If Obama made a conscious decision, and I can't believe he didn't - this isn't quite the same thing as being dumb enough to get a $400 haircut, then he's feeling desperate, almost McCain-ish. I mean, it's not like he was going to get the votes of any S. Carolina Rethugs to begin with, nor is S. Carolina an electorally important state.

Reflects my state of mind as well

Bill Richardson is a serious, non-loony (Kucinich/Gravel) alternative to Hillary/Barack/John.

Whether he's good enough to sway enough progressives, I don't know. But, contra the "big three," he has said he will get us all the way out of Iraq. And, he's not "Kumbaya" campaigning; he's been through enough political battles to know better.

I've been "officially" for Obama for a while, though I've resigned myself to knowing Hillary probably has this wrapped up already. But basically, I feel the same as you. I'll still probably vote for Obama, but my heart really isn't in it.

If Hillary was clear about getting the US out of the Middle East, then I would set all my other doubts aside. As it is, she seems the least likely of the 1st-tier candidates to get America out, so as of now I'm as unenthused about her as I am the rest.

Visceral dislike of Hillary:

1. She's a girl

2. Her name is Clinton

3. She's a Dem

I really don't think there's anything deeper than that involved.

while rambling, it represents a lot of our frustrations.

and is hillary electable, or will the republican slime machine and the tradtional media soundbites
mouthing this machine take the democratic party
to yet another presidential failure.

I'm with you, Kevin; I just haven't found that one true love who sets my heart ablaze. Lately I've been leaning toward Dodd, but every time he opens his mouth he talks like an auctioneer. Richardson would make an excellent secretary of state. Maybe he'd make a great governor, but I'm not sure; he's not home enough for me to tell.

My concern with Obama is that he would be completely gobsmacked in the general by the loathsome, racist, swift-boating liars. I used to think that Hillary would make a terrible candidate because of this very issue, but she's persuaded me that she can handle it. I honestly don't think Obama could. And it will get very ugly, we all know that.

Kevin, I'm not leaning toward Hillary like you, but I agree with you she's the best of the Democratic bunch on the question that concerns conservatives the most which is how to best deal with the threat of Islamofascism. Michael O' Hanlon supports her which is a good sign because of his strong stance in defense of our troops and General Petraeus. Also former General Claudia, also a top advisor to Hillary, said in

www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=496162bb-d0bb-4aeb-8796-5e034699c0c3

"she does not oppose the Iraq war -- and she said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, either."

I think of all of the liberal Presidential candidates, Hillary is the most likely to continue the freedom agenda of Bush in Iraq which is a good reason to support her.

Hell, this is kind of a sucky post

Not at all, Kevin. Not sucky at all. I think many of us who frequent and comment in your blog do so because we're principled but not dogmatic liberals -- like you -- and many of your intellectual struggles reflect our own. I was amazed at how similar the arguments I have with myself over the Dem candidates mirror your own. It was very illuminating to see them written out. Thanks!
___________________________

So does this mean all pro Hillary blogging from now on?

Who cares how this affects Obama's campaign in SC? It's how it plays among his 'base' - young people, educated people - elsewhere that really matters.

Especially in Iowa and NH, of course.

My hope is that Obama will tank soon enough that Edwards, as the new anti-Hillary, will be able to get some regular news coverage. (Edwards has always been much more of an anti-Hillary than Obama, but what with the Great Edwards News Blackout of 2007, how many people have noticed?)

It's kinda silly to say Edwards is running for veep. It's hard to see either Hillary or Obama choosing him as a running mate. You could say he's running to raise the profile of the issues he cares about, and for all I know that might be true.

But he seems to be running more of a real campaign for President than Obama or Thompson, both of whom have been taken more seriously by the media. Obama seems to be running for Nobel Peace Prize for Bringing Americans Together Again, and Thompson seems to be napping rather than running, period.

Slightly off topic, but relates to one reason people won't embrace Hillary:
Kevin, why did you refer to Senator Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton" in your last paragraph? This is how George Will always refers to her. It keeps her in one's mind as an appendage of her husband's, and not as the fully-formed and accomplished person that she is. I don't recall you referring to her primary opponents as "Mr. Obama" or "Mr. Edwards."

Barak Obama strikes me as an RFK-like figure - a charismatic, patrician idealist whose judgment and honesty I trust far more than the others in the field. But I think you summed up my concerns for him quite well:

it leaves me terrified that he just doesn't know what he's up against with the modern Republican Party and won't have the instinct to go for the jugular when the inevitable Swift Boating commences. (Needless to say, I have no such doubts about Hillary.)

In terms of policy decisions, I think this country is in desperate need of a sincere, Boy Scout like Obama who will tell it like it is or needs to be, even if it's not what you want to hear.

However, a Democratic president is going to go up against a highly efficient, ruthless, sleazy and vicious political machine controlled by the GOP et al. Surviving the attack and being able to fight back is going to be absolutely essential if anything positive is going to get done.

It makes me a little sick for it to come to this, but it seems that the only rational choice for success is to go with the best (perhaps only) political machine the Democrats have: the Clintons.

But to complicate things a bit more, I fear that Hillary and Obama (by virtue of his race and her gender and almost prohibitively high negatives) will be especially easy targets for the GOP smear machine.

Edwards would likely have a comparatively easier time in a general election than either Clinton or Obama.

Sadly, I believe the best shot the Democrats have - both to win a general election and to be successful once in office - isn't running. I really do think this country's last best hope is Gore. The fear of having the highest office monopolized for three decades by only two families sounds a lot like an empire in decline than a Democracy.

The left in general is not in a Kumbaya mood -- and that, in essence, is the problem with Obama's campaign. He's made a collossal misjudgement in assuming we are looking for a uniter who will bridge the partisan divide. I don't want bridges. The constitution has been shredded; the country has turned into something unrecognizable; our politics has veered into Orwellian territory. I want a leader who gives voice to my outrage, who will fight tooth and nail to restore America's moral standing, who will repudiate without equivocation the values and policies of the current administration. We need outrage and indignation, not conciliation or appeasement. I hope Obama realizes this soon.

I am generally not a big fan of Kevin's mushy-middle posturing, but I can't bring my self to criticize this one - it hits right on target. Or flies right through the center of the vapor target as it were.

