Booman Tribune

Understanding Victory

by BooMan
Wed May 7th, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST

Far too much attention has been paid to race, gender, and class in this election process, but it has exposed certain fault lines, as well as winners and losers, within the Democratic coalition. FDR built his ruling majority on the backs of the segregationist South, blacks and ethnic voters in the North, and academics/classic liberals. The most uncomfortable fit, and the easiest to carve out, was the segregationist South, which Nixon did starting back in 1968. Reagan made further inroads by exploiting lower-class white resentment/fear of busing, affirmative-action, urban crime, and government assistance to the black community. The two coalitions that have remained most loyal to the Democratic Party (blacks and liberals) are also the two groups that have suffered the brunt of Republican attacks since the Republicans first adopted the Southern Strategy. We have been marginalized to the point that even our own side sees us as little more than a danger to the party's electoral prospects.

For the generation of Democrats that lived through the lopsided losses of 1972, 1984, and 1988, there is nothing more damaging than a war protester or a Jesse Jackson-style public face to the party. Joe Klein, Chris Matthews, and their whole generation of left-leaning pundits, see blacks as a mortal threat to the Reagan Democrats, and they think of academics/liberals as an embarrassment that gives the party a reputation for being soft on crime and national security.

We (meaning blacks and liberals) have been the red-headed step-child of the party for far too long. This is what makes Barack Obama's accomplishment all the more significant. He's black, he's urban, he's Northern, and he's liberal. All the cards were stacked against him and he had to compensate by running on a fairly centrist platform, calling for post-partisanship, and playing down his black identity as much as possible.

Of course, he was attacked by liberals for his centrism and lack of raw partisanship, he was attacked by the Clintons for his liberal associations and his black associations, and his minister was used by both the Clintons and the press to try to make him the angry black candidate. But he survived all that.

The winners are, for once, the blacks and liberals that have been the most stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party since FDR built our ruling coalition. But the losers are the Reagan Democrats, the Baby Boom generation (particularly Boomer women), and the corporatists that form the core of the Clinton/DLC machine. And, as someone that has always been taken for granted inside the Democratic Party, I fully understand the pain and bitterness that the newly marginalized are feeling. For a long time, the whole meta-narrative of electoral politics in this country revolved around appealing to white voters from the lower classes, particularly ethnic (usually Catholic) whites, and white voters of retirement age. If you add in the gender disappointment element, you have a cocktail for a serious feeling of loss for the people that fall into those demographics.

They not only feel marginalized and unloved by the party, but they honestly believe that a black man cannot win. That's not surprising...they don't think an overt liberal can win, either, and for the same reason. Blacks and liberals are an embarrassment and must be hidden from view at election time.

But that is no longer true. Four things have changed it. The Youth Vote is both indifferent to race and much more racially diverse, and they identify as Democrats in overwhelming numbers. Barack Obama is the perfect representative for their generation. Second, 85% of the country thinks the country is on the wrong track and people are receptive to an argument for change. The old Republican attacks and policy prescriptions do not have the same appeal, nor does their usual fear-mongering. Third, demographic changes have made the electorate less white, less-Christian, and more tolerant of others. And, fourth, technological change has enabled candidates to go around the media, around the union bosses, around the urban mayors, around the big money donors, around the corporate and PAC money, and appeal directly to the people.

Taken in combination, this has changed the rules of the game to such a degree that either a black man, or a liberal, or both can now be elected in this country. And, ironically, this is what I (and the blogosphere more generally) have been arguing all along. This is what the 50-State Strategy was all about. This is what online progressive communities and small donor coalitions are all about. This is what the alternative media is all about. That's why I've been so disappointed to see so many of my colleagues complaining about how Obama has done this. He boycotts FOX News for nearly two solid years and people throw a fit when he breaks the streak. He validates everything we stand for, but he doesn't engage in Lakoffian framing games or pay due deference to the blogosphere gatekeepers, so people 'feel lost' and nitpick every last little thing that Obama does.

Make no mistake. Obama is a multiracial child of Hawaii, an academic/urban/liberal, with a background in community activism. This guy has knocked doors in the inner city, just as many of us have done. He knows our concerns in his bones. And he's our nominee.

We're going win this. And a lot of the people that are feeling hurt will soon discover that we have no intention of making them the new red-headed step-children of the party. They're as welcome as anyone else.



