Where we are at:
At MLK's Church, Obama Denounces Homophobia And Anti-Semitism

That is a news headline. That's where we are at. Think about it.

Obama featured anti-gay Donnie McClurkin in his gospel tour in South Carolina in the fall, but now he's denouncing homophobia?

Once again, Obama is all talk, no action.

..."our community"...

Reagan loving Obama is such a hypocrite. Like as if he has any part of the Southern Black Experience.

I'm not sure if this a smart move. That kind of talk might hurt him with African-American voters in South Carolina. I can guarantee you Hillary will avoid using the word "gay" for the next week.

Bitter in VA,
"Bitter and Spite" now that's quite the transformation from "Hope and Change".

Richard - Hating Obama seems so ridiculous. The man lifts people up. If you need to spew hate - go be a republican - then you can hate blacks, gays, liberals, single women - lots of people. I'm so sick of all the nasty comments.

rg,
Who's hating anyone? Obama is a hypocrite and a Repub. Read the exit polls for chrissake! Repubs and right-wingers are his friends.

Dems vote Hillary or Edwards.

I'm not voting for Obama, nor will he be the nominee. But why hate him?

There are plenty of other reasons why Obama is a better choice than Clinton, but it would be nice to have as president someone who is willing to challenge and elevate us as individuals. I really hope we don't piss this chance away.

Tom - With Hillary the election is all about calculated speech and moves, even tears.She won't ever be saying anything about gays, or saying anything that isn't completely safe to say for that matter - she's played it safe her whole life. Obama isn't about playing it safe. He's about calling people to live into democracy, expand themselves, take risks to bring the change that must come if we are really to accomplish what needs to be done in the next decade.

Have any of you read the entire speech. Do that and then comment. It is by far the best speech that I have heard about civilo rights barring the MLKjr speech. Read it and listen to it if you can and be uplifted.

Billary fans consider this: Bill has slipped from the first black president to one half of a two person presidential team for whom no black person will vote.

Don't you people think its a little early to be throwing in the towel?

99% of the delegates remain to be chosen. Obama leads by one in the delegate count (yeah, yeah, Hillary leads in party hack delegates, bfd). He's within three or four of her in polls that count likely voters, as to registered voters or everyone regardless of registration status.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Jan_Data.pdf

And as of last week, it was only 38% - 33% among likely voters in California.

And oh yeah, he's about to win South Carolina.

Buck up, fer cryin out loud.

What's amazing about Hillary backers is this: the stupid fucks think electing Billary will bring back the 90's. If this has crossed your mind, go get electroshock therapy immediately.

About the Reagan thing? What this guy said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-willis/running-for-president-no_b_82053.html

Guess he's just a DINO too.

Grover Rover,

Again some facts: Hillary was 16 when she supported Goldwater. My political beliefs were not formed until AFTER college. As an adult I have ALWAYS supported the Democratic nominee.
Yours is the typical logic of an Obama supporter. Hillary was for Golwater in 1964, ergo, she is a conservative Republican. Also, Hillary and Bill were the Texas coordinators of the 1972 McGovern campaign. We all know what a conservative Republican George McGovern is!

Getting back on *ahem* topic, that was an amazing speech. I wish I could have heard/seen it.

Give me break. Obama has spoken out against homophobia to black preachers before. When have Clinton or Edwards said anything like this to hostile audiences? See Pam's House Blend; she has endorsed Obama as the best candidate on LGBT issues.

http://tinyurl.com/2q2ggl

OT, Obama also talked about the ugliness of the NV campaign, and, in a speech that mentioned responsibility several times, offered a veiled mea culpa for his part in the badness.

"Last week, it [i.e. divisiveness] crept into the campaign for president, with charges and countercharges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation. None of our hands are clean."

Classy. Can Hillary be far behind? Remember that the NH "truce" was announced first by Obama.

I used to really love the liberal blogosphere, and still do. But there are an awful lot of people who are still committed to a culture war that will never end. At some point, you need to be inclusive, or you end up being the mirror image of your enemy.

And Bushwacker, give me a break, the links between that anti-Semite and Obama are so amazingly thin it is beyond ridiculous. Is that seriously all you have? That story was debunked before it even broke, how pathetic you are.

It is easier to link Adolf Hitler to Kevin Bacon via movies they have been in than it is to link Obama to Farrakhan.

grover_rover is typical of the kind of pseudo-Democrat I described above. Everything his candidate says is honest and inspirational and comes from the heart while anything Hillary says is dishonest and dissembling and comes from a soul-less politician completely driven by unvarnished ambition. Likewise, all of his candidate's supporters are intelligent and discerning while all of Hillary's supporter's are gullible and ignorant. This person is not a Democrat, is not a supporter of Obama, but more than likely a right-wing troll pissing on this site under a succession of aliases. No real Democrat would spew such hateful garbage at other Democrats. Ignore it and it will go away!

Why wouldn't Senator Obama praise President Reagan? Both are known for their ability to give a good speech but come up short on the details.

Check out the facts folks, tax levels actually remained about the same during the Reagan era. He was no friend of the working person - remember he fired all the air traffic controllers and do you think Iran Contra was a proud moment in our history? But I did love how he could deliver a speech. His contribution - well he made it acceptable to say you are a conservative and what has that gotten this country, especially these past 7 years?

Do we want another President by Teleprompter?

And I agree with the comment about his church & it's pastor. An award to Farrakhan?! That guy is the poster child for hate. I would resign my church membership immediately. I haven't heard Senator Obama say anything about that disgraceful action by his church. But then again, he uninvited Rev. Wright at the last minute to the event when he announced his run for the presidency last March.