This I think is why there is still lingering hope for a Gore candidacy. But at this point I don't think that will happen and we will have to settle for Senator Clinton. Dynasty, healthcare/pharma donations, and all.

Cranky

If Obama DOES eventually come up with some killer statement or stand, we need to consider how long it took to make it.

Hillary doesn't knock my socks off. But she's undeniably tough and firm. Invaluable traits in a strong leader. People gave Bush a lot of credit for signing Cheney -- not for his warm fuzzies. Bush himself has been firm and steady (often unfortunately), which his supporters seem to appreciate. That kind of resolve inspires confidence.

Hillary C. won't do foreign policy well. Moreover, the leading contenders of both parties are in the same boat.

Our Humpty-Dumpty of a government cannot do foreign adventures (i.e. imperialism) right anymore.

Maybe the fundaloonies Republicans are right--stop feeding the government.

On the plate of the current Bush regime: Maybe Bomb Iran, maybe Turkey explodes on the PKK, the Kurds rise up in anger, the US-Kurdish proxy army attacks Iran and All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put the Middle East back together again.

Is this a thoughtful policy and how would a Clinton regime change any of that? Oil, access to oil, Israel and AIPAC run our foreign policy.

Americanos wise up. Stop paying for a good-for-nothing-government.

Yankee stay home and instead develop alternatives to oil and coal and do the world a favor!

Dodd/Edwards

Great summary of how many of us feel. At best, the recent Obama misstep-- truly horrible and incompetent-- reinforces questions about his readiness for the big time.

As for Hillary, she can be a great President, much better than Bill. She and Bill need to dig deep and find the mission to lead and serve in a truly historical way. The US and the World badly needs great, constructive leadership!!

I'm with you Kevin. I was really excited about Obama and even donated to his campaign in the spring, but I just don't think he has the fight in him to stand up to the Republican smear machine.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary will be a competant president and after the last 8 years that may be enough.

I just wonder if the media will allow her to win. MSNBC is supposed to be the "liberal" cable channel and everyday starting with Joe Scarbourough, through Chris Matthews and on to Tucker Carlson it is a drum beat of anti-Clintonism.

I love how Matthews criticizes her everyday for bringing the "drama" of her marriage back into focus, while completely ignoring Rudy the serial philanderer's past.

Paying a hairdresser extra to travel to you is worse than having a known bigot emcee your campaign event? Sorry, JeffII, but our campaign faux pas calculus differs radically.

Pace Kevin, I *do* think Edwards is much more passionate this time around, as compared to the Kerry-non-overshadowing-veep-run. Being in Iowa, I have the advantage of seeing the candidates in person, but there's enough footage up on the web for people to keep up with how candidates sound on the stump as opposed to in 2004. Take a couple minutes and check out the clips before you write someone off.

Kevin, why does your reaction to Obama's campaign style influence your thinking? Progressives should pick candidates on substance, not style. Leave that to the idiots who vote for they guy they'd like to drink beer with. Besides , if his style is effect with lots of other people, why should it matterr how it strikes you or me? We're not the only ones who vote.

Other than that your mainn objectioon seems to be that Obama is onnly slightly more courageous than the too-cautiouus Clinton. Doesn't that make him better? Isn't that a good reason to move to his camp? After all, he is ,in fact, more courageous.

Primaries aren't about getting thhe candidate of one's dreams. That happens so rarely that its hardly worth thinking about. Primaries are about the process of arguing and assessing and in the end, casting one's own little vote, in the awareness that one's own little vote is only a tiny part of the decision makinng process. Frickin' Nader supporters held out for the dream candidate.

Lastly, Obama does great at fighting Swiftboaters, much better than Hilary. She's too cautious, to inclined to "rise above it" Obama comes out swinging. Remember, he ws the guy thhat cut off Fox for promoting smears about him. Also being black works to his advantage. The corporate types who control the big media outlets are afriad to appear racist. ABC, if you recall, actually researched --yes, researched! reporters acting like reporters!--the madrassa smear and exposed the lie. Do yu think ABC will do that for Hilary?

I'm sorry for the annoyed tone of this post. But it is annoying that people act like Hilary has already been chosen and then talk themselves into supporting her.

And Hillary, never my fave of this field, has run an outstanding campaign tactically and strategically. One of the best I've seen.

One of the most disappointing things about Obama is that he's likely to leave the race for the Presidency without a trace of what he represented remaining behind.

Ordinarily, a challenger will push the status quo candidate toward bolder positions and approaches, to counter the movement of activists toward the challenger. I think that Dean, for example, did force Kerry to adopt a more confrontational approach toward Bush than he might otherwise have employed (albeit not confrontational enough still).

I can only say that I don't know of any such position or approach of Obama's that Hillary has felt obliged to mimic. So far as I can make out or remember, she's exactly what she was from the beginning -- the one real exception being, I think, that she's become quite aggressive in pushing national health care.

But there I think it's Edwards who took the lead, and forced both Obama and Hillary to copy.

I would certainly far prefer to see Hillary shaped by Edwards and his populist message, than any message being pushed by Obama -- whatever that may be.

Karen on October 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM is right. Rush calls her Mrs. Clinton, too. Granted, the Clinton name isn't the same dirty word for Kevin's audience as it is for Rush's, but to the extent you're sharing his language, you're giving him that little bit more of credibility.

I don't get how anyone could come the conclusion that Hillary would 'hit the ground running' and get a lot done in the Congress. She's scared to death of offending the right. She's spent the last 7 years looking over her shoulder in fear that the right might attack one of her positions as too liberal. She would spend the next 4 doing the same. I like Hillary. I think what people call her cackle is charming. She's funny and engaging and knows her stuff and she's loose and confident - but the last 7 years she let us down on everything, most especially civil liberties.

Obama needs a record of some accomplishments. Sorry to say that with a Harvard JD he has really accomplished very little. Community organizer? What's that? Someone who organizes midnight basketball games. Organizes teen dances at the rec center and says "Fellas on the left side, girls on the right" Part time legislator. Part time law teacher. Something just does not add up. If Obama had set up a clinic or internship program or anything I might be impressed. But he just doesn't cut it. Not good enough. Same for Senate. No leadership. There is a subtle racism to Obama supporters - they only see his skin color and do not judge him as they would any other man or woman. Plus he also seems to be an introvert with a huge ego. A cursory read of one his books shows this.