Display:
Huffpost Exclusive -O'Donnell:

Clinton Senior Offical: A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be a Democratic nominee by June 15. He could not bring himself to say the words "Hillary will drop out by June 15," but that is clearly what he meant. I kept saying, "So, Hillary will drop out by June 15," and he kept saying, "We will have a nominee by June 15." He stressed what a reasonable person Hillary is.



Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"
by idredit on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
I thought Terry Mc said this already a couple of weeks ago.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh
by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends. Did he say it on a Tuesday. Was he standing? The Clinton camp keeps moving the goal posts.

This week, the math  to win the nomination  is 2,209

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, eventually they're going to figure out we're playing basketball now and there aren't any goalposts.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh
by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A great post, BooMan.

And it'll fall on deaf ears.  The damage has been done.  Obama is more the enemy than McCain is to millions of Clinton backers.  Susie Madrak's post really shows the problem here, the entire time it was Obama's fault for pursuing African-Americans and not Clinton's fault at all.

To a lot of hard core Clintonistas this thing has been about race.  They see Obama, they go "Look, let's be honest here.  Racism in America is alive and well.  I know my friends and co-workers and people I go to worship with and parents of my kid's friends and the neighbors down the street, and they will not vote for a black man for President".

When they say "Obama isn't electable!" they mean "He's Black.  He can't win because of racism.  McCain will be President because of this, you idiots.  Don't you want to WIN in November?  Why can't you see that only Hillary can beat McCain?"

They truly believe this.  They are tying themselves in logical Gordian knots to do everything but avoid actually saying the truth, that they think Obama will get crushed due to good old-fashioned American racism.

So BooMan, I respect your efforts to reach out to our fellow Dems, because after all we're on the same side.  But it's not going to happen.  The era that a lot of the hardcore Clintonistas came from is the era of racism, and they don't believe it will ever change, and operate cynically under that assumption.

Which of course assures it will never change.

I think they're wrong, of course.

But I'm black.  What would I know about racism in America?

by Zandar1 on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
Zandar, I agree with most of what you're saying about racism in America. I just wouldn't put all of it on all, or even most, Clinton supporters. There is about six months between now and the November election. At some point the Clinton supporters will have to decide between McCain and Obama. I think that Obama is the candidate who can speak reasonably to all Americans. Some won't listen but I suspect a majority will.
by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe Zandar is correct.  The Excuse Machine has been wheeled out and people are saying all sorts of silly things.  

That post from riverdaughter is still annoying me.

Brendan Calling John Mccain

by brendan on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had to bite my tounge on that one too.  I still don't get how they think that Obama won using racial division.  It's like we've been watching two different primaries.

If they want to vote for McCain because of bruised egos it's their right and I'm not going to try and stop them.  We're all grown-ups here, aren't we?

by Fledermaus on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder how much of this is about racism and how much is just the (understandable) fear of change. And I don't mean change in the campaign slogan kind of way, but the fundamental shifting of the power structure in the party. Any of us who have been through a "major restructuring" in our workplaces have witnessed it. People desire change when they recognize things aren't working but change can be painful and many will work with all their might to resist big changes. Think of middle managers fighting to protect "their turf" in a corporate restructuring. They're afraid of losing the little empires they've built, regardless of whether those empires even serve a productive purpose anymore.

Fortunately, I think we're lucky to have Obama, an inspirational figure, leading the change. Over the next few months, he, along with the Clintons, need to assure everyone that it's all going to be okay and that these changes are necessary for the future of the party. Once people realize that they are not being targeted as enemies within the party and that they can serve a meaningful role in the new structure, they will either join the new team or get out of the way.

Racism does still exist, that's for sure. In some places it's alot worse than in others. But structural changes with an organization can be as scary to some people as confronting any racial or other prejudices they may be hiding behind. Unfortunately for them, some are going to have to confront both fears at the same time if they want to keep a place at the table. When we win this thing and we show that our diversity is actually our strength, they'll see that it's all been worth it.

by RandyH on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good points there, Randy.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper spells out Hillary's To-Do List.


  1. Win in West Virginia next week -- dispatch Bill asap

  2. Go on to win in Puerto Rico and Kentucky, racking up popular votes as much as humanly possible (need to have popular vote argument to make to Super-Ds)

  3. Try to pick off one of the three remaining "Obama" primaries -- Oregon, Montana or South Dakota

  4. Argue that Obama should have won Indiana; a post-game recalibration of expectations

  5. Point to ugly exit poll data from Indiana showing 50% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama in the Fall

  6. Push back on Obama "achievement" in Indiana that he lost white women by only 61%-39% -- as opposed to larger losses in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Argue: What kind of crazy worldview is this?

