Article by Maureen Dowd (longtime Liberal columnist)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

 

"But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

 

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

 

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied."

Honestly, I can see while the Clintons remain a little miffed and I also believe that they and a lot of her supporters would rather have McCain win than Obama. They both toiled in the Democratic party for a long time. Bill did a lot to support the African American agenda to the point, as we know, he was called the "first black President". No doubt that they realize that part of Obama's receipt of the nomination was caused by early campaign mistakes made by Hillary and mid campaign blunders by Bill, but I think both of them feel they were betrayed by a lot of the main Democratic players and by African American voters, and it was that betrayal that "caused" the mistakes and blunders. And whether it should be there or not, there is a pecking order mentality in politics and when someone junior on the pecking order fails to follow it, the senior people don't take kindly to it at all. Its a very personal and bitter feeling. African Americans make so much of the history thing and the need to elect an African American to show that this country had moved past its discriminatory past. Well women in this country feel it would have been just as historic to elect the first woman President and the election would have shown that this country has move past its discriminatory past in re women.

 

I think time will show us that the Democrats made a very bad choice going with Obama as I believe McCain will beat him. I don't think McCain could have beat Hillary and if she did a decent job in office, I think she'd have won re-election. If Obama had "played ball" with Hillary and not opposed her and she had gotten elected, she could have really put him in positions to shine as a Senator and he'd have gotten 8 more years in the Senate to gain considerable experience in the areas he's very weak (with Hillary's support and cooperation). Had that happened, I think its very possible, we could have seen 3 maybe 4 straight terms with a Democratic President. Who knows, that may still happen but I think its much less likely in the current scenario.

 

I honestly think Hillary is going to "support" Obama just enough to placate the Democratic party insiders and African Americans so as not to totally alienate them to make sure they support her in 12 if McCain wins in 08.

 

And off thread and maybe worthy of its own thread, I know the compassionate reasons for Ted Kennedy's role at the convention, but Ted is the poster child of the "old" extremely liberal Democratic Party. If Obama's vision of change is Ted's old vision of extreme liberalism, how can a moderate person begin to think they'd vote for Obama? There is only a couple of worse people the DNC and Obama could have let play a role in the convention and in my opinion those are Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton.

What I find amazing is that a man who just months ago was deriding The One as unprepared and unqualified is now his running mate.

 

Either he was lying then or he's lying now. Either way he's a liar.

Honestly, I can see while the Clintons remain a little miffed and I also believe that they and a lot of her supporters would rather have McCain win than Obama. They both toiled in the Democratic party for a long time. Bill did a lot to support the African American agenda to the point, as we know, he was called the "first black President". No doubt that they realize that part of Obama's receipt of the nomination was caused by early campaign mistakes made by Hillary and mid campaign blunders by Bill, but I think both of them feel they were betrayed by a lot of the main Democratic players and by African American voters, and it was that betrayal that "caused" the mistakes and blunders. And whether it should be there or not, there is a pecking order mentality in politics and when someone junior on the pecking order fails to follow it, the senior people don't take kindly to it at all. Its a very personal and bitter feeling. African Americans make so much of the history thing and the need to elect an African American to show that this country had moved past its discriminatory past. Well women in this country feel it would have been just as historic to elect the first woman President and the election would have shown that this country has move past its discriminatory past in re women.

 

I think time will show us that the Democrats made a very bad choice going with Obama as I believe McCain will beat him. I don't think McCain could have beat Hillary and if she did a decent job in office, I think she'd have won re-election. If Obama had "played ball" with Hillary and not opposed her and she had gotten elected, she could have really put him in positions to shine as a Senator and he'd have gotten 8 more years in the Senate to gain considerable experience in the areas he's very weak (with Hillary's support and cooperation). Had that happened, I think its very possible, we could have seen 3 maybe 4 straight terms with a Democratic President. Who knows, that may still happen but I think its much less likely in the current scenario.

 

I honestly think Hillary is going to "support" Obama just enough to placate the Democratic party insiders and African Americans so as not to totally alienate them to make sure they support her in 12 if McCain wins in 08.

 

And off thread and maybe worthy of its own thread, I know the compassionate reasons for Ted Kennedy's role at the convention, but Ted is the poster child of the "old" extremely liberal Democratic Party. If Obama's vision of change is Ted's old vision of extreme liberalism, how can a moderate person begin to think they'd vote for Obama? There is only a couple of worse people the DNC and Obama could have let play a role in the convention and in my opinion those are Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton.