There is only one candidate consistently showing the courage of his convictions and willing to take on the corruption - Edwards, but he is getting the Al Gore treatment from the media. If only Gore would endorse him. He's the only candidate willing to lay it on the line. HRC wants to take itty bitty baby steps to change. Obama - God only knows what it is he wants to change.

Paying a hairdresser extra to travel to you is worse than having a known bigot emcee your campaign event? Sorry, JeffII, but our campaign faux pas calculus differs radically. Posted by: Wandering Around

Yep - Idiots Out Wandering Around. Re-read my post, you've misread. With Democratic friends like you . . . (and an "educator" to boot).

I want a leader who gives voice to my outrage, who will fight tooth and nail to restore America's moral standing, who will repudiate without equivocation the values and policies of the current administration.

I hear you, I just don't see how anyone could pull a lever for HRC on that basis. Obama's rhetoric might not be strong enough for my liking, but it's quite clear to me that he represents a more significant repudiation of Bush's policies than Hillary does. She doesn't seem to want to take a firm position on reversing any of Bush's worst decisions. I can only assume she wants the latitude while in office to conduct herself as she sees fit, though I doubt very much she could be anywhere near as nasty as Bush.

Still, I don't see how she inspires progressives at all with her campaign. There just seems to be faith that she'll govern much like Bill, and that her presidency will be a restoration of those years.

I live in Wisconsin, so it won't matter who I wind up throwing my vote to. It'll already be decided by the time I hit the booth... and that sucks.

thanks for the post. uggh...

I really like Obama, and can't stand the thought of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle.

I just can't figure out how Obama gets traction.

Well, Kevin, if it makes you feel any better, we are in the same boat.

My favs in order:

(1) Edwards
(2) Hillary
(3) Dodd

Obama isn't ready for prime time. He's where Edwards was in 2004 - some good instincts and charisma, but not enough courage of his convictions and fierceness. Time may cure this.

Notes: IMO Edwards is running for president. But he is raising the profile of his issues by running, and that is a good thing. Also I call Hillary Hillary because that is what she is calling her self. I figure it's her call. :-)

Some people are obviously turned off by all the references to Hillary's 'inevitability'.

A purely liberal reaction, I believe. The appearance of such inevitability is often what unites the GOP. Often the ONLY thing.

While it's hardly a substantial Presidential consideration, it does help win elections.

Well, darn..I had just about made up my mind not to even vote for the first time in my life but now I guess I will have to just to cancel out Kevin's vote for Hillary.

And it's not even that I hate Hillary, I use to be a supporter. Even donated to her first senate campaign.

I am just tired of it all folks, tired of media selected and Dem establishment selected candidates. Tired of the DC incest tank. Tired of government by, of and for the "parties" and their finacial backers. Tired of being thrown a few crumbs from my own taxpayer financed table while the elite get the lions share. Tired of hearing that the public's "entitlement" programs are the problem while they vote themselves more money every year and earmark the budget to hell and back. Tired of financing their strutting their stuff as masters of the universe on the taxpayers American dime while they ignore everything that has anything to do with maintaining the ecomonic and democratic engines that made American what it originally was.

Most of all tired of the Orwellian nightmare of phoney, ponied up "wurs" and the corrupt, stupid politicans that sell them.

I have gone outside the box and am staying outside the box..if I don't have good choices then I chose nothing. I am not going to bother to stick my pinkie in the crater of the hull of the Titantic, let it sink. We can build a new one.

Karen -

"Kevin, why did you refer to Senator Clinton as "Mrs. Clinton" ... I don't recall you referring to her primary opponents as "Mr. Obama" or "Mr. Edwards."

I'm sure Kevin doesn't mean to be derogatory, etc. I assume he writes that way because just writing "Clinton" is still more likely to bring to mind Bill, and not Hillary, in the mind of the reader. I know that is still the case for me.

Maybe we should start refering to her as "Clinton 44" :-)

JeffII. Sorry, you're right. I did misread your post. I thought you had a coherent point. I was wrong.

PS I kinda like the "Idiots Out Wandering Around" moniker -- makes me feel like I live someplace temperate enough that wandering around would be a viable option. Off to go stock up on pork tenderloins now...

I understand Mr. Drum's mood very well. Regardless of what front running Democrat wins the nomination and election, nothing much will change.

Obama's pandering to a perceived anti-homosexual faction is no different than Sen. Brownback's position on the issue. Clinton's voting for the Iran rebuke is no different than McCain's musical call out to bomb Iran. Edwards is a holllow man whose only quality has terminal cancer and will not be there to guide him when the going becomes tough. Kucinich is unelectable despite being the most articulate about the problems and solutions needed to fix America.

The only good that will come out of the next Democratic administration will be expectations will not be realized and the electorate will hopefully rebel and raise hell. Until we really clean house, ridding ourselves of both Democrats and Republicans, nothing will change.

Kevin,

You really should consider supporting Dodd. I feel the same way as you do about the leading candidates. Your last paragraph pretty much summed up my view of the race except that it left out Chris Dodd. I know he's not polling well, but that's because people like you won't consider him.

Why not? I'd love to know why, if any reason. I see a lot more of him in the news because he's my Senator, so I know that I have more opportunities to learn about his views, but on every major issue he seems to have a pragmatic, realistic approach grounded in the liberal principles that we all seem to want in a candidate.

Sujal

Off to go stock up on pork tenderloins now...
Posted by: Wandering Around

Don't forget the peppermint Schnapps, or is that too Wisconsin-Minnesota-ish? :)

You really should consider supporting Dodd. I feel the same way as you do about the leading candidates. Your last paragraph pretty much summed up my view of the race except that it left out Chris Dodd. I know he's not polling well, but that's because people like you won't consider him.

Why not? I'd love to know why, if any reason./em>
Perhaps because he is one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington in supporting illegal infiltration?

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=CT&VIPID=148

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/23146/2005005247141757186_rs.jpg

All this talk sounds too much like 2004, when people held their noses and accepted the inevitability of John Kerry.