  7. Look for more oppo. Another minister? Ayers? When does Rev. Wright's book come out?

  8. MICHIGAN and FLORIDA ...The number 2,025 no longer exists. 2,209...2,209...2,209... Make it a civil rights issue

  9. Push the money thing - Obama outspent us significantly, and yet he cannot put us away

  10. Hard sell to superdelegates. This is going to happen and we have long memories. Stay on the fence.

And all of that gets summed up in this...


11. Pray
by Zandar1 on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by BooMan on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
has been this nagging fear.  And I don't think it is an unfounded, tin-foil hat kind of fear, either.

How does the dynamic of this election change in the next six months if we wake up one morning and this is playing out on our television screens.

The Bush Administration has made it clear that they seek to resolve the Iranian problem before it leaves office. They have defined the Iranian problem in quite stark terms. It's a nation pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program. It's a nation that retains the status, according to the United States, as the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world today. And if you listened to the testimony of General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker, it's the nation solely responsible for all that ails the United States in Iraq today. President Bush responded to Petraeus and Crocker's testimony by calling the Iranians criminals, noting that they will be crushed.

...

When we talk about the initiation of the conflict, the Bush Administration continues to live under the illusion that it can limit this conflict. I concur that once we initiate . . . I was always trained in the military that the enemy has a vote. There's the other side of the coin. When you start something, you've suddenly lost control. No plan survives initial contact with the enemy.

...

If Iran retaliates, it will lead to the spinning out of control. If they shut down the Straits of Hormuz, which they can do, if they intervene into Saudi oil production in the eastern oil fields, if they shut down Kuwaiti oil production, if they unleash the hounds of war in southern Iraq and shut down oil production there, and tie down American troops there, if they fire ballistic missiles against the state of Israel, thereby prompting an Israeli retaliation--all of these things are well within the realm of the possible, I would even say probable in terms of Iranian retaliation, but all of them will create a massive escalation of the conflict, spinning dangerously out of control.

And probably the scariest part of it all:

There's no constitutional impediment to prevent the President from launching a military strike against Iran.

They have the biggest hard-on in the history of mankind for an attack on Iran.  Is this why John McCain is so heartily embracing Bush's war-president mantra?  Because if we attack Iran the case will be made that by electing McCain we won't be "changing horses in midstream with all the conflict overseas".  Has McCain possibly received some assurances from the administration that this is in the cards and that is why he has no qualms about flipping his view on our military adventures in the Middle East?

I put nothing past this administration.  They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing, and often eager, to use our soldiers as political tools to further their agenda.  It just fits too well with their well documented modus operandi.

Just something I've been pondering.  

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST
My financial condition requires I am sober most of the time. I'm retired and can only budget so much a money to drink myself into oblivion during waking hours.

Also, we may have reached the tipping point. If Bush attacks Iran and McCain is onboard, I suspect that the 85% who think that we're going in the wrong direction will recognize that the direction has been towards Iran.

by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, we may have reached the tipping point. If Bush attacks Iran and McCain is onboard, I suspect that the 85% who think that we're going in the wrong direction will recognize that the direction has been towards Iran.

To which they reply,

SO !!

Really, though.  How are Democrats, and Obama, going to respond to an event such as this?

Will the people grudgingly accept it as necessary based on the adminstration's word?

Will the media, once again, become the cheerleaders for the continuation of the neo-con war march?

Will we, once again, lap up every word uttered by the paid talking heads of the retired military officers who will be pasted on our TV screens day and night catapulting the propaganda of how necessary this is?

How will the nation react as events spiral out of our control as they most surely will?  This isn't Mogadishu or Libya we're talking about.  It's freaking Iran!

The trump card of fear has seemed to become ineffective regarding all their other misadventures.  Nothing like some fresh footage of high tech military wizardry zapping those non-descript concrete buildings all around Iran to get the good old USA chant going again.  It seems entirely plausible to me that this could happen once again and be meekly accepted as a simple and necessary extension of the GWOT.

Does anyone really believe that with dimple-cheeked American fly-boys and girls in harms way over another country populated by the evil dark-skinned terrorists that the media would not turn on a dime and once again be broadcasting the full bore din round the clock of American exceptionalism and "fighting 'em over there" narrative?  I don't think the media is yet prepared to question the administration's motives or actions on anything military related, even something as blatantly illegal as the bombing of Iran.  And this is in spite of their widely documented capitulation on coverage leading up to the Iraq war.