Obama invokes Reagan, Obama invokes MLK. Listen to the cadence of his speeches -- excuse me, I mean his sermons, in which his speech pattern is structured like Martin Luther King's. Obama must have spent many hours practicing that technique. Then there's all this nonsense about the BAM.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Jim Jones were alive today, he would be a charismatic, messianic politician with a great following, because that's where the ego power is. Instead we have Obama, and yet these same Obies scorned the Repubs for their devotion to bush.

Hahaha, right. Then the Clintons must not be real Democrats then because they have spewed some vile lies about Obama. I never said that all Obama supporters are intelligent (although every survey does show that Obama gets more of the more educated voters, since you brought it up), although I have seen very few occasions where Obama supporters say something false about Obama or about other candidates. More often than not they have been on the defensive, like now, against you Hillbots spewing your hate and campaign-sponsored lies. However, the majority of the crap I hear from both the Hillary campaign, and their supporters (since they use the exact same talking points) is either blatant lies, or greatly distorted reality. Take for instance the Reagan thing. The Clintons are smart enough to know what Obama really meant, and to all other educated people these comments were obviously insightful and completely historically accurate. Yet the Clintons disingenuously use these comments and distort them and tell Americans that Obama loves Reagan. They LIED to Americans, REPEATEDLY, and they knew they were purposely trying to deceive voters, in order to get ahead. They did this counting on voters not to know any better (just like their supporters) and they were probably making the smart bet. That is just what Republicans have always done. This is fact, Obama supporters point this out, and then get accused of not being true Democrats? Screw you. If Hillary or Hillary supporters say something truthful, I won't say it isn't, but they are ALWAYS on the offensive, always spreading these lies, and ignoring obvious facts about their own candidate. I've always though Democrats were better than this, and I thought it was just a GOP thing, but again and again Hillary supporters prove me wrong. So you tell me, are Hillary supporters really so gullible and ignorant that they really believe all this filth they spew everywhere, or are they smart enough to know what they are saying are lies, and are just so unethical that they would lie to support their candidate and to attack other Democratic candidates? You tell me, but I think they are both pretty pathetic and low. Don't be a hypocrite though, don't accuse Obama supporters of being divisive and hateful toward other Democrats, because the Clintons and their supporters are the most divisive people I have ever seen in this party. The attacks started from the Clinton side, and the vast majority of them continue to flow from the Clinton side. Obama and his supporters have been on the defensive the entire campaign, and you tell me that WE are the anti-Democrat, hateful trolls? Give me a break..

goldberry, if you had paid any attention, you would know that he has consistently spoke of the need to erase homophobia, especially in front of African American crowds. Better late than never? He has been doing this from the beginning. Go get your facts straight.

Thanks Eric!!!
xo

grover_rover-- your post confirms everything I wrote about you and posters like you. You sound nothing like a Democrat. You sound nothing like the kind of person who would be attracted to Obama's message of inclusiveness, which is why I doubt your honesty and sincerity.

I admire Obama, I will vote for Obama in the general if he is the Democratic nominee because I am a Democrat. Reread my posts and your posts and then tell me who is divisive and hateful. Obama talks about inclusiveness and reaching across the aisle to work with people who disagree with us. Please take his advice. You would be a much better advocate for your candidate if you weren't such an apparently bitter and hateful person. Listen to Obama's speeches, read his books, and please use him as a role model.

Bushwacker, are you serious? Did I call Hillary Hitler? No. Did I invoke Hitler's name in an attacking way whatsoever? No, pull your head out of your ass, lol, seriously!

If was OBVIOUSLY making a humorous allusion to the game "Back to Bacon". I was just making a point that the links to get from Obama to that bigot are harder to make than trying to link Adolf Hitler to Kevin Bacon. Is that invoking Hitler? Nope, don't think so.

But observe:

Adolf Hitler has a Bacon number of 3.

Adolf Hitler was in This Happy Breed (1944) with Laurence Olivier
Laurence Olivier was in Little Romance, A (1979) with Diane Lane (I)
Diane Lane (I) was in My Dog Skip (2000) with Kevin Bacon

Exactly.

Grover Rover:

Get your facts straight: If you didin't mean anything by saying Hillary was for Goldwater in 1964 then why did you say it?

That's right Bush 41 is one of her favorite presidents, which is why she must have sat out the 92' campaign.

If those are the best arguments you cancome up with you must be a Republican because your logic and reasoning (having none) is one.

MM - Good point. It was moral clarity.

Want to know who Obama is - just read his first book and his speeches.

It's hard to relax with the opportunity for morality and passion in a president and know that it is still such a long shot. But - I hope people still listen and see the opportunity for something really unique to happen.

Oohhh, okay, so when people (Hillary supporters, Republicans, whoever) attack Obama, spread lies about Obama, come on here and say he loves Reagan and loves anti-Semites, even though all of these are OBVIOUSLY hateful lies meant to take down one of the best and brightest of the Democratic party, I'm supposed to do what exactly? I'm supposed to ignore it and stay above the fray? I'm supposed to pull a Kerry in 04 and ignore it and pretend it will go away and allow my candidate to get swiftboated by a bunch of liars?? I'm not the hateful and divisive one. I supported Hillary and Bill against Republicans back in the 90s, and up until the point she started lying about Obama and showing that she will do anything to win. I never agreed with all of her positions, or Bill's, but I thought they were decent people, but after seeing the lies and vile smears coming from the Clintons and their supporters, yes, I am bitter. How could one not be angry with such backstabbing lies coming from members of their own party?? I'm not the one who started this. I've always defended Democrats against unjustified attacks, and that is what I'm doing now. It isn't my fault the lies are now coming from "friendly fire". If you want to end the divisiveness, you need to look at who started it. Hillary drew first blood, I was hoping this would be a friendly primary, but she started the negative attacks, and she made them an integral part of her campaign strategy. Obama and his supporters have been on the defensive this entire campaign! But no, we are the hateful ones apparently...yeah, goddamn underdogs, just shut up and let the lies flow. Yeah right.