I suggest you stop buying into the idea that a presidential race is about only one thing; money and strategy. I suggest you stop with the "politicians are all the same" business. I suggest you stop electing losers.

Do me a favor and read the text of the speech John Edwards delivered yesterday here in New Hampshire.

Then ask yourself two questions.

1) Is this the guy I want in the White House?

If the answer is yes, then ask

2) Can I trust him?

If you decide you want John Edwards in the White House, and you answer "No" to the second question, this may say more about you than John Edwards. I might suggest you ask yourself if you can trust anybody.

If you answer "Yes" to the second question, get off your blog and start working your tails off to fight off the big multi-nationals pushing Hillary Clinton (Kicking off Hillary for Rural America with lunch in the offices of a Monsanto lobbying firm! "Rural America, indeed!)

If you decide that you don't want John Edwards in the White House, there's no reason to answer the second question. Still, get off your blog and go to work to elect the candidate you do want in the White House.

Talk is cheap.

My two main problems with Hillary have always been the dynasty thing, and most importantly, that I thought there was no way in h_ll she could win. I'm still nervous on the second count, but a lot less than I used to be. This is partly because she has greatly improved and partly because at this stage of the game, she appears likely to mop the floor in head-to-head tests with any of the leading Republican candidates. Its always a question of not who is the best in absolute terms, but who are the best of the available choices. I'm sorry Gore decided not to run, I agree he would have been the best president (though not necessarily the best candidate, he still seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that made it so easy for the press to skewer him 2000.) But one of the only times in 35 years I have ever agreed with my father - in - law was in early 2000 when my mother-in-law was fretting about Bill Clinton's all too obvious personal failings: "Well, honey, Jesus Christ isn't going to run!" We will have to dance with one of the folks that has decided to show up at the prom, and Hillary certainly seems the best dancer at the moment.

The other issue I have is that I would like, for a change, to have a President who has worked out his (her) personal issues before being sworn into office. Of the top tier on either side, I think the only choice on that count is Hillary. She certainly has had issues up the wazoo, but she impresses me as someone who has dealt with it as a adult, and moved on, without inflicting a lot of damage from her personal issues on those around her. I know Chris Matthews and his ilk are obsessed with the idea that Bill will 'act up' again, but my guess is that 61 year old heart patient has minimal ability to follow up even he still has the instinct, and I think their is ample reason to believe he has moved beyond some of his demons too. And if anyone still continues to think their relationship is one of convenience rather than an enduring, if difficult to understand, permanent bond, I would suggest they view a tape of a recent Meet the Press, where he (Bill) set across from Tim Russert watching the tape of Hillary b__ch slapping Russert when he tried his smamy gotcha on the Clintons supposed disagreement on the issue of torture. I don't he could fake the glorious glee he showed to her response. And BTW, I think the fact that Hillary is up to a spontaeous b__ch slap of Russert is as good a reason as any to believe she can go the distance.

Kevin, if you really want universal health care - and Lord knows you've blogged about it enough - you'll never ever ever get it if Senator Clinton wins. Not a snowflake's chance in hell. To paraphrase her, she learned from 1993 that you have to work within the System.

If you want to reverse the economic inequality that makes us look like a Third World country, you'll never ever ever get it if Senator Clinton wins. The lobbyists, the PACs, the financial community, hell - even Rupert Murdoch - have all invested too much not to demand a return on investment.

If you want to to end our kids getting killed in quagmires overseas, and if you want us to begin to restore our image in the eyes of the rest of the world, you'll never ever ever get it if Senator Clinton is elected. She buys into the worldview that military intervention is necessary to protect our "interests" - and given the disaster she would inherit from Frat Boy, her reflexive cautiousness would opt for marginal change from the status quo.

If you want us to really meaningfully try and dodge the political, economic, and moral crisis that climate change is preparing for us, you'll never ever ever get it if Senator Clinton is elected.

What you will get in a second Clinton Administration is more Flag Burning Amendments, school uniform bills, bellicose non-binding resolutions, mush, mush, mush. Symbolism in lieu of action.

I argued this point with Steve Soto over at Left Coaster when he declared for Hillary. His argument was very much like yours - she's the only one who can match the Right in street fighting, and because we're so inherently weak in the face of the Smear Machine we have to settle for barely winning and give up our aspirations for substantive change. Well, I say that's poppycock. If we stand for a clear alternative to business as usual, I think the people will follow. People want change right now - it's a golden opportunity. I don't want us to miss it.

I stopped disliking Senator Clinton, beyond the normal disdain I have for anyone who runs for office and thus seeks the power to rule me, the moment she actually did run for office. She certainly is preferable to Giuliani, if it comes to that, and I really can't say I have any strong preference for any Republican. Romney has a decent resume, but gosh, what a phony he is. Thompson manages to be inoffensive for the most part, but that's about all that can be said.

As to the Democrats, Obama just strikes me a younger Democratic Thompson; I mean what has the guy ever done, besides being inoffensive? The amount of hope some invest in him is remarkable. Edwards gives me pause for the same major reason I voted in a Republican primary in 2000, which I had never done before, to cast a ballot against George W. Bush, despite the fact that I also greatly dislike McCain. Guys who make huge piles of cash from unsavory enterprises, like Bush via taxpayer subsidies and eminent domain, or Edwards by making phony claims in front of juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy, often have extremely bad ideas of how the world should work. Bush has certainly been every bit as bad domestically as I feared, and I suspect Edwards will be similar.

Senator Clinton has made some pretty good cash by the means our political scum usually does, but certainly with nothing approaching the methods of Bush and Edwards. We could do worse than Senator Clinton, and we well might.

dc susie,the dynasty thing is of course very unfortunate, and I can certainly can see why someone would not wish to vote for Senator Clinton as a result, but it'd be nice if someone would give a positive reason for voting for them.

Not a horrible post at all. I rather liked reading your almost stream of consciousness thoughts on the candidates. Like you, I've been wanting Obama to do something to make me want to support him and it hasn't happened and at this point I don't see it happening. My problems with Clinton are things that are out of her control but they're real -- I loathe the prospect of 24 (at least) years of having either a President Bush or a President Clinton. And I absolutely dread a return to the Clinton Rules (although at least we'll have blogs to fight back with this time). I had convinced myself that HRC wasn't really going to run -- that all the hype was a combination of the wet dreams of the right and the speculation-mongering of the press. "She's too smart to run," I told myself and my friends. I wish I had been right. That being said, I agree that she'd be a good and possibly great president who could certainly hit the ground running. Just not a candidate I ever see myself getting excited about.