And what will the silent masses do this time?  Have we learned anything?  Are we willing to go the streets?  Or will we, once again, shutter the windows and retreat to the safety and comfort we get from the glowing TeeVee with all the reassuring pundits telling us "we had no choice" and that "we're fighting for liberty and spreading democracy".

How about it?  What will we do?  I wish I could say I was optimistic about our response.  But I'm not.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Really, though.  How are Democrats, and Obama, going to respond to an event such as this?

Nevermind how Democrats will respond, how will China respond? Are they going to continue to buy our Treasury Bills if we attack Iran? What if you held a bond auction and nobody came? We may find out.

by AliceDem on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am sure the economic effect is of little concern to those most in favor of a strike on Iran.   World chaos is a plus to them.  Why else were they turning cartwheels while smoke was still pouring from the Twin Towers?  It is a continual justification for more and more military intervention around the world.

All of these people are still active and involved in advising the Bush administration.  A cascade of apocalyptic events is a high probability once they push over the first domino.


"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Nigerian singer Fela had a great song that went something like, "They bring sorrow, tears and blood, their regular trademark." It's a song about how fascism moves people by fear. You can't think clearly to do the right thing because something awful is happening. That's a mark of fascism, keep 'em nervous, it keeps 'em in line.  
by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 11:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Delusional fear.

And well founded fear.

See Glenn Greenwald.

If there was ever a time to truly fear these people, it is during the next six months.  Iran is in their cross hairs.  A lot of us are wrapped up all the election drama right now.  Meanwhile, these guys are still pulling the levers and making the plans.

Yep, I'm a little nervous.  

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, if Congress had brains, they'd make it clear that an unprovoked attack on Iran will result in impeachment of Bush and Cheney within 24 hours, then turning them over to the ICC on war crimes charges...

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?
by Egarwaen on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Amen, The 50 plus 1 strategy could be over. Real change is near and within reach. There is a movement and a realigning election is upon us in 2008.

The powers that be have struggled to keep the power from the people but Barack is proving that power is in the people.

They do not like lied to either. I am ready to rip John McFraud to shreds.

"The heart of darkness is the president. Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him."

by Mac G on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
I agree that this is a watershed moment for our country. Will we make it across that bridge to the 21st century, or hang out in the last vestiges of the 20th?

I think we're going to make it.

Furthermore, I feel in my gut there's a reason Obama is our candidate at this point in time. Just as I feel JFK was president at the time when his willingness to stand up to everyone in his administration over nuking the USSR, I feel Obama may be the only one on the political scene who would stand up to the neocons push to bomb Iran. If he gets there in time.

I think his proximity to the nomination now must give some in the military hope. There are those who oppose extending the war to Iran, and an Obama nomination buys them a chance to wait, to push back until saner heads prevail.

That's something a Clinton nomination would not do. If the choice is her or McCain, I fear those opposing war may see it as a losing battle and cave in. But with Obama in waiting? They'll hang on and hold out.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:00:06 PM EST
When have women not been marginalized? When Clarence Thomas was confirmed? When Alito and Roberts were confirmed? When we are told we should ignore the women's study set ? When the most sickening displays of misogyny are openly acceptable?

one what planet are women newly marginalized?

by AliceDem on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM EST
Not women.  White women with ethnic (mostly Catholic) backgrounds, that are working or lower class.

And, you're thinking about what I'm saying the wrong way.  I'm not saying this group had it good or didn't face discrimination.  I'm saying that their concerns (winning their vote) formed the central battleground between the two parties and that, therefore, the Democratic Party lionized their virtues of hard work, patriotism, and religious devotion, while suggesting that blacks and liberals don't work (or work hard), are not patriotic, and lack religious faith or that there is something wrong with them for lacking religious faith.

That's the kind of marginalization I experienced within the Democratic Party.  Women have never been an embarrassment to the Democrats in the way that blacks and liberals have.

by BooMan on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Clinton supporters" and "women" are not the same sets, no matter how often she tries to prove otherwise. Neither are "Clinton supporters" and "feminists". It is perfectly possible to be a feminist and believe that Clinton is unfit for office.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?
by Egarwaen on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clinton supporters and women overlap, but are distinct. But I have been truly sickened by the overt displays of misogyny in the campaign, and truly sickened by the references to Monica Lewinsky (what does that have to do with HILLARY, except to humiliate Hillary).

