In Indiana:
Barack Obama got 40% of the white vote and 89% of the black vote.
Hillary Clinton got 60% of the white vote and 11% of the black vote.
In North Carolina:
Barack Obama got 37% of the white vote and 91% of the black vote.
Hillary Clinton got 61% of the white vote and 7% of the black vote.
Hmmmm…
Some folks are voting purely on racial lines here…
I’m pretty angry this morning. Actually, I’ve been pretty angry for a few days now because of the hypocrites that mindlessly follow every word Obama says and defend every action he takes.
For weeks and weeks we’ve heard about how Obama’s connections to the racist anti-American Reverend Jeremiah Wright were unimportant. It was a creation of the media. It was a creation of racist white people. White people don’t understand the black church.
Apparently, neither do half-black people, and Jeff Jarvis isn’t pleased that gears have been changed and 180 degree about faces have been done.
Now I’m actually angrier about Obama and the Rev. Wright than before. When I complained about what Wright said the first times, I was told that I didn’t understand the history of the black church, I didn’t understand black liberation theology, I didn’t listen to the whole context of what he said. Bull.
But now Obama repudiates Wright. And all Wright did was repeat the exact same crackpot crap that some of us had complained about before.
So before, I was as good as called racist or at least clueless for criticizing the not-so-good reverend. But now when Obama finally criticizes him, the New York Times editorial page — in a classic of doublespeak soft-headed mush from wimps — praises him for “the most forthright repudiation of an out-of-control supporter that we can remember.” Jesus.
So what happened to the context?
Reverend Wright hasn’t changed his tune. He’s still spinning the same yarns he was a few weeks and years ago. He’s still claiming America is a deeply flawed country building empires and oppressing people. He’s still claiming that AIDS was let loose into the black community as some kind of eugenics experiment. None of this is new.
For weeks and weeks we’ve been told that those remarks are meant to be taken in a certain context. That white people don’t understand the black church and the deeeper meaning of these comments. They mean nothing, and white people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Obama’s supporters have consistently questioned every aspect of people’s problems with the remarks and told us (us being those who disagreed with it) that we were misintrepreting.
Those exact same people are now applauding Barack Obama for distancing himself and publicly repudiating him for his remarks.
Why?
Did Barack misunderstand the context, also? Reverend Wright has the absolute right to say whatever the hell he wants. Obama has the right to freely associate with who he chooses. I just question the fact that those people who said everyone was misunderstanding Wright are now applauding Obama for distancing himself from a guy who was merely misunderstood.
I apologize if this makes me daft, but what changed? Is the context only a bad thing when Barack sends the message down to his people that things being said are bad?
I’m having a hard time reconciling this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Wright says criticism is attack on black church
By NEDRA PICKLER – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defiant appearance before the Washington media, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and rejected those who have labeled him unpatriotic.
“I served six years in the military,” Barack Obama’s longtime pastor said. “Does that make me patriotic? How many years did (Vice President Dick) Cheney serve?”
Serving in the military isn’t an automatic get out of jail free card, sir. I don’t care if you served 22 tours in Vietnam, when you come back and talk shit, it’s unpatriotic. Dick Cheney’s lack of service is irrelevant to the words that you shat out of your mouth.
Wright spoke at the National Press Club before the Washington media and a supportive audience of black church leaders beginning a two-day symposium.
He said the black church tradition is not bombastic or controversial, but different and misunderstood by the “dominant culture” in the United States.
If that isn’t racism veiled by “analysis” I don’t know what is.
He said his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has a long history of liberating the oppressed by feeding the hungry, supporting recovery for the addicted and helping senior citizens in need. He said congregants have fought in the military, including in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“My goddaughter’s unit just arrived in Iraq this week while those who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military service while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls to die over a lie,” he said.
Blah blah fucking blah. Your Goddaughter joined the military. She wasn’t drafted. If she gets sent to war, it’s because she chose to be there. That’s the price you pay for your military service. You know it going in, sir, as I’m sure she did.
Unless she’s a moron, and since I’ll assume you won’t say she’s a moron, let’s leave it at “she knew what she was getting into.”
Wright said he hopes the controversy will have a positive outcome and spark an honest dialogue about race in America. Wright says black church traditions are still “invisible” to many Americans, as they have been throughout the country’s history.
Oh yes. An honest dialogue. Just don’t mention the pastor’s remarks. Or his past remarks. Or buy his DVD’s. Let’s have an honest discussion!
He said he hopes “the most recent attack on the black church — it is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright — it’s an attack on the black church,” he said to applause, “just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible.”