This was a post about Obama spreading a progressive message to a group that historically isn't receptive to it. This was a positive article, and it is full of Hillary supporters ATTACKING Obama, accusing him of being a hypocrite, an anti-Semite, a Reagan lover...all these divisive and despicable things...and you have the audacity to accuse me of being the one who is hateful and non-Democratic??? I can't believe you.

Following this primary season has been interesting indeed.

What stands out is how fractured the Clintons will make the Democratic party if they continue their current rhetoric. I guess haning out with Papa Bush has brought some "function" back to the dysfunctional relationship that the Clinton's live each day.

Hillary may have been only sixteen when she supported Goldwater; however, where was she when others were laying their lives on the line for the Civil Rights movement? Where exactly was Bill?

If their current behavior has not demonstrated why we don't need a weatherman to know where their winds blow, consider this coming out of Hillary:
Her belief is that the President is actually the "head of government" as she has stated more than once. Anyone who can comprehend the Constitution knows she is as power hungry as GWB.

This minor little note will not be noticed by the ignorant voters who ignored the close ties GWB had with Ken Lay and Enron. We will be too busy feeling somehow a woman being President, the legacy of Bill, or a bitter divide is somehow more important than our Constitution. Once again, we will get the governing power we deserve by not being intelligent enough to call Hillary on her misconception of our government.

It's a shame that so many of the people here who support Hillary Clinton reflexively react to everything Obama does with spite and derision rather than simply taking a moment to be proud that the man who gave a speech of such moral clarity today is a member of their party.

Absolutely. It took a lot of guts to say what he did today, heading into the primary in SC. And he's been consistently giving the same message in similar forums.

For those of you who support Hillary, can you honestly imagine her telling an audience something they really don't want to hear? Can you provide some examples where she has? How about Edwards?

Given the content of Obama's speech, the tone of discussion above is a little sad.

It's a pretty good speech, and as various people have pointed out entirely consistent with his past statements.

Reading this thread, I am finding it hard to find a way to phrase my opinion that the Clinton campaign has been behaving in ways that I hoped would be beneath them ever since Iowa, without thinking that someone is going to call me a Republican.

Joyce, the President of the United States IS both the head of state and the head of the government, as opposed to a parliamentary system. That will be the role of who ever wins the election and has been the role of the 42 men who have held the office (Grover Cleveland held the office in non-consecutive terms).

I refer you to Article II of the US Constitution.

If the Democratic Party turns this guy down for the nomination, we a) could probably lose to McCain, and b) deserve it.

Those folks who've criticized Obama for only being famous for giving one great speech, add this one.

We have to look to the general election now - Senator Clinton can't beat Barack Obama in Iowa and rural Nevada. He has crossover appeal, he attracts independents, and he demoralizes the opposition.

ugh, EXACTLY! Thank GOD there are a few people still on here with some frickin' sense! I'm getting my damn head bitten off for standing up against hateful lies attacking Obama. Like "c" said, this was a positive post, why the hell did Hillary supporters have to use it as yet another venue to attack Obama and lie about what he has said or which church he goes to who is led by someone who knows someone who said something blah blah blah, and somehow Obama is an anti-Semite? This is insanity! I'm so sick of this primary and how the negativity between the candidates has spilled over into divisiveness in the party. We are fractured, and it didn't have to be that way. We kicked the GOP's ass in 06, and we had every opportunity to do it again and more...and we are about to lose it all...it is amazing how bad our party is at losing these things..

ugh--

You found the perfect way to phrase a legitimate opinion. I for one would never call you a Republican for criticising another Democratic candidate. But if you stated as "example" did above, that you would vote for Bloomburg or McCain over Hillary, then I would start to wonder.

I, too, wish all the Democratic candidates, including and especially Hillary, would get back to attacking the real enemy-- George Bush and his allies--and start talking about the real issues, as she did when this campaign began. I liked her a lot better when she was going after Bush/Cheney. Hopefully, the truce that was struck after New Hampshire will remain in effect. One can always hope...

RE: the level of animosity.

It's probably worth remembering that the worst commenters are probably GOP operatives who would like nothing more than to help the democrat that they would prefer to run against, and hurt the one that would cause them the most problems.

rasher-

One of the main reasons I follow politics, and one of the main reasons I'm a Democrat, is civil rights issues. Minority rights issues. That kind of thing.

One of the reasons I loathe the Republicans is their willingness to engage in race-baiting and minority-targeted voter suppression.

So, even given my loyalty to the Dems (I've voted Dem all my life and volunteered for Kerry even though he wasn't my top choice as a candidate), why should I support someone if she's blazing a race-baiting path through the primary while attempting to suppress unsympathetic voters at every turn?

Supporting Hillary would run counter to my main principles. The day I support those tactics is the day I've completely lost track of why I'm politically engaged in the first place.

Before this campaign started out, my top 3 choices were Feingold, Obama, Hillary, in that order, and would've been happy with any of them (at the time).

Now I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote for her, and I don't think I'm alone either.

And my understanding is that, as strong as this feeling is with many in my demograph, it's even stronger in the black community.

Shorter wwjb: We're better Democrats than you, because -- well, we just are, and that's why we voted for Nader in 2000.

I didn't vote for Nader. I worked for Gore. I worked for Clinton twice. I worked for Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey.

I have never voted other than Democratic in any partisan race since I first voted 37 years ago.

I am not taking a back seat on the Goodly Democrats Bus to anyone

And I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Are we losing sight of the fact that any Dem that gets the nomination will be a far better president than whoever the GOP puts up.