I started out as an Anybody but Clinton person. I am still not comfortable with her, esp. foreign policy. But I am not happy with Obama, in fact, I am more than unhappy with Obama and his U of Chicago advisors. Very unhappy.

Obama will have to reach out. The most important thing is his choice of VP. I agree that Clinton is off the table, no trust. It does not have to be a women, but it has to be someone who can appeal to women voters or at least not aleinate them.

by AliceDem on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where has Obama displayed any misogyny at all? Give me specific example of him or Michelle, or one of their direct campaign employees. Bill's racist dog-whistle blowing is well-documented, but all I've ever seen for Obama's supposedly-rampant misogyny is vague, unsubstantiated claims.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?
by Egarwaen on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have heard this complaint by Clinton supporters repeated without documentation. I suspect that there are a lot of Republican operatives stirring up racist and sexist shit in Dem blogs but Obama has kept a short leash on any of that bullshit coming out of his people, as opposed to some of the rampages by Clinton surrogates. If someone from MSNBC says something misogynistic there is a presumption that Obama moved, say, Chris Matthews' lips. T'aint so.

On the other hand, if you read Robert Parry, he claims that the Clinton campaign had all their oppo research: Wright, Ayers, etc., all set up back in December, which suggests that a lot of those preacher and 60s radical eruptions were all loaded in the Clinton's gun from the start of the race, er, campaign.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
gets down and the claws come out

actually there are two quotes, one with PERIODICALLY getting down and another quote involving the claws coming out

that was the precise moment I turned against Obama.

He can't make any more remarks like that, well he can, but he shouldn't.

Michelle is the one who made a reference to Monica Lewinsky.

by AliceDem on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Periodically is not misogynist. It means "occurring or appearing at intervals", and is a perfectly valid word to use to describe intermittent behaviour. It no more implies prejudicial things about the effect of her menstrual cycle on her thinking than saying that Hillary is a lunatic who wants to obliterate Iran.

As for Michelle's supposed misogynist attack on Monica and the whole "claws coming out" thing, got a cite?

Meanwhile, Hillary's coughed up this gem, which is, of course, totally not racist at all:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

So, even if I give you all three of the above, that means Obama has three counts of largely inadvertent misogynistic comments, while the Clintons have... What, a few dozen counts of blatant, deliberate, calculated racism?

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 08:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I mean. I'm in my late fifties and over my entire life I have never heard anyone ever claim that the word "periodically" was in any way misogynistic.

I recall the "out come the claws" comment. I guess that it could maybe be interpreted as a negative version of "she's a fighter." But that's the deal-breaker? That Obama said something that COULD POSSIBLY be interpreted as misogynist?

I've heard similar comments about the David Shuster "pimp" remark, who, the last I looked wasn't part of Obama's campaign. I also heard an outraged Hillary supporter who claimed that referring to Clinton's glorious victory in Florida as a "beauty contest" was misogynist.

Obama is not a misogynist. I would guess that his political record on women's issues is equal to Clinton's. I've never heard of a discussion of this, but I would think that at least some feminist Clinton supporters would have paused at her support of that religious freedom in the workplace law that the ACLU says would jeopardize a woman's right to birth control, or could end protection of women's clinics.

Alice, do you walk through your life constantly presuming the worst of every man in the world, expecting that every smile and hello is hiding some violent or degrading intention directed against women? Because that seems to be the standard applied to Obama.

And do you allow yourself to look at the math and realize that Clinton won't win? And if you do, what does that mean? How would an Obama victory be worse for women than a Clinton victory?

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh geez. I heard him make that comment and I thought the reference was to every time she loses, not her period.

I feel women who see misogny where it doesn't exist discredit me by proxy, and it irks me no end.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I also have to point out that pms/getting your period is usually not the primary reproductive concern in women over 60 years of age.
by CabinGirl on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember years ago when Mondale was the nominee (I guess that dates me...), and you heard talk from all of the various identity groups.  You needed to do/say one thing to make the unions happy.  Another to make the women happy.  Something else to make the blacks happy, and yet something else to make the environmentalists happy.  And so on, and so on.  And if you toss a bone to one group, then the others all want one too.

Even at the time it seemed rather boneheaded.  Everyone was trying to get a little something for themselves, and Mondale wasn't charismatic enough to get people to look past their own interests to the common good.