Sure, she's calculating and political, but every politician is calculating and political. Her only problem is that she isn't quite as good as hiding it as some of the others.

I'm sorry for saying so, Kevin, but that's the most egregious bullshit I've ever read in anything you've ever posted.

Is Giuliani "good at hiding" his calculating and political nature? Good God, the man has completely reversed himself on gay rights, abortion, and gun control, he can't take two breaths without mentioning 9-11, and he takes "phone calls" from his wife in the middle of campaign speeches. Do you see anyone calling him "calculating" or "political" when he pulls these stunts?

John McCain looooves to call attention to the fact that he was a POW, he regularly mischaracterizes his past positions on important issues, and he has recently sucked up to the very same people who trashed him in 2000. Is he "calculating" or "political"? Hell, no. He's a "stright-talker!"

This, Kevin, is exactly what Bob Somerby was complaining about, and his point seems to elude you.

My two main problems with Hillary have always been the dynasty thing . . . I'm sorry Gore decided not to run

Well, there was a bit of the dynasty thing going with Gore and his dad, too.

What bothers me about all the leading Democrats is that they are not as willing to bail on Iraq as I am. What consoles me is that they all seem to be reality-based types--left to formulate an actual policy, as opposed to campaigning, they are going to look first to get us a policy that works, and that will eventually get us out of Iraq.

Yuck, Kevin.

You sound like you have no choice but to support Hillary or Obama, which is just what the DC Village and corporate media have been putting in our nation's collective faces for the past year.

Mission accomplished, is what corporate board members in media companies are saying.

Me? I'm still holding out for Al Gore, though that appears completely beyond hope right now. And therefore I am still going to vote for either Edwards or Kucinich, who I believe the be the best of the announced candidates. My cohice in the voting booth will depend upon how many others like you have decided by the day before the primary in CA that there is no choice but Hillary or Obama.

I can't believe we have handed the Republicans the gift of Hillary or Obama in order to unify the Republicans when they are in such disarray.

KEVIN DRUM- THE RAMBLING MAN.

good ramble kevin.

The main issue I have with Hillary is that she has no principles. She will do or say anything to get elected.

I know what Obama stands for (inclusiveness).

I know what Edwards stands for (helping the lower and middle classes).

I know what Richardson stands for (ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home).

What does Hillary stand for ????

Thanks Luther, I did not know Sen. Dodd was a friend of the Western Hemisphere's indigenous human beings. The more I learn about Dodd the more I like him. He did not vote for the bankruptcy reduction law either. If Dodd can prevent Mukasey from becoming AG, he may win my primary vote.

because it makes it seem more likely that teaming up with McClurkin was a deliberate decision, not just a staff mistake

Here's the quiet bigotry that has been pushing this whole unfortunate situation: this notion that McClurkin was invited because of his views, which apparently are critical to securing the African American vote. Couldn't be that he was invited because he's one of the most popular gospel singers in the country. Has to be his homophobic views? Why? Cause that's what gay rights groups think appeals to black folks. Thanks--it's okay to engage in bigotry so long as you are doing so in defense of bigotry. Got it.

It was a deliberate decision. He found popular gospel singers who support his campaign to perform at a gospel concert. It wasn't a forum on human sexuality or religion and sexuality. It was a gospel concert. A week later and a thousand Aravosis post later, it turned into him giving a stage for a homophobe.

I hate identity politics, for this very reason.

Hmm... while I understand the confusion. I'm confused there too. This is really about how someone has handled a very bad situation. The ex-gays "movement" has been seriously discredited and is more organized and more prepared to do battle than any group of anti-science religious fundamentalists. To even associate himself with these guy shows a serious lack of judgment. He's been running away from his support in the gay community -- and throwing us under the bus, even -- for quite some time. I'm not a member of the looney left -- I'm young and educated and should be the backbone of his paradigm changing campaign. Yes I did support Dean in 04, but that's because I liked his mix of center left policies and positions. I eventually voted for Edwards for the same reason. I remember being really jazzed about Jerry Brown in 92 -- the first year that I could vote. And voted for him as mayor of Oakland. Again, although he's portrayed as being a leftist is really about sensible democratic policies. Of lowering government handouts. Of inspiring people from the middle. (Remember Brown was winning in 92 and attracting huge numbers to the polls, until Clinton was declared the saviour of the old guard democrats.) I want Obama to challenge the democratic party and bring his koombaya approach to really dealing with these issues like showing his support for religion by making the separation of church and state and important cause. And being able to sell that to the country, while also being able to push the loony right back to the caves where it used to keep its mimeograph machines. In the end, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the primaries. I like Clinton, actually. Although I don't always agree with her positions -- but she has not positioned herself as being outside tradition. Obama needs to stick with his guns or go home.

Count me as another one who's evolving from resigned to Clinton being inevitable to actively enthused about it.

What I want is someeon who's tough, not afraid to hit back hard, able to think on their feet, disciplined enough to stay focused and on target.

The only person who fits that description is Clinton.

The only substantive objection to her that I've heard in the progressive blogophere is a distaste for her middle-of-the-road ways.

Everything else - from faux dynasty concerns (please: look up the word, ok?) to repetition of RW/GOP memes about how cold and calculating she is - is non-substantive. Has nothing to do with policy, nor with who she's likely to appoint to carry out policy. These kinds of criticisms drive me nuts because they have nothing to do with what a President is about, or why we vote for one, or what we hope and need the next President to do.

I've become suspicious, at the very least, at those who keep repeating those vaporous and irrelevant criticisms. I don't think they're meant to do the Dems, or the country, any good. In fact, I think they're concocted and spread by people who hope the Dems lose in 2008.

Obama: Throw the gays overboard.

Gay Rights Groups: All African Americans are homophobes. Throw them overboard.

giving a stage for a homophobe.

If the high-heeled pump fits....