Donald: I didn't vote for Nader in 2000. It isn't the same thing. People who voted for Nader in 2000 (at least in swing states like Florida) were idiots, and helped hand the election over to Bush. People who voted for Nader weren't unable to bring themselves to vote for Gore because he had stooped to using dirty GOP tactics (for instance implying that if you don't vote for him, the terrorists might attack like they did in Britain) or to spreading lies against his fellow Democrats (for instance, Obama loves Reagan). It isn't the same thing at all, so don't try to pretend they have anything to do with each other. Gore did nothing wrong to drive away Democratic voters, he was a fine candidate, and he deserved to win (indeed he DID win). Hillary is not the same candidate, she has ran a dirty campaign, and there are many of us who would find it very hard to vote for her because of how power hungry and nasty she has been. If you had been paying attention you would have also noticed that I said that I don't live in a place where my vote will matter anyway, so my not voting for Hillary (not voting Republican either) will not lose her the election (her being the nominee will lose it for her, not me). If I was in a position where I thought there was a good chance that my vote would change a swing state one way or another, yes, I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but I wouldn't be happy about it. If it came down to having a Republican or Hillary in the White House, I would take one for the team, and ignore my conscience, and vote for her. Don't try to make me out to not be a good Democrat, because I'm as anti-Republican as they come. As others have pointed out, Hillary and her supporters have been the most divisive elements throughout this primary. She has trashed her competitors, is that good for the party? No.

Okay, think about it...Obama and Edwards say she isn't the best agent of change, they believe they can do better. That is their "attack". So if she gets the nomination, she can be the best agent of change out of the two options, her or a Republican, so the Democratic party is still fine. But what does Hillary do to attack her opponents? Everything, but most significantly, she says that they don't have what it takes to lead this country, that they don't have the experience, that maybe if we elect them we will be attacked by terrorists. Now thing, what if Edwards or Obama win the nomination and face the Republicans, and now every attack Hillary used against them can also be used against them by the Republicans! Do you not understand this? Obama and Edwards are more interested in what is best for the party, rather than winning at all costs. They know if they aren't the nominee, we need to beat the Republicans. Hillary and her supporters don't care, if Hillary doesn't win the nomination she doesn't care what happens, there will be the carcases of Edwards and Obama laying there for the GOP to finish off for all she cares. She is HURTING OUR PARTY!!! She is saying that experience is all that matters and that Obama and Edwards aren't experienced enough, so what is supposed to happen if they go up against someone with more experience like McCain???? Hillary just helped the Republicans out tremendously (she also shot herself in the foot because she can't run "experience" against McCain and win). The Clintons and their supporters have been attacking their own party, and it has been a very shortsighted strategy. We are all worse off for it, and the Republicans win. How can you not understand this? It is so simple..

So now Obama is attacking the blacks? Wow, this guy is really a guy filled with hope!

"So now Obama is attacking the blacks? Wow, this guy is really a guy filled with hope!"

Good lord.

michael,

If you really believe that Hillary was behind the race-baiting and minority-targeted voter suppression, then follow your conscience. I don't think the case has been made. Bill's bone of contention with the Nevada caucus thing, as I understand it, was over showing favoritism for one union's members (culinary workers) over anothers (teachers). As it was, Hispanic voters in Nevada went overwhelmingly for Hillary. I'm not sure if that's the minority-targeted voter suppression you were referencing. As far as race-baiting, yes, some of her supporters said some ugly and unfortunate things, and as far as I know she repudiated those comments. I'm still undecided as to who I'll vote for in the primaries, but just know that when it comes to the general election I'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican. That's just me. I'm nowhere near post-partisan. And you'll never hear me trashing one of the Democratic candidates. My only criticism is with the behavior of some of their supposed supporters on these liberal blogs. I happen to agree with some of the previous posters who suspect some of them aren't actually Democrats but come here with ulterior motives.

If Hillary makes it to the general election, she will set the party back four years. If she is elected, she will set the party back 10-20 years.

Consider:

1) She tends to piss off almost anyone who doesn't share her immediate objectives. This includes independent voters (a growing percentage of the voting population), moderate democrats, and democrats who don't think the Karl Rove/Dick Morris school of politics is something to aspire to.

2) She is a dynastic candidate whose victory will insure an embarrasing Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton handoff of power over 20+ years.

3) If she does win a general (she won't), we now have a President and an ex-President in the White House, the latter of which is showing himself to be kind of a loose cannon. That's a bad dynamic for everyone but the press and the loyal opposition.

4) Although I and the rest of the party spent the better part of the '90s defending their actions against real and imagined charges it is now clear that their personal ethics are elastic enough to include anything that furthers their own ends. I guarantee a repeat of endless investigations and I have no doubt some of the charges will stick.

5) Clinton has shown herself to be a poor spokesperson for the one national agenda she over pushed (healthcare in the '90s) and although she has found a successive chorus of new voices over the past year, I don't predict she will be any more successful as President.

6) Almost every argument or statement I have seen or heard from her or her surrogates has been based on either fear or division. That's the GWB play book, and I believe she will govern that way as well.

I'm still optimistic that she will lose the nomination. I plan to donate and volunteer to make it happen. I hope all Democrats who care about the future of the party will consider helping out as well.

The speech was truly excellent! Good stuff.

Me, I am a DINO. I just pretend to be a Democrat every now and then. The rest of the time my allegiances lie with CPUSA.

Yet, amazingly, I like Obama the best. Yeah, that horrible right-wing Manchurian fascist candidate is the commie's favourite. It boggles the tiny mind, does it not?

I also happen to think his Reagan comment was exactly on the spot. If you are one of the people who cannot fathom what he is saying, cannot comprehend the concept of learning and understanding history and humanity, I have one thing to say: you and all your fellows are exactly WHY he is right. You form the intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest party of no ideas. By failing to try to understand, to examine the world, you enable the spineless, tired and foolish cadre that has led the Democrats to ruin. All the while you denounce the Republicans, all the while you denounce their tactics and yet your vision of victory is replete of emulating their methods, accepting their ideas and their framing of what is necessary to win in politics, accepting the very concept that politics is about winning that they have ingrained into you. You are the ones who follow the now-outdated ideas of the change that Reagan started, of the 90's Republican movement. The astounding lack of self-reflection that allows you to do this without recognizing you for what you are. You are the victims of the conventional wisdom that Reagan and the Republicans created. And it will be obsolete again, this time from the left.