People don't want to talk about how important the personality of the candidate is.  Someone who can speak in an inspiring way can move lots of people to do things you wouldn't have thought possible.  In a sense Reagan was the antithesis of Mondale - while we hate the policies, he had charisma, and the Reagan Democrats were born.  But the right doesn't have a monopoly on these sorts of people - consider Paul Wellstone.  He was able to motivate people to vote in ways that you wouldn't have thought possible.

by ericy on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
Dating yourself? Heh. Today's the day for it. This morning there was some conversation around the water cooler about how it was too bad that Stephen Colbert had to abandon his bid for the White House because of airtime issues. "Same thing happened to Pat Paulsen," I said. "Now there was a fake Presidentaial run . . . "

And I left it at that when I realized that the vast majority of the people I was talking to were either in diapers or several years away from being born when Pat Paulsen was running for President.

OMFSM, I've gone over the deep end into geezerhood.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh

by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nah, I remember Pat Paulsen, even though I was a leeeetle kid. He always had the same expression, like life was constantly taking a dump on him.

by Sprocket77 on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: geezerhood, I'll see your Pat Paulsen and raise you an "I Like Ike" button;-)

"Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live." Dorothy Thompson, Journalist
by Indianadem on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't particularly remember Ike, apart from there being announcements about his funeral. I do however remember Mrs. Manor having a little portable TV in the Kindergarten classroom next door to mine for Kennedy's inauguration.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh
by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm with you, brother geezer.
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Having been in the labor movement for most of my adult life, I've been constantly reminded about the great motto: "An injury to one is an injury to all."

The whole question about giving handouts to the various "interest" groups is a Republican way of viewing things. For ex, the benefits to, say, labor unions help the spouses and children of those unions. Civil rights enforcement to union membership would extend membership in unions (and consequent employment) to minorities and women. Better benefits for families are rewarded with healthier children. Better schools mean smarter kids means better jobs, means higher standard of living for more people mean more people paying more into Social Security when people retire.

The whole idea of identity groups is just a means of dividing and conquering, the ultimate strategy of reactionaries. If my wife is discriminated against at her job my child and I suffer. That's why it's important that everyone understand that we are all part of the same identity group. We aren't just men, women, black, white, brown, gay, straight. Once we separate ourselves from the herd we are setting ourselves up to be culled by the bastards.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Booman,

I followed your link over to the Suburban Guerilla site, and also checked out a few of the other pro-Hillary blogs.  I'm speechless.  I wouldn't know how to even begin engaging those people in conversation about this primary.  They are emotionally invested in their point of view to the extent that I don't see any way to have a rational conversation with them.  Let's just hope they are small in number.

by eagleye on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:48:04 PM EST
I've followed the reactions of the Hillary people today, too. And, it's pretty amazing. The sense I get is that they're in a mindset of circling the wagons/holed up at the Alamo on one hand, and others are claiming they never really cared who got the nomination anyway. "Emotionally invested" is exactly right, and they're just not ready to turn the page. And as BooMan has said, blowout wins in West Virginia and Kentucky are only going to make it harder for some of them to let go.    

by Sprocket77 on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand the emotional investment. I mean, the political figures from the sixties that I liked all got gunned down, and that has emotionally scarred me for life, but even with that I never lost sight that these people were human beings.

Why all this "emotional investment" in Hillary Clinton? Is she a particularly great politician? No. Is she some great feminist? No. Is she very liberal? No, she is a right-of-center politician who's made some questionable votes that were neither feminist nor liberal. I have tried to think about irrational adoration of other political icons. Reagan? Okay, he was a movie star who told people lies that they wanted to believe. What is Clinton's selling point? Failing to get a health plan passed? Publicly supporting all those awful trade plans her husband pushed through Congress? I don't get it.

I ask this because I support Obama only because he is the better of the two candidates, not because I love him or worship him.

What is so great about Hillary Clinton that some people are whipped into an irrational fervor about her? I don't get it.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pardon my home state pride,

But the Alamo is ours, not Hillary's.

Plus, Obama won Texas.  Just sayin'...

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and some pretty serious (and scary blinders)worn by middle and upper middle class progressives.  Here's some commentary on Amanda Marcotte's new book on feminism by one of my very favorite bloggers The Field Negro.