Wow, Obama has really been picking up with me the last few months. Now I have a mother who is a hardcore dem but thinks gay people are generally icky but also supports full non-discrimination for them in the workplace and civil unions for all (marriage meaning nothing for governmental purposes only a religious ceremony, say like Baptism).

So I personally have little problem with Obama on this issue because I am convinced he supports non-discrimination, which is all anyone can do on a policy level. As for the statement itself, if McClurkin meant is in terms of celibacy, like say St. Augustine and his raging hormones that's all right but if was more like a transformation into a heterosexual that's more problematic.

Obama is a flash in the pan. Hillary is Hillary.

"What I want is someone who's tough, not afraid to hit back hard, able to think on their feet, disciplined enough to stay focused and on target."

John Edwards fits that description better than Hillary. He hasn't quit for four years of near total discouragement, and he won't quit on us if elected.

Gay Rights Groups: All African Americans are homophobes. Throw them overboard.

That is an outright lie, you Republican troll.

Casey,

Hillary has permanently high negatives among at least 40-45% of the people in this nation who will always compare her unfavorably to just about anyone the Republicans nominate. That is the problem, and if Bob Somerby thinks otherwise, then I disagree for once with Bob.

The last polling showed her going no better than 48% to any Republican, including Ron Paul when most respondents did not even know who he was. That is the most significant polling analysis to me because it shows me there is a 52% default against Hillary. Therefore, we have a very close election at best--we haven't seen corporate media get fed the barrage of anti-Clinton stuff the right and Republican Party operatives will begin throwing after the primary season--and worst, another state like Ohio or Florida where the Dems lose a close one that tips the electoral college to the Republicans. Again.

Better to have Edwards in there. Even Kucinich, if he was given a chance by people in Iowa and New Hampshire, would look Harry Truman scrappy against a nut job like Guiliani or the ultimately shallow Huckabee.

And Al Gore, if you or someone you know is reading this, would you just announce already? I'm ready to send a check and work like hell for you. You are ready to lead. Now lead, dammit!

I think your "rambling" comments perfectly capture the current democratic voter populace, who is just about as torn as you are, but leaning in the directions you are.

Juanita:

I'm not a troll. I'm an African-American watching how quickly everyone seems to be to paint us as not only homophobic, but that one has to APPEAL to that homophobia to get our vote. I'm not the one pushing this nonsense. I'm not saying that Obama selected McClurking BECAUSE of his views. But that's EXACTLY what's being said. Over and over again.

McClurkin's views are, just that, his views. His appeal to African Americans has everything to do with his GOSPEL SINGING and little or nothing to do with his views on homosexuality. You wouldn't realize that if you've been following this so -called controversy. Not defending McClurkin, but I'm going to call foul where I see one.

And if you think I'm full of crap, tell me how many times you read or heard the "Obama wouldn't invite a Klansmen" comment during the course of this debate? And before you answer, what appeal does a Klansmen have to an audience, if not his bigoted views, especially when the SOLE identifying characteristic is his identity as a klansmen?

And what does John Aravosis have to say on this point:

"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul."

I'm sure I'm just overreacting.

Your rambling, incoherent, fact-free, logic-free swamp of thought is undoubtedly a great deal like that of the ordinary voter. That's why the race is Hillary's to lose.

Just please save this sterling discourse somewhere - perhaps varnish it onto a nice heavy piece of wood, that you can use to smack yourself in the head while reading news reports about our boys and girls in Iran and Syria in 2009.

This was a test by black folks to determine if Obama was really black or not. Nothing more, nothing less. Donny McClurkin is so huge in the black community and for Obama to disavow him would have been the end of his candidacy as far as blacks are concerned.

Everyone knows that McClurkin is in fact gay, but appears to be in some type of self denial.

My 2cents

I don't expect anyone will actually read this or respond to it, but here goes:

The #1 reason--by a WIDE MARGIN--that liberals hate George Bush and consider his presidency to be a failure is the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton voted for and supported the same Iraq War that is the primary source of Bush hatred among progressives, yet she is their top candidate. What is going on here? Liberals hate Bush for the Iraq War that he started, yet they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the fact that Hillary voted for and supported the same Iraq War. If Bush is a bad president because of the Iraq War, then why is Hillary an improvement when her vote in favor of the same war clearly indicates that she would have done the same thing if she were president?

Talk about "damning with faint praise...".

If that's the best endorsement of Hillary Clinton you can come up with, Kevin, well...I think I'll pass.

Thom Hartman who is on Air America radio, and is a brilliant man, makes an excellent point about American presidents - In America we are supposed to be picking representatives not leaders. Our form of government is a representative democracy, not a monarchy or autocracy where we pick people who will think for us. That is why Bush is such a piss poor president - he thinks he know what is best for us and the hell with the will of the people. Of course, that's how he came into office, so we shouldn't be surprised by his jaundiced view of the world.

The ideal president is the person who would best assimilate all viewpoints and make decisions that represent the greatest number of points of view. On that basis, of the Democrats, I have to go with John Edwards.

I'm sure I'm just overreacting.

I don’t think so. I think John Aravosis is a fucking bigot.

"I hate identity politics, for this very reason."
--Posted by: Keith on October 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Thanks so much for your support, straight people. You don't get it, to use that overworked phrase, and you bloody never will. Calling John Aravosis a racist is not just stupid, it's offensive.

McClurkin is not only a known gay-hater, but he used the last half-hour of his appearance at the event to LECTURE THE AUDIENCE ON GAY HATRED. And poor Obama was shocked, SHOCKED to learn that this thing could possibly happen.

The simple fact is that even well-meaning straight people never understand the visceral impact of these haters. Oh, you sympathize, some of you at least, but for you it isn't a slamming punch in the gut. "What a shame," you murmur, as you turn to the sports page, "too bad these gay folk are such a thin-skinned bunch. Damn identity politics."

Well, fuck you.

You have to be joking about needing reasons to support Obama vs. Hillary. (1) Iraq. (2) Hillary is a life long politician. Enough said.

Re: John Edwards..."and on a policy level I like him better than either Hillary or Obama" What other level is there? I'm sorry, but unless you've been trapped in the wild with these folks and shared intimate truths, there is no other level upon which a rational decision can be made. I can't help thinking that this is the entire (or the main) problem with electorate. We spend too much time reading tea leaves (electability) or mind-reading peoples' motives that we actually think that policy is only one of many factors that must be weighed (if weighed at all). Disturbing.