ElectoPundit: Back and Forth Could Help Obama
http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/one-back-and-forth-dynamic-that-could.html

Many are trying to envision where this Democratic campaign could be headed. The most common theme and most consistent message from voters so far seems to be this: we like both of these candidates for various reasons, and we want to consider them carefully and on our own terms... don't pressure us into taking one of them before we're ready and if you do, we'll vote for the underdog.

This campaign could be divided into three phases until now. There was the "Clinton frontrunner" phase up until just before Iowa, and then after Iowa the 2nd phase was the very short "Obama Frontrunner" phase. After New Hampshire it was perhaps a "dead heat, no frontrunner" phase that I think may now be ending. If we're back into a "Clinton frontrunner" phase again... what does that mean for the campaign? Will Hillary and Bill wither under the spotlight?

Look at the behavior of the voters so far:

Everyone said if Hillary won Iowa, it was over, they voted for Obama.

Everyone said if Obama won New Hampshire, it was over, they voted for Clinton.

The Clintons and the media tried to say Obama should win Nevada because the culinary union was pressuring members, the members felt the pressure and they resisted, they voted for Clinton.

So where is that conventional wisdom/media dialogue going decisively after Nevada? I think the current line is: "the Clintons are inevitable, Obama may win in South Carolina, but that's just the African-American vote, she's going to win big on February 5th." There's going to be two and a half weeks of this dialogue again in the press for the first time since before Iowa. If Obama had won Nevada and South Carolina, the "dead heat" phase would have continued. But Nevada shifts that, and I think this has significant potential to swing the race back in Obama's favor.

One thing is clear, the focus for the next two weeks will be on Hillary Clinton, what type of presidency she would have, what Bill's role would be, their marital issues, etc. February 5th will now fundamentally be a referendum on her and it could be a decision too big for either candidate to come back from as they have had the ability to do so far in this campaign.

Democratic Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Republican Delegate Race: http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/republican-delegate-race.html

the obvious implication was that Obama was anti-semitic, and that he ought to leave his church because of someone who knows someone who knows someone who is stupid. yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

and I hope to god I never have a child so dumb. if ignorance like that could show up on an ultrasound I'd consider an abortion.

anyway, i'm bored with this.

If we can put aside for the moment of what candidate it possibly favors, would anyone on this blog feel comfortable caucusing at your workplace when your union endorsed one candidate but you favored another?

Clearly, the Culinary Workers Union endorsement did not deliver for Obama, but I don't think I would feel comfortable in that kind of caucus environment and be wondering what my union's repercussions might be come the next workday.

Yeah, better to do something useful than yell at trolls. There are two easy ways to feel better: toss a few dollars to the Obama campaign (takes 5 minutes on their website) and come out to caucus or vote. One benefit of a drawn-out process is most of us will get a chance to participate somewhere or other.

maria,

I don't find it "suspicious" rather than "GREAT" that Independents and disgruntled Republicans would cross over and support Obama. What I do find suspicious and not at all GREAT is any so-called Democrat who would not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election because that nominee is not the candidate that they supported in the primary. I for one will vote for whomever the Democratic Party puts up because I'm a Democrat and I happen to believe that the worse thing for our country and our planet would be another Republican presidency and not necessarily another Clinton presidency. If you happen to beleive that a Clinton presidency would be worse than a (God forbid) Guliani presidency or McCain presidency, then, well, I am suspicious of you and don't think you're a very GREAT Democrat.

"What I do find suspicious and not at all GREAT is any so-called Democrat who would not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election because that nominee is not the candidate that they supported in the primary."

I am one of those in this thread seriously considering voting against Clinton (and for a minor candidate, not a Republican) if she wins the nomination.

Characterizing my reason for doing so as "because she wasn't the one I supported in the primary" is mistaken at best, and disingenuous at worst.

I am considering voting against her (if she wins the nomination) because her campaign has been behaving, over the past three weeks, in ways that befit Karl Rove.

What I notice on this thread is that the whole meat of the post, Obama's speech, and discussions based upon the speech are hijacked by interruptions of same-old flaming back and forths.

You said it well, MM at 9:07:
"It's a shame that so many of the people here who support Hillary Clinton reflexively react to everything Obama does with spite and derision rather than simply taking a moment to be proud that the man who gave a speech of such moral clarity today is a member of their party."

A long-standing Democratic activist in my county left a message yesterday on my answering machine, to the effect that she was supporting Hillary and 'would I help', and suggested I go to Hillary's web site to learn more. I phoned her back today and just asked her why she was supporting Hillary........not only did I get the usual 'talking points', but I got an earful of misinformation about Barack Obama, including a repeat of the lie that he wasn't really 'pro-choice' because of those 'present' votes. I then asked 'S' if she knew that that was misinformation which had actually fractured unity in the NH Democratic party once Hillary supporting signers of the distorting mailer found out the falsity of what went out to voters over their signatures.
Now, this is interesting, because 'S' and I have known each other a long while......and I have been to barbeque fundraisers at her home for local state party contenders......but, nevertheless.....she wasn't interested in hearing even a bit of information that Hillary's campaign had done something deceptive or that doing so had roiled the future well-being of the NH state's democratic party. 'S' instead segued to a generality about Obama 'going negative'.....hmmm. Our conversation went on awhile longer with me telling of my volunteer work for Obama, and my study of last spring comparing each Senator's achievements with the other's. I could tell that 'S' was getting uncomfortable and wanted the conversation to end on a positive or at least a neutral note, and pretty much that is how it ended.
But, here is something important and relevant to comments on this thread. Just like with Hillary supporters on this and other blogs, 'S' very much was pushing me at the end to say that, since one of them would obviously be the nominee, that we would be 'working together' down the road for the general. You know, I really could not tell her what she wanted to hear, i.e., that I would support Hillary if she becomes the nominee.