Actually, no, it’s a criticism of you. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about the color of the dopes that sit in the pews taking all your crap in.
Videos clips of Wright’s sermons, circulated widely on television and the Internet, knocked Obama’s presidential campaign off-stride. The Illinois Democrat distanced himself from the comments of Wright, whom he has known for 20 years.
In a sermon days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Wright said “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan and “supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans.”
Asked about some of the comments after the terrorist attacks, Wright challenged the reporter questioning him.
“Have you heard the whole sermon? No? The whole sermon?” he responded. When the reporter shook her head, he said, “That nullifies that question.”
In what context are your remarks acceptable, sir? So far, I’ve seen the sermon in question by many sites trying to provide context, and I don’t see how the context given changes the quotes excerpted. I really wish someone could help me there.
He said criticism comes from people who only have heard sound bites playing repeatedly on television and have never listened to his entire sermons.
Wrong.
Wright said he’s told Obama that if he is elected in November and is inaugurated in January, “I’m coming after you.” He said that’s because his differences are not with the American people, but U.S. policies.
“Whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God on November 5 and January 21,” Wright said.
I’d pay to see that. Something tells me he’ll clam up the minute a black man takes the reins.
INDIANAPOLIS — Sen. Barack Obama weighed in today on the acquittals of New York City police detectives charged in fatally shooting an unarmed black Queens man, Sean Bell, saying he believed that the verdict needed to be respected and urging those who disagreed with it not to resort to violence. That would be “completely unacceptable and counterproductive,” Obama said.
“Well, look, obviously there was a tragedy in New York. I said at the time, without benefit of all the facts before me, that it looked like a possible case of excessive force. The judge has made his ruling, and we’re a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down,” he said in response to a question at a gas station in Indianapolis, where he was holding a news conference.
“The most important thing for people who are concerned about that shooting is to figure out how do we come together and assure those kinds of tragedies don’t happen again,” he continued. … “Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and counterproductive.”
The verdict, which has touched off a storm of protest in New York, arrives at a delicate time in the campaign for Obama. After his loss to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary, some Democrats are quietly worrying whether Obama’s difficulty in winning over working-class white voters could pose a problem for the party if he is the nominee.
A. Good on him, kind of, for not pretending to be the Official Spokeman of Black Peopletm.
B. Why is the white vote so important, but the almost monolithic black vote not? Black voters are way more polarized than white voters and moreso than women, so why is that not the story?
So we’ve heard a lot recently about the mortage meltdown and how poor innocent families are being shoved out of their homes by big evil banks and predatory lenders. That’s the story line we’ve come to know and love and, in reality, it’s gotten very little resistance in the media.
So little resistance has it gotten that even politicians are taking up the cause-celebre and trying to figure out a way to “bail out” all these unfortunate souls and keep them from losing their precious homes.
Let’s see how genuine they are. The New York Times had a fascinating article today about a group of people who, and I’m only guessing this, those “bail ‘em out” folks wouldn’t probably be interested in helping out at all.
GREENWICH, Conn. — This wooded town of roughly 60,000 on Long Island Sound — home to dozens of hedge funds, many millionaires and more than a few billionaires — is one of the wealthiest enclaves in the country. But even Greenwich is not immune to the wave of home foreclosures sweeping the nation.
On Stanwich Road, for example, a house worth $2.6 million is close to going on the block. On Hettiefred Road, the owner of a 2,720-square-foot, four-bedroom colonial featuring a luxury kitchen, swimming pool and tennis court, has been threatened with foreclosure for months. Several dozen other owners in Greenwich have received foreclosure notices this year.
But there is a difference from most other communities. Auctioning off such homes is a far greater challenge here than elsewhere, as affluent but cash-squeezed owners often find ways to delay losing their homes, sometimes by coming up with just enough to make last-minute payments avoiding a final sale — for a while, anyway.
Just ask John Thygerson, who parked his Jeep sport utility vehicle in front of the empty house on Hettiefred Road on the flawless spring day last Saturday.
As a foreclosure auctioneer, he was scheduled — for the third time since January — to sell the house. But the owner, a construction business owner who has fallen on hard times, made a last-minute mortgage payment and the foreclosure was postponed yet again.
So Mr. Thygerson was there to shoo prospective buyers off the property, nod at inquisitive neighbors and stake out a new spot for a fourth set of foreclosure signs after the first three had been mysteriously torn down.