Thanks so much for your support, straight people.

Assumptions and generalizations from a hypocrite.

Actually, Augustus says it better than I do regarding Obama
...whose judgment and honesty I trust far more than the others in the field.

Either you can worry about stupid campaign snafus that mean absolutely nothing about policy or you can worry about who you can actually trust as president. This snafu doesn't really mean jack shit in terms of real policy making judgment, honesty, or his character in general.

"Assumptions and generalizations from a hypocrite."

Oh, I get it. This has nothing to do with Obama, as far as you're concerned, you're just a tired, pathetic homophobe.

Don't bother answering.

Jprichva:

Apparently you confuse me for one of the uninformed members patrolling this internets. I'm not endorsing or condoning McClurkin's views. I'm only saying that castigating all African-Americans as homophobes to discredit this man is bullshit.
If Obama is a bigot because he McClurkin perfomed at a gospel concert, then John Aravosis is a racist for trading in this type of thought. Just as you can call McClurkin on the carpet for his misguided views, I'm going to call anyone who trades in this type of logic to advance their views.
Not a homophobe, not being dismissive of gay rights (or the impact of homophobia). Just pointing out that Aravosis and others are trading in bigotry to call attention to McClurkin's bigotry.
And I'll have to politely decline your offer.

Shorter Kevin: I'm for Edwards, but that doesn't seem to be right, somehow.

Just go for it, will you?

you're just a tired, pathetic homophobe.

No, you’re very confused.

"I'm an African-American watching how quickly everyone seems to be to paint us as not only homophobic"

Sigh.... Talk about not getting it. Let's just start with the fact that some of the outraged commentary is, in fact, coming from African-Americans. And that nobody has claimed that African-Americans are homophobic. We're claiming that McClurkin is homophobic, and we have the quotes to prove it.

"but that one has to APPEAL to that homophobia to get our vote."

Nobody has claimed this, either. You'd do a lot better if you'd engage the arguments actually being made instead of the arguments you're creating yourself.

"I'm not the one pushing this nonsense. I'm not saying that Obama selected McClurking BECAUSE of his views. But that's EXACTLY what's being said."

And again, no, it's not, which is why you cannot back up these assertions. What is, in fact, being said is that Obama either got blindsided by the depth of McClurkin's bigotry or that he knew about it and decided to ignore it, for whatever reason. Either of these is sufficient to call into question Obama's judgment. Either of these is sufficient to justify this controversy.

"McClurkin's views are, just that, his views."

So are David Duke's. Would you have supported Obama inviting him to this tour? McClurkin is a self-loathing bigot, whose statements are enormously offensive to gay men and women and to progressives who are inclusive. You would question Obama's judgment if he invited a racist to join this our; why should I not question his judgment when he invites McClurkin?

"His appeal to African Americans has everything to do with his GOSPEL SINGING and little or nothing to do with his views on homosexuality."

What difference does that make? He's still a homophobic bigot whose views are deeply offensive. Why should I *not* question Obama's judgment for ignoring those views, particularly in light of the fact that McClurkin got an uninterrupted half hour to expound on those bigoted views at the event?

"You wouldn't realize that if you've been following this so -called controversy. Not defending McClurkin, but I'm going to call foul where I see one."

You obviously are not looking hard enough; or, rather, you're looking, all right, but in the wrong place.

"And if you think I'm full of crap, tell me how many times you read or heard the 'Obama wouldn't invite a Klansmen' comment during the course of this debate?"

You are, in fact, full of crap. And what on earth is wrong with that "Klansmen" [sic] comment? That is precisely the point -- McClurkin's views are just as offensive, just as bigoted, just as stupid, as are those of a Klansman. Instead of dismissing the point, why don't you deal with it?

"And before you answer, what appeal does a Klansmen have to an audience, if not his bigoted views, especially when the SOLE identifying characteristic is his identity as a klansmen?"

So a gospel-singing Klansman who preaches for half an hour on racial purity would be fine with you?

"I'm sure I'm just overreacting."

Nope; just completely missing the point.

"I'm only saying that castigating all African-Americans as homophobes to discredit this man is bullshit."

Nice strawman. Since nobody has done this, I'm afraid you don't have a point.

Keith--

First off, I also think you miss the point, but it wasn't you who I was calling a tired, pathetic homophobe, it was the troll 'antigone'.

The point you miss is that some things have to be entirely out of bounds, as PaulB said, and inviting people to appear with you whose views are violently offensive has to be one of them. This doesn't paint the entire African-American community as homophobic...in fact, I know from first-hand experience that it is not..but it does say that by dismissing our concerns you are drawing a double standard that you yourself would never permit. To beat that horse once more, if David Duke could draw Obama some votes, you could be sure that Obama still wouldn't invite him to join a concert, even if Duke's voice were finer than McClurkin's. It just ain't right.

And the part you don't get is that just because African-Americans have been an oppressed minority for 400 years doesn't give them or any one of them license to turn around and do the same thing to another minority group.

YOU would be outraged if Duke were onstage with Obama...and more than outraged, you would feel it like a punch in the gut. Not merely "dissed", you would feel BETRAYED. Particularly from a candidate whose whole campaign was built around the notion that he is somehow above or past or beyond such nasty visceral appeals.

What this has shown us is that he is NOT above these things, when convenient. And so we are disgusted.

"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul�

Gosh PaulB, you seem to have missed the “his own community“ thing. This would be the community of gay-bashers and wife-beaters of which Obama is a member?

Dems are going after more money for Bushs war, Obama this is the year of 2007 and you need to wake up there never has been a black man as president and it is not going to change in 2008 so seriously we are up a creek without a paddle again,get ready for some more republican bullshit for at least 5 more years, Democrats promised a change if elected to office and you idiots are just as bad as the republicans and I do think Bushs mental health is an issue, need to check if he actually does have a brain, he can barely speak the english language.

I feel like I could have written this exact same post (though maybe not as well, since Kevin is in better practice as a writer). I've even made the point to friends that Edwards is running for vice president, and they just look at me with a blank look of confusion.