I suspect that a number of Hillary supporters really are concerned that they will lose Democrats because of the divisiveness of this primary season, and though 'S' did not seem to want to hear about what happened in NH and why.......there has to be some part of the reality that sinks in about how this primary contest is being run by Hillary supporters, especially Bill Clinton, who seems to daily denigrate and/or distort Obama.

I sympathize with others above who have adverse reactions to underhanded campaign tactics to the point of being unwilling to commit to supporting Hillary should she become the nominee. For me, too, it is a matter of my own personal integrity. It is laughable, too, to be so vilified and called Naderite or DINO for having principles about fair play.

Dad, Aren't you lucky that you are a member of a political party who has a pro-choice position then?

Of course I know I'm out of the will now.

You can dismiss all you want the Trinity United Church of Christ and their Farrakhan loving pastor, but Obama clearly was wanting Rev. Wright not to show up last March. I read the link provided to that article. And the Rev. Wright's quote about how the Jewish support would dry up if they knew about Farrakhan is not trivial to me. Does it make Obama an anti-Semite, no, but it makes me question his association with his pastor and now shoving him off in the closet like he's the crazy aunt in the family that no one should know about.

Now let's see you take a whack at the homophobic pinata that folks are now digging up with this McClurkin & Caldwell support. Wink wink

ugh,

I'm one of the posters on this godawful thread who has been suspicious of the most vile and hateful posters, and, for the record, I actually was referring to those ANTI-Hillary posters who said they would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, even those leading to a McCain or Guliani presidency. Since then, a couple of very thoughtful and not at all vile or hateful anti-Hillary posters submitted some very reasonable arguments as to why they would have a hard time voting for her in the general and I very much appreciate those comments. While they have not turned me against Hillary, they have convinced me that not every anti-Hillary commenter here is a covert Republican laying (or is it lying?) in the weeds because very few Republicans would be able to string together a well-reasoned argument for or against anything. So my apologies to those falsely accused. To the rest of you (I'm looking at you grover_rover) --your Democratic bona fides are still in question.

ugh wrote on January 20, 2008 10:36 PM:
I will also say this, and then I think I'm going to stop participating in this godawful thread:

---YOu are a hateful moron. You are a sore loser. You are a cry baby. You will either have your way or cry for mama to help out. All your Obama supporters are sore losers!!!

rasher (and others) - Some Dems feel so strongly about their commitments to certain issues - in this case, racial equality - that they're overwhelmingly offended by what is percieved as a Clinton effort to inject race into the campaign. I think that's understandable, although it isn't 100% clear she personally tried to do that. While I am an Obama supporter, I'm encouraging people I know who're progressive opponents of HRC to stick with her if she gets the nomination. She's not my first choice either, but she's better than another Repug. And this time, a Nader-like vote will only allow the Repugs to do whatever they want by further corrupting the DoJ and stacking the Supreme Court with partisan judges. If there was ever a time for unity, this is it. Fight clean folks - even if the candidates don't - because we're gonna need each other later.

I think what may be frustrating some people here is that they are realizing that they are just numbers on Mark Penn's spreadsheet.

He can afford to lose your vote to get the nomination. And he knows that no matter how bad the Clintons are, he'll get you back. They know exactly what to say, who to say it to, and when to say it. That's why they're the best campaigners of their generation (with Karl Rove a close second).

My problem with them is that they tend to govern the way they campaign: more interested in popularity than principles. Hillary supported the war when it was popular, then opposed it when it wasn't. Bill turned a blind eye to Wall Street and Enron, not wanting to pop the bubble that made him so popular. They get your support, but at what cost?

I hope someone figures out a way to make that type of politics obsolete. But I'm not optimistic.

DonnaG, that honestly has to be one of the saddest things I've read or heard about during this whole process. I had so many high hopes heading into the primaries, with what I considered a wide variety of really solid Democratic hopefuls that seemed to put the Republican candidates to shame. I took my time learning about each and every candidate and what they stood for. And while I eventually chose my favorite, I fully expected to happily vote for whomever emerged as the Democratic nominee.

That time has past for me. My personal line has been crossed and then some. Since the 2000 fiasco and W's administration, I've become more active in Democratic functions, and I've shared how I feel with those that I know. I am not alone in my feelings.

And it's sad because it didn't have to be like this at all.

Heard from a gay friend that many gay people support Hillary. They feel she is quite comfortable and always helpful to them. Seems like Obama is trying to get their support which is fine. However, as someone who lives in a rural area of upstate New York, a place where Hillary was disliked while running for Senator in 2000. Her hard work and service for our state has turned people's feelings about her around. All this hate doesn't make sense. This is politics. As a Hillary supporter, if she doesn't win the nomination I'll vote for the democrat that does. Aren't people aware of how dangerous it would be to have another republican. Think of the supreme court, the war in Iraq. Hillary and Obama have a very similar voting record. As an older woman I could never vote for an anti-choice candidate like McCain. Watch a republican debate and seem how out of touch these men in suits are. All this ranting and trying to get back at Hillary if she gets the nomination is immature and childish.

