what this "xan" person and her white vagina do?
Please you folks that have partaken in these discussions for many years, tell me if I this matters.

xan is a senior fellow at the Mighty Corrente Building.

Secondly, what Hillary said about Obama’s qualifications to be commander in chief was true. You don’t even deny that. You simply imply one should not say such things about a fellow democrat. I guess what you mean is that we have an obligation to be dishonest to help our party out.

Barrack Obama has far more foreign policy credentials than Bill Clinton did when he entered office. He's been to Russia to see about securing their nuclear warheads, worked with Lugar on non proliferation of not just nukes but conventional weapons like AK-47s which are in fact the tools of genocide these days. He toured Africa where they treated him like a king. During the New Hamsphire primary he was on the phone to leaders on both sides in Kenya, Condi Rice and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (who was trying to mediate the crisis) to end the post election violence there.

Funny, the Republicans believe the same thing, so how does that make us any better?

It doesn't. It makes you sound as deluded as they are.

NOTE I closed the ital tag that was turning everything downthread ital. Preview is your friend! -- lambert

Or tell Axelrod to give you fewer blogs to monitor. Thanks.

jawbone: I have asked these questions of others who have either rationally chosen Obama or have “seen the light.” The answers are usually that I am stupid and can go read his blog.

Aw, go ahead, jawbone, you might just as well be snarky at this point.

Point of reference: definition used here by me for snarky: irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

In other words, not sarcasm.

In my mind, these devices of human communication can be compared to the descriptions of how the planet Mercury appears to move: direct or retrograde. They now and then help clarify the debate, I repeat -- for me.