“We never had a case that had gone through three separate sales attempts,” he said, still dazed that the auction failed to take place. “Greenwich being Greenwich, foreclosures are a rare occurrence.”
Rare, perhaps, but not unheard-of, as the housing industry collapse starts to claim victims among the affluent. Personal traumas like business reversal, illness and divorce play a role. There’s no real pattern, with people as diverse as builders, restaurateurs and poker players at risk of losing their homes.
The town, which typically has about half a dozen foreclosure notices each month, recorded 34 filings in January, according to RealtyTrac.
Wow. A sixfold increase in foreclosure filings in one month.
So the question is, do we bail these folks out too? I mean, the egalitarian in me is all about helping out those less fortunate, so how do we justify not helping these folks out?
Oh right. We just say “Well, they make enough.”
I’m not saying we should bail anyone out, but how do you decide who deserves a bailout and who doesn’t? Obviously if the standard is that you bail out those who can’t afford their homes, a lot of people in this article who own houses like the one at the top of this post do, indeed, qualify.
Something to think about.
One of the new memes in the media is that this subprime meltdown we all see happening before our eyes is that it’s because of adjustable rate mortgages. They’re all to blame as people who were comfortably able to afford their spacious homes until their rates went up because the economy is tanking, George W. Bush eats puppies in gravy, and the evil white bankers are trying to shaft the little guy.
You’ve heard it all.
Nestled in a desperate story about all these poor homeowners that we’re meant to feel sorry for is an interesting statistic, though…
Many subprime loans are adjustable rate mortgages, meaning their interest rates jump after an introductory period. Borrowers who had not fallen behind on their payments before their rates reset can benefit from a simple freeze of their rates. Many subprime borrowers took out loans they could not really afford - making workouts more complicated.
The report showed that 28.5% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages that won’t reset until spring 2009 are already delinquent. About 21% of these same loans were delinquent in October.
Interesting. They haven’t reset yet, and yet already the people who are holding the loans can’t afford them (as evidenced by their inability to pay them back).
Now we can go back and forth all day about who’s responsible for this mess. We can blame predatory lenders who ignored someone’s inability to pay a mortage because they knew they’d end up selling it within 12 months anyway. Or, if we’re so inclined, we can blame the buyers who, while making very little, got way in over their heads because they didn’t think out the costs properly.
Whatever the case, it’s clear that this isn’t only about the banks adjusting rates and kicking people out with massive rate hikes. That’s obviously a real problem, and one we’ll have to see dealt with, but it’s pretty obvious from the above-linked story that there’s way more to this story than we’re getting.
When you think about the title of this post, the idea is counterintuitive, isn’t it? How can gaining a customer be directly related to losing a customer? Well, to put it simply, it all depends on how you treat the customer as they’re walking out the door.
A few years ago, I tried Smugmug. Frankly, it wasn’t for me. I wasn’t really into the gallery / photo metaphor and prefered what flickr was doing much more. Aside from that, I was sucked in to the whole “community” thing with flickr, and thought I would seriously miss it.
Fast forward to two years ago. I decided to ditch flickr, and the first place I chose was smugmug because of their stellar reputation and pro features. They were even offering a nice discount if you moved there from flickr; 50% off a pro account. With a pro account, you can do some amazing stuff; sell your photos, customize the galleries, etc. In the end, you can make smugmug your own and integrate it into your existing web sites in a way you can’t do with other photo sites. I shelled out the $80 and went happily along my way. About two weeks in, I decided it wasn’t really for me, so I sent an e-mail asking them if I could get a prorated refund. I didn’t expect anything, but after two or three e-mails, they gave me one even though they don’t officially do them. I was impressed with how they went out of their way to do the right thing for me, even though they knew they were losing a customer.
It wasn’t for nothing, though.
Two weeks ago, after reading some choice words from flickr’s Stewart Butterfield and seeing the heaping pile of fail that Zooomr had become, I had to go elsewhere, and only one site came to mind. Care to guess which one it was?
That’s right! smugmug!
Now, you may be wondering why I would go back to them if I didn’t like it before? Well, because now they’ve added a new dimension to their service: HD Video. I’m now able to keep my photos and videos in one place and the quality of the video absolutely destroys any other site you would want to compare it to hands-down. For what a pro account cost me, my work will now be presented in the best light possible and I’ll be with a company who values their customers more than any other company I’ve ever dealt with.