Its always the Hillary boosters who think dissenting commenters must be GOP operatives. You may cling to your denial folks -- but I hope you will come to understand before its too late what serious damage the Clintons have inflicted upon our party. I have been a democrat my entire adult life -- my first presidential vote was cast for Carter in 1976. Not one of the nominees has been my favorite, but I've always played along in the end. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and Gore in 2000. However, if the Clintons are the nominee in 2008, then I really do not know what I will do. I am struggling with just the thought of it. What all the Clinton supporters here seem to have in common is sort of willful blindness, ham-fistedness and fundamental dishonesty that mirrors that of their candidates. The main problem with the Clintons is NOT their policies -- it is that a moral line has been crossed by them in the manner in which they have attacked Obama. It is as soul crushing to Obama supporters as if the lies, racial slurs and bullying were aimed directly at us -- and especially hurtful because it is coming from fellow democrats. Obama is very dear to us. He has awakened an idealism in many of us that we have not felt in years -- if ever. Indeed, this is the only time I have thought there was a candidate actually worth fighting for and that I personally could make a difference in the outcome of the election. This is the first time I have donated money to a candidate. This is the first time I have volunteered for a candidate. This is the first election where I truly believe it matters who the democratic nominee is. If the Clintons should prevail using the tactics of the most vile of republicans, then what the hell is the point anymore? Enacting progressive policies is important, but integrity and honesty in the process -- from campaigning to governing is essential. We have suffered from the lies of the Bush years and our trust as a people has been shaken to the core. Obama knows that what this country deparately needs is healing -- but the Clintons are busy drawing blood. It has to stop -- and a good first step is for Clinton supporters to acknowledge the problem, and stop writing off dissent within the party as GOP or crazies.

Amen, donna L.

I cannot tell you how much I resent being labeled "not a Democrat" because I said I would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. From my perspective if Hillary is the nominee it will be the end of what I guess was a dream that there was a Democratic party. This would be a very sad day for me. I have always voted Democratic and today I could not even bring myself to join my local Democratic organization to support local candidates. The Clinton rot is ruining the whole barrel for me, maybe not you. Perhaps the Democrats have to become irrelevant before they can reorganize into a party that truly represents Democratic values. Perhaps a third party will finally emerge. I don't know. What I do know is I was suckered into supporting Bill Clinton because I was so thankful to see an end to Reagan/Bush. But truly today I feel as if a Clinton presidency is just a continuation of more failed policies with little tweaks. Is it asking so much for me to like to hear what my President has to say? I have not watched a State of the Union address since Bush was sworn in. I am sure I would not be able to sit through a Hillary Clinton address if this should ever happen. But, oh how I would love to sit my entire family down to hear the annual State of the Union by President Obama... For me, it's Obama, no vote or 3rd party. Never a Clinton. Never a Bush.

Agreed on the general consensus that there's way too much vitriol in these comments, a lot of which I hope are coming from trolls rather than real people supporting their candidates perhaps a bit too zealously.

But as an Obama supporter, I do have serious doubts about voting for Hillary in the general should she win the nomination.

1. Rovian politics - come on folks, this is what we've been railing against for the past eight years. If the Republicans ise this in the general we'll deal with it then, but I find the importation of these tactics into the primary...well, shameless. Read up on the Washington Post blogs coverage of the split in the NH dem community over Hillary's abortion attacks on Obama if you really want to be depressed.

2. Hillary's vote against the war and her campaign spin - She was wrong, period. Her failure to at a minimum admit that is disappointing. Attacking Obama's votes for funding the war while dodging her authorization vote (and her vote against the Levin proposal) is just to cynical for me.

3. The experience myth - I'm sick of hearing about 35 years with no substantiation. Her most notable positions prior to becoming senator and aside from being first lady were as a paetner at a powerhouse corporate law firm and her spot on the board of Wal-Mart. Her community activities were nice, but I've done lots of pro bono work at a corporate law firm. That doesn't make me a fighter of injustice.

4. The image of competence - I work in finance now, and from that perch her "solution" to potential recession and the mortgage crisis are absolutely nonsensical. She uses more buzzwords and wades into detail that seemingly impresses large segments of viewers in debates, but the content is mostly pandering and nothing else. Read Fortune's take on her plan for more substance.

5. The future of the dem party: Hillary's base are boomers and older. Her policies, if one assumes she'll carry them out, are aimed at that group. We have a chance, birthed in the Dean Campaign and beginning to be realized with Obama, to capture the youth vote, which is the best route to implementing a progressive agenda going forward. I fear that with Hillary on board we lose that chance (just one example - trying to support the ridiculous housing prices these days through government intervention on interest rates will price most young voters out of the market for a long, long time).

6. Honesty - This is why I would take a hard look a McCain. We've lost this in the last few Clinton/Bush years and its important. While McCain is still a politician, I trust him to be more forthright, even in implementing a policy I disagree with, than Hillary.

Why not denounce the support of McClurkin? I don't understand why he hasn't done that. Instead, he's welcomed the support of yet another homophobe--Kirbyjon Caldwell who "cures" gays.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5469706.html

How can he fight homophobia when he doesn't condemn bigots with integrity?

Better get ready. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald getting ready to try longtime Obama friend and political ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko -- the trial date is set for Feb. 25 -- and the details of Fitzgerald's case are coming to public attention:

Chicago Sun-Times (January 20, 2008)
Obama Linked in Rezko Corruption Case - "For the first time, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

"The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.

"Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in 'sham' finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

"Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing 'at least one other individual' to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law."

Link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article

For the record, the Obama campaign has denied any knowledge of Rezko's activities, and has either returned or is in the process of returning or donating to charity, those campaign funds that have been linked to Rezko's solicitations on the senator's behalf.

Quite frankly, I believe that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has far much more to worry about from these revelations that Sen. Obama, since the governor appears to be a potential target of Fitzgerald's investigation. But any new information concerning Obama's relationship to Rezko, while probably benign, couldn't have come at a more inopportune time for the senator's presidential campaign.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 10:16 PM:
I've been trying for the last hour to figure out how this speech benefits Barack Obama politically, since it seemed unlikely to further endear him to a significant segment of the audience he was ostensibly addressing. Then, it hit me.