Another problem I have with Obama's campaign is how defensive his supporters appear. Even though I support Hillary, I'm definitely aware of her flaws and I'll gladly criticize her if she's said something I don't like. I think we need to go back to a time when it felt safe to criticize our leaders. All this "respect for the president over everything" crap is dangerous.

And that's what I worry about with Obama. His supporters will justify any misstep he makes, and I feel like we've had enough of that with Bush.

"Gosh PaulB, you seem to have missed the 'his own community' thing. This would be the community of gay-bashers and wife-beaters of which Obama is a member?"

ROFL.... Is that really the best you can do? I'm not even going to bother replying to that bit of nonsense, particularly since John himself has already addressed it.

What's even more notable is your complete failure to actually address any of the valid points raised here and elsewhere. Why is that?

Paul B:

Let's just start with the fact that some of the outraged commentary is, in fact, coming from African-Americans.

So because some African Americans are outraged, it's okay to make stereotypical statements that impugn African-Americans in general, and Senator Obama in particular? Or does it mean that I can't be outraged because another member of my tribe is not similarly outraged? I forget, are African-Americans still a monolethic group?

And that nobody has claimed that African-Americans are homophobic.

Apparently you haven't read Mr. Hutchinson's (who's African-American) post over at Huffington Post. Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudiate-an_b_69244.html

Here's Aravosis in full bloom (yet again):

this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul."

Now you tell me, which community is Obama curry favor with by embracing gay-bashers? And if he's doing so to curry favor, wouldn't that imply that said community considers gay-bashing an important quality?

And the point was that the bigotry is IMPLIED by the argument (or conclusion) that Obama invited McClurkin on the tour because of his views. As an example, see the language I quoted from Kevin.

Would you have supported Obama inviting him to this tour? No. Why? Because, as I understand it, David Duke isn't a gospel singer. In fact, the only thing I know about him is he's run for political office in Louisiana (and possibly national office, but I could be wrong) and he is or was a former member of the Klan. If he invited him to a colloquim on race relations? I would absolutely support him being invited. However misguided, ignorant and just racist his views are on African-Americans, his not alone in those views. And to the extent our goal is to eradicate that ignorance, I think one has to let it be aired in public and discredited for what it is: ignorance.

And what on earth is wrong with that "Klansmen" [sic] comment

First, no Klansmen is ever going to get on stage with Obama or perform at a black gospel concert. Never. But let's assume a country & western singer who happens to have what many in the African-American community consider racist, knowing Obama's strong stance on racial issues, is drawn to his campaign and wants to support him for president (sincerely), in spite of his stance on race issue. He wants to be part of a country & western concert touring in Alabama. Would I be up in arms about it? No. Why? His presence on the stage, in and of itself, does not affect (IMHO) Obama's views on race-related issue or constitute an endorsement of his views. It does, however, speak to Obama's appeality to bring more Americans together. And as I explain above, the only way to eradicate bigotry/ignorance is through exposure and education. A better example, based on the facts of this situation, would be Rick Warrens (sp) inviting Obama to speak at his church on AIDS/HIV over the opposition of many on the right because of Obama's views on abortion.

So a gospel-singing Klansman who preaches for half an hour on racial purity would be fine with you?
Apparently you miss the point of my statement. The sole appeal of David Duke, apparently, are his racist views. So, he'd only be invited to the extent those views are RELEVANT to the subject matter of the event and the audience. For this analogy to work, McClurkin would have to have been invited because his views on homosexuality were relevant to the event and the audience. Which is what my original point is all about.

If you can't understand argument by implication, then I don't know what to tell you.

particularly since John himself has already addressed it

Yes. He deleted it and claimed that he didn't really mean to write that or imply that. Oh and he blocked anyone who called on him on this issue and deleted their post, as well.

Keith--

What you are really demonstrating here is that you will bend yourself over backwards to defend Obama and the notion that when bigotry is aimed at African-Americans it is appalling, but when it is aimed at gays it's something we should be terribly understanding about.

And all the sophistry in the world doesn't change that.

John himself has already addressed it.

You mean he deleted it, but he wrote it and he’s responsible for that.

What's even more notable is your complete failure to actually address any of the valid points raised here and elsewhere. Why is that?

If you mean McClurkin's views, I disagree with them but they are his not Obama’s. I think Obama has to deal with what McClurkin said since it was at a campaign event. It’s a valid issue. So is the way Aravosis and others are dealing with it.

jprichva:

Thanks for your response. I think I've addressed the issue regarding David Duke and how if you take it to its logical conclusion, you are in fact implying that McClurkin's fans are his fans, in large part because of his bigoted views. That may not be the intent, but that's certainly how it plays out in my eyes.

I've had this conversation with a friend of my who is extremely angered by this whole situation. She's teetering in her support of Senator Obama. And I told her, if you believe that this episode outweighs Senator Obama's verifiable commitment to LGBT issues, then you absolutely shouldn't vote for him. But you also should not vote for anyone that is actively seeking the support of African-Americans by courting African-American ministers and state lawmakers who hold the same views.

My point isn't to question the right of LGBT members to call McClurkin on the carpet. That's your right and I fully support you and others right to do so. I would just appreciate it if you stopped pushing this David Duke/racist/ant-jewish analogy--it isn't accurate and it's not advancing this issue; or that Senator Obama did this to curry favor with the African-American community (other than the pure musical aspects of the situation). At least not in my opinion.

I do not think the Edwards advocates understand that before Edwards entered the campaign he went to work for a hedge fund that owned two subprime lenders. Edwards may speechify about helping the lower and middles classes, but he works for the rich who exploit them.

Obama, like Edwards, is too afraid to advocate for civil liberties for homosexuals. They have this policy because they think it will help them win elections. They allow for the compromised civil rights of other people so they can satisfy their egos and win elections.

Clinton wants to become the first female president. She does not want to become president to change America's bullying foreign policy, to end the war in Iraq or to provide a plan for universal healthcare. She wants to be president to satisfy her need for public approval. She will sell every moral principle she has and advocate bombing any popular antichrist to achieve that goal.

All candidates must have a desire to become president to satisfy their egos before they can become president. That should not be their main reason for running, though. Of the three top Democratic candidates, it is ego that drives them, not issues or policies. What is d