It’s been said that you can tell a lot about a company by the way they treat their customers as they’re walking away. In my life, I’ve had two really good experiences as far as cancellations, and that’s with Audible and with smugmug. In both cases, because they made it easy and did the right thing, I ended up going back to them in the future. Companies should take this as a point of advice: Just because a customer is leaving you today doesn’t mean they won’t have a need for you in the future, and your best bet is to make that exit as smooth and painless as possible. They may not need your service now, but they may in the future, and since every space is seriously crowded, you don’t want to be competing with others for mindshare just because you made it difficult to walk away.
Neat little plugin that makes posting to Wordpress as easy as posting to Tumblr and similar services.
I like Bill Richardson. I always have. He’s a good guy with so many qualifications, it’s ridiculous that he hasn’t been a serious contender for President (although you can probably attribute that to the fact that he isn’t a leftwing kook). Yesterday, he endorsed Senator Obama for the presidency…
In his endorsement he said that Obama’s candidacy is a “once in a lifetime opportunity.”
Why? Are there no liberal males that are ever going to run for the office again?
Oh right… It’s the black thing…
We just aren’t allowed to talk about it…
Shhhhhhhh….
The implosion / coverup continues; this time with the campaign removing an endorsement on their site from the New Black Panther Party…
.JPG)
And here’s the deal:
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement rejecting the Panther backing, and told FOXNews.com: “The page in question has been removed from our campaign Web site. It’s our policy with any content generated by a group that advocates violence.”
The blogosphere was buzzing Wednesday about whether his campaign planned to remove the Panther posting, just one day after the Illinois senator delivered a speech calling for improved race relations in America.
The New Black Panthers, who inherited their name from the Black Panther Party of the 1960s, had the page on the Obama campaign’s public forums. The group’s message said it is backing Obama because he “represents ‘positive change’ for all of America. Obama will stir the ‘Melting Pot’ into a better ‘Molten America.’”
He rejected the endorsement? Interesting…
You have to admit… If the Black Panthers are for something, how good is that for the rest of America? I mean, unless you’re a delusional idiot, they aren’t exactly a bunch of nice guys…
Don Reisinger points out that Ebay is only surviving at the moment because there’s no competition. I’d tend to agree. Here’s the thrust of it:
eBay has lost its way and the only reason it’s able to enjoy these profits is because there’s no company out there that’s willing to compete on such a grand scale. But why not? eBay is obviously worried about the future and auctions are still a viable way to buy products. If a company came along that finally revolutionized online auctions, the entire landscape of the business could be changed forever and eBay would be long forgotten.
eBay is poised to enter the junk heap of tech if it doesn’t do something quickly. It may seem like a company that has longevity written all over it, but trust me, the chances of eBay staying around for too long while maintaining this strategy are slim.
Sadly, it’ll only take one competitor.
He goes much more in depth in the actual article, so go ahead and read it rather than reading me blathering about it.
Well, I guess ABC is a racist now because they picked up on Obama’s lying too…
Lie #1:
Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.
“I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial,” Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.
“He has said some things that are considered controversial because he’s considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that,” Obama said on March 2.
His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.
But yesterday, he told a different story.
“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
Obama did not say what he heard that he considered “controversial,” and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright’s sermons over the last 20 years.
And now, lie #2:
In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.
It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.
The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama’s $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of “thousands of donors.”
[...]
Obama was initially vague about Rezko’s role in helping him buy a new home on Chicago’s south side. Unable to afford an adjacent vacant lot the seller wanted to sell at the same time as the house, Obama approached Rezko. Rezko’s wife bought the lot on the same day Obama bought the house, and then later, Mrs. Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of the lot which gave the Obamas a larger backyard.
Obama called it a “bone-headed” mistake but never revealed, until he met with Chicago reporters last week, that Rezko had actually toured the house with him and been deeply involved in the transaction.
Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.
I guess this is what we have in store should Mr. Obama win come November.
I can hardly wait.
I wonder, though. For all the people supporting Obama because of Bush’s “lies,” does the lie coming from another party make it less of a lie? I mean, so far in the only two tests of his mettle so far, he’s lied twice. He lied about how close he was to Tony Rezko and how much he had taken from him as far as campaign donations. Then, he lied about what he had and hadn’t heard from his racist pastor.
Not exactly a stellar start to the campaign that was going to bring integrity and truth back to Washington.
Things you hear from John F. Obama and his supporters:
Change
Transformative
Unity
Uplifting
Vital
Anti-establishment
Steadfast
Eloquent
Inspiring
Things you never hear from John F. Obama and his supporters:
How?
Speaks volumes.