California, here he comes!

(Not to mention, New York, Massachusetts, North Jersey, Minnesota, Colorado and Connecticut.)

It amuses me to watch people like you scratch their head and try to figure out what Obama's angle is. It never occurs to you that maybe there isn't an angle. Maybe he is telling those people what they need to hear as opposed to what they want to hear. He did the same thing at a speech in Detroit telling the auto industry they needed to start building cars with higher fuel economy standards. He didn't do it in front of the siera club, he took the message to the people that needed to hear it.

And not to jump on a bandwagon or anything, but as an independant I will not be voting for Hillary should she get the nomination. The reason I'm an independant is that I've had it up to here with people that will say anything to get elected, people that will lie, distort, disenfranchise, anything it takes to win. People like that will never get my vote. This country has real problems and partisans like that are just as much to blame as the Republicans you guys hate so much. People who will not give an inch on anything, who would rather see legislation die then have problems solved in a way in which both sides gets something they want. This country was set up on the notion that no single person or group should have all the power. Get used to it. Embrace it. Otherwise enjoy the ride as the un-United States continues to swirl down the toilet.

This is the hope Obama brings to this country and why I am solidly behind him and have donated to his campaign. A hope that we can actually come together and solve problems, real solutions with broad appeal, not narrow partisan ones that never get passed. If you can't see that and see what the Clintons are doing in their mad dash back to power then I hope you enjoy this country as it exists right now because it isn't going to change.

Davidson--

As has been said before, the ability of the Obama campaign to bring groups of people who would hate each other into the same room where they can start talking about their differences is a GOOD thing, not a BAD thing. You can't have unity if you make everybody go with what one person says--everybody's voice counts for better or for worse.

I for one would rather support a candidate who realizes that dissenting views have to be heard over a candidate who shuns anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

See, this is what it's always about for the Hillary crowd. Six degrees of separation, guilt by association... My Grandpa loves Bush, but he's still my Grandpa, damnit. And just because my Grandpa loves Bush doesn't mean I'm a Bushie. If you want to talk substance about OBAMA, go right ahead. If all you can concern yourself with is who he knows, you'll have to dig deeper. Feel free to find a statement by the Obama camp that says they stand by Caldwell's views, or McClurkin's views. This "oh my god you better denounce MoveOn for their Petraus ad" mentality is a Republican tactic, not a Democratic one. Aim higher.

Davidson you might want to be a little more reflective and a little less reliant on overstatement to make arguments. The "Metanoia Ministry" is at least making a distinction between act and person, and however obnoxious and bizarrely misinformed it's not a message of hate. (Duncan Hunter on immigrants, that was a message of hate.) Possibly Obama's willingness to work with a range of folks while refusing to hedge principle is a plausible way forward. He has spoken up on gay rights and dignity before conservative black audiences before.

Obama spelled backwards is F R A U D...
Against the war before he consistently votes to fund it.
Against homophobia until he actively enlists gay haters/baiters to campaign for him.
As they say about Bushit, Obama is all hat, no cattle.
But yeah, Go Hussein!

Tapper --

Was your first sentence deliberately inaccurate to prepare for the inaccuracies that follow?

For your consideration: it's a bad idea to someones house and break their china. But if you do, just up and leaving is not going to magically fix things.

If this were Atrios's place, we'd talk about cleaning soiled beds, I suppose.

Donarld from Hawaii, I've given you quite a bit of evidence, this thread is full of perfect examples of why I can't stand the Clintons and their lies, or their asshole supporters who take every possible opportunity to attack Obama with those lies, and then accuse you of being a Republican if you have the nerve to point out that these are clearly lies.

I know there is no point trying to argue it with you, because you people, just like the diehard Bush supporters, are hopelessly ignorant and stubborn, and there is no way any amount of education or logical reasoning is going to change that. I'll say it again though, I am dismayed that so many members of my own party are so ignorant and naive...so willing to attack one of the brightest stars of the Democratic party just so their lying candidate can get ahead, just go their candidate can get to the general election to lose us the election. I hope you and your fellow Hillbots have a great time on election night when McCain stomps the crap out of Hillary, just like every Republican is going to do in the individual contested congressional races, all thanks to Hillary...I hope you at least have the hindsight at that point to understand that that is what you wanted, what you fought for and lied to make happen.

Thanks a lot. Really, you are a Republicans best friend, shortsighted ignorant bastards like yourself. After this, I'm switching to Independent, because I don't want to be associated with people like you, and especially not with the Clintons.

Ha. I have to laugh at all the people who a) doubt Obama is black enough to say "our community" b) limit "our community" to the South c) say that the former civil rights worker is a DINO and d) pretend that the DLC/HRC Inc. is more liberal and more democratic.
I'm a black dude from the South Side of Chicago and there isn't any issue about Obama being part of "our community" nor is there any question about whose side he is on.

HRC Inc., well that's a different story. Welare Deform and Immigration Deform hurt minorities by the hundreds of thousands. Not sure those communities can handle a 3rd BJC/HRC term.

A lot of moral vanity on this thread. Facts are the Democratic Party put up three excellent candidates this cycle and the three in play are all good. It's a republican idea that we are divided over their vision. It's really a debate about method.

The hyperventilating is a bit rediculous. The vote my guy or I leave thing is self destructive. I have no time for it. F-you and take your lukewarm loyalty with you, ya vain wanker.

Obama was sending a dog whistle to Reagan loving voters at a time he was directly aiming ads at them in the Nevade Primary where Hillary took a majority of the votes. He was hoping that his more intellectually inclined supporters would be able to parse this away to the politically naive.

Of a par with this support for war-mongerer Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. That's the point where he had anti-war leverage but chose to grup power instead.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=273319

the whole speech. Much different than the text version. Amazing.