The publishers (a small feminist press) thought the images were "campy".  Judge for yourself.

by northcountry on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your link goes to Pandagon. You have a more precise link?
by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a link to the publishers apology.  Here's the relevant passage:

Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author's humor. That is all. We were not thinking.

by northcountry on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All precisely true, in my view -- and nicely expressed, BooMan. Liberals and blacks have undoubtedly been the de facto pariahs of the Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean we aim to -- or should -- simply switch places with the DLCers and blue-collar moderates. That would be a disaster waiting to happen. I've never outright rejected the practicality inherent in the FDR approach -- it served the Party well enough in its day, I suppose (ugly blemishes and all). But we now have the ability, by virtue of tools that were never available until now (like the netroots) to take the next step in our political and social evolution. We're closer now to hands-on, real representative democracy than we ever have been. It's time the Party became the truly egalitarian, equal-partners, sociopolitical enterprise that I believe it was always meant to be -- to the extent that's possible. Great post.

by Sprocket77 on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
The Clinton camp has been pushing the notion that Obama fails to connect with white, working-class voters.  Well, African-Americans make up just 13% of the U.S. population, and yet HRC has been getting her butt kicked in this primary contest.  Seems to me that tells us that Clinton is the one having trouble connecting with the white working class.
by eagleye on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
I have never really understood the entitlement of Hillary.  Where does she think she is entitled to the WH?  I can not for the life of me understand this whole thing..  Why she and not anyone else....Can some one explain it to me.
by BrendaStewart (stormyweather1@hotmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST
You pulled together the strands of change really well and I have never seen these four together before.

I am a university teacher, and I also see a remarkable difference between the TV Generation and the Internet Generation.

Give me liberty or give me a gun.

by peakdavid (freelancesuccessbook - @ - yahoo.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
Here's a link to the publishers apology.  Here's the relevant passage:

Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author's humor. That is all. We were not thinking.

by northcountry on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM EST
While Latinos do not vote as overwhelmingly democratic as blacks--especially in recent years as Republicans have played up Bush's execrable Spanish and social conservative/catholic links--this is the fear I encounter among a lot of the generation of hispanics before mine, that are hard corp Dems.

For the activists. their experience has in the past been of working with blacks for rights and then having blacks receive most of the benefits and this has given rise to a sense of being used. If nothing else, in race and social relations, they feel that blacks get far more attention than Hispanics (this I have studied in my local area, where we have a larger hispanic population than a black population and for that area it is true).

Now, the point: Because of these reasons, many older hispanics find it very hard to support Obama. In him they can see nothing but that their own experiences in the past will keep them as the red-headed step-children of the party.

I do not believe this, not at all. But many of the older generation (that came of age in 70s and early 80s) do. This also explains why Richardson IS seen as a traitor in some hispanic circles, that his endorsement would only result in continued marginalization for hispanics. I also do not believe this myself.

In John McCain the Republicans have nominated the only half-way sane person on immigration they've got and so I worry a lot about the general and hispanics. If Obama could win them 60-40 he would be very close to a sure thing, but he needs to show them that he won't marginalize them. But how can he show that until he gets into office and proceeds to take actions that prove it?

It took me 9 very very intense hours over the course of 2 weeks to convince my own family to vote for Obama in the general election. They won't vote McCain, no chance of that, they started voting Carter and have gone straight Dem ever since, but they were strongly leaning towards staying home.

by MNPundit on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
A very compelling analysis, Booman.

We're at a turning point. Every man, woman, and frog to the oars.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Proud member of

The Liberal Blog Network

a FeedBurner Network


Advertise in The Liberal Blog Network

Subscribe to this network

A-List Blogger

Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Support the Wilsons and buy Val's book:

Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House
by Valerie Wilson

New from W. Patrick Lang:

The Butcher's Cleaver: A Tale of the Confederate Secret Services by W. Patrick Lang

ManEegee recommends:

The Devil's Highway: A True Story
by Luis Alberto Urrea

Some good history:

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
by Tim Weiner

What's going on in Iraq:

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone
by Raji Chandrasekaran.

On BooMan’s shelf:

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
by Peter W. Galbraith

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


SOTW-120x90
Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes (Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes (Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes
John Belushi - SNL
Download South Park on iTunes
Verve Vault

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:
James Hunter - People Gonna Talk
icon


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com



Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

A-List Blogger

Blogarama - The Blog Directory

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Headlines from the Progressive 

Blogosphere
Provided by First Sustainable
Add this box to your site
Add your feed to this box

Listed on BlogShares

© 2007 Booman Tribune