Hillary’s campaign takes a nice shot Dr. Martin Luther Obama in an ad airing in Wisconsin:
It’s typical of frontrunners to avoid debating, however, Obama is supposedly so brilliant and loaded with ideas and change and all that other crap, you’d think he would jump at the chance to spew forth with his meaningless populism a few more times.
ABC News really sums up my feelings on the campaign about nothing.
Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes “something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism” he sees in Obama’s Super Tuesday speech.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Obama said. “This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you.”
Says Klein: “That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”
You already know I’m going to tell you to go read the whole thing, so get your ass moving and kudos to ABC News for having the stones to say it. They’re the first mainstream outlet I’ve seen that isn’t dazzled by him just because he doesn’t speak ghetto.
Jeff Jarvis makes a good point…
Two things trouble me about the Obama campaign: First, its reliance on empty rhetoric: “Change” and now “yes, we can.” But change how? Can do what? And second, the candidate’s lack of experience is an issue. I fear that we could end up with Jimmy Carter: a well-meaning incompetent, as it turned out, rather than the Second Coming of the Kennedy; there’s just no way to know now. Worse, we could end up with someone who tries to backfill the rhetoric and defines change in ways we didn’t bet on.
I hear people saying that Obama’s impressive oratory gives them something to believe in. That sounds nice. But that, too, is dangerous. I don’t want to hire a spiritual leader for the White House. We have someone now who thinks he stands on spiritual principles and backfilled his definition of them in disastrous ways.
No, I want to hire a manager: tough and experienced and practical. That is what we need, especially now.
And now the requisite plea to read the whole thing.
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don’t know what broke the elephant you can’t put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can’t trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
Anyone got a stuffed tiger? I think someone in the back just yelled Bingo.
If this moron doesn’t epitomize the kind of vapid idiots that swoon over the clean articulate black candidate (Joe Biden’s words, not mine) I don’t know what does. Gothamist has an interview with Eugene Mirman who, they claim, is a comic. I guess I have no right to argue his occupation, although he’s apparently not a very good one because I’m really into stand up and I’ve never heard of him. Anyway, here are his answers to two questions about the upcoming elections:
Who’s your least favorite Democratic nominee and why? Hillary? I went to a rally of hers in New Hampshire and it was kind of annoying and uninspiring. Though she’s working hard on re-branding herself, so maybe in a month we’ll think we’ve loved her all along?
I’m sure Hillary is smart and would do a pretty good job with policy. I think the problem with her is that when she’s saying what she believes deep down, she feels like she’s lying. But that might be because she’s had to develop a harsh exterior to get to where she has. That’s what Charles Bronson did. However, at least it’s better than Bush, who I’m pretty sure is actually trying to hatch an evil plan. I bet his last words as president will be, “Suckers!” and then he’ll blow up the Statue of Liberty and disappear in a submarine.
Nothing to say except for emtpy rhetorical criticism. But wait, it gets better…
Why Obama? I’d like to apologize in advance for answering this question sincerely. I want two things from a president: 1) an effective, visionary leader with the ability to make America and the world better (i.e. better schools, less enemies, more cash to buy health care and whiskey, etc.) and 2) someone who embodies my ideals (which are great ideals, trust me), and is a gifted, intelligent speaker, who doesn’t seem sneaky and you’re not embarrassed or infuriated when they’re on television.
To me, Obama is those things — he’s smart, inspiring, far less divisive, he compromises to get things done. His opponents (in Illinois) describe him as “reasonable.” I like that. Though he’s passionate, he doesn’t seem ideologically dogmatic, but more a judicious problem solver. He’s fiscally responsible, socially progressive, and a moderate of sorts. Plus, sometimes, he speaks with such force he makes reporters cry. He’s the most inspiring candidate in years. He’s spun as not having enough experience, but he’s actually worked for two decades in public service – regardless, I believe experience is something that is easier gained than wisdom. (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent being the proof of that). For me, voting for Obama feels like I’m voting for someone, not against another. Ultimately, I guess I like and believe him more than the rest. Maybe he studied with Stanislavski? And Hillary studied kabuki?
Barack Obama is an “effective, visionary leader with the ability to make America and the world better?”
Based on what?
Well, the good news for Eugene is that he’ll never have to explain that because when you say vague flattering things about Obama even if they’re completely sans substance, they’re believed and are not to be questioned. Notice, he has absolutely nothing to say about actual hard policy or experience with regards to Obama. Much like most of his supporters, he buys into the “idea” of Obama and knows nothing about the actual candidate.
At least the primaries and caucuses are proving that people who actually vote aren’t as devoid of thought as the people who talk about who they’re going to vote for.
We’ve heard a lot of chest-thumping Bravado from Saint Senator Barack Obama, mostly focused around how he’ll bring the country together and make those pesky right wingers stop scaring everyone. He’s going to make the tough calls and level with us. Like adults. And he won’t use politics. Like adults.
In yesterday’s debate, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both ripped into the Senator for his use of “present” voting, effectively calling him impotent. The Obama campaign immediately jumped to their site to tell the world, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, that if you criticize the process of voting “present,” you don’t have a good understanding of the process.
Except that apparently, the NY Times and some people cited there don’t “understand” this mystical process either. Here’s one example of the NY Times apparently not understanding the process just like most normal people wouldn’t…
In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.
“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”
The vote on the juvenile-justice bill appears to be a case when Mr. Obama, who represented a racially mixed district on the South Side of Chicago, faced pressure. It also occurred about six months before he announced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against a popular black congressman, Bobby L. Rush.
State Senator Christine Radogno, a Republican, was a co-sponsor of the bill to let children as young as 15 be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds.
The measure passed both houses overwhelmingly. In explaining his present vote on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Obama said there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime, though he acknowledged that the bill had fairly unanimous support.
“Voting present was a way to satisfy those two competing interests,” Ms. Radogno said in a telephone interview.
Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said political calculation could have figured in that vote.
“If he voted a flat-out no,” Mr. Mannard said, “somebody down the road could say Obama took this vote and was soft on crime.”
Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences. They did not explain why he did not just vote no.
So, in other words, the great candidate of change did exactly what every other politician does… Make a political calculation based on how it would affect him in an election.
That’s exactly the kind of leadership we need in Washington. A guy who votes “I’m here!”
I can choose only one running mate, and this morning I have done so.
I have chosen a man who understands and defends the values of America; a man who has shown courage and conviction, as a champion for middle class Americans, and for those struggling to reach the middle class; a man who has shown guts and determination and political skill in his own race for the presidency of the United States; a man whose life has prepared him for leadership and whose character brings him to exercise it.
I am pleased to announce that, with your help, the next vice president of the United States of America will be Senator John Edwards from North Carolina.
[...]
This campaign for the presidency really began — this campaign — now, wait, we’ve got plenty of those. Don’t worry. We’ve got four months for you to get a hold of those things. We’re going to get them around.
This campaign for the presidency really began two years ago, and throughout those two years, as well as for four years before that, I have worked with John Edwards, side by side and sometimes head to head.
I’ve seen John Edwards think, argue, advocate, legislate and lead for six years now. I know his skill. I know his passion. I know his strength. I know his conscience. I know his faith.
He has honored the lessons of home and family that he learned in North Carolina. And he brings those values to shape a better America together with all of us.
John Edwards is ready for this job. He is ready for this job.
Oh wow. Gushy. He really liked John back then. He was really “ready.”
Either he was full of shit then (most likely) or John Edwards has completely gone off the reservation (not likely considering he’s still spouting off the same tired stories as he did in 2004, the only difference being he’s doing it now on top of the bodies of Katrina victims instead of on top of the bodies of dead girls he channels while suing doctors)…
Barack Obama is being endorsed by fellow Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee who lost to George W. Bush that year with John Edwards as his running mate and gave up his own plans for a 2008 run a year ago.
Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, planned to announce his support Thursday at a rally with Obama at the College of Charleston, arguing that the Illinois senator can best unite the country, said a Democrat familiar with the decision. Kerry was timing his announcement before South Carolina’s Jan. 26 primary, a contest that has taken on extra importance for Obama after Hillary Rodham Clinton beat him in New Hampshire.
So you run with the guy in 2004, and in the announcement you say this:
As so many of you know, throughout this campaign, John talked about the great divide in America, the two Americas that exists between those who are doing very well and those who are struggling to make ends meet in our country.
That concern is at the center of this campaign. It is what it is all about. It is what the 35 years of my struggle have been about. And I am so proud that together John Edwards and I are now going to fight to build one America for all Americans.
And now in 2008 you tell us that someone else entirely is the best person to do that?
This brings two things to mind immediately…
1. John Edwards never really was that good a choice for Vice President.
2. John Kerry has no integrity and loyalty whatsoever and he’s just as slimy as I thought he was back in 2004.
It’ll be interesting to see, when his office gets around to releasing a press release, exactly what his rationale is and how it conflicts with his rationale for choosing Edwards in 2004.
I can’t wait.