 

Great analysis. I think you're spot-on:thumb:

I'll be curious to see what effect Hillary's "support" last night has on those Hillary supporters that are still undecided. As the column indicates some are so hurt that they simply can't see straight. Deriding Michelle Obama about her fist bump? Accusing her of not being a true mother to her children? Some are so blinded they're inventing reasons to not vote for Obama. Note that its nothing to do with policy. Its all about this absurd thought that she wasn't shown respect by someone she was competing against. It simply defies logic.

 

You can't be for Hillary and then vote for McCain unless you do so for non-policy reasons. I can't imagine being in such a whacked out state of mind that I would vote for the person I see as completely against what I believe in simply because my guy didn't win.

 

It doesn't speak well to the voters of this country.

BTW, I bet Obama isn't sleeping well worrying about what Bill is going to say. You know its going to be at least 50% geared towards reminding folks of his success for 8 years. "Oh yeah, vote for the black guy" may come out, too.

I'll be curious to see what effect Hillary's "support" last night has on those Hillary supporters that are still undecided. As the column indicates some are so hurt that they simply can't see straight. Deriding Michelle Obama about her fist bump? Accusing her of not being a true mother to her children? Some are so blinded they're inventing reasons to not vote for Obama. Note that its nothing to do with policy. Its all about this absurd thought that she wasn't shown respect by someone she was competing against. It simply defies logic.

 

You can't be for Hillary and then vote for McCain unless you do so for non-policy reasons. I can't imagine being in such a whacked out state of mind that I would vote for the person I see as completely against what I believe in simply because my guy didn't win.

 

It doesn't speak well to the voters of this country.

 

No need to invent reasons, there are plenty of legit reasons.

 

My guess is Hilliary votes for McCain. Obama wins she won't get a another crack at for 8 years. McCain wins she back in it in 4.

Honestly, I can see while the Clintons remain a little miffed and I also believe that they and a lot of her supporters would rather have McCain win than Obama. They both toiled in the Democratic party for a long time. Bill did a lot to support the African American agenda to the point, as we know, he was called the "first black President". No doubt that they realize that part of Obama's receipt of the nomination was caused by early campaign mistakes made by Hillary and mid campaign blunders by Bill, but I think both of them feel they were betrayed by a lot of the main Democratic players and by African American voters, and it was that betrayal that "caused" the mistakes and blunders. And whether it should be there or not, there is a pecking order mentality in politics and when someone junior on the pecking order fails to follow it, the senior people don't take kindly to it at all. Its a very personal and bitter feeling. African Americans make so much of the history thing and the need to elect an African American to show that this country had moved past its discriminatory past. Well women in this country feel it would have been just as historic to elect the first woman President and the election would have shown that this country has move past its discriminatory past in re women.

 

I think time will show us that the Democrats made a very bad choice going with Obama as I believe McCain will beat him. I don't think McCain could have beat Hillary and if she did a decent job in office, I think she'd have won re-election. If Obama had "played ball" with Hillary and not opposed her and she had gotten elected, she could have really put him in positions to shine as a Senator and he'd have gotten 8 more years in the Senate to gain considerable experience in the areas he's very weak (with Hillary's support and cooperation). Had that happened, I think its very possible, we could have seen 3 maybe 4 straight terms with a Democratic President. Who knows, that may still happen but I think its much less likely in the current scenario.

 

I honestly think Hillary is going to "support" Obama just enough to placate the Democratic party insiders and African Americans so as not to totally alienate them to make sure they support her in 12 if McCain wins in 08.

 

And off thread and maybe worthy of its own thread, I know the compassionate reasons for Ted Kennedy's role at the convention, but Ted is the poster child of the "old" extremely liberal Democratic Party. If Obama's vision of change is Ted's old vision of extreme liberalism, how can a moderate person begin to think they'd vote for Obama? There is only a couple of worse people the DNC and Obama could have let play a role in the convention and in my opinion those are Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton.

 

As to the majority of the above: :thumb: I concur on your analysis of what could have been and maybe should have been.

 

the last paragraph I would say that most don't have the extreme dislike of Teddy you note. They see a brother to a nostalgic past and he is dying of cancer. It is about sympathy/pity vote and like with most people going through such crisis, the public tends to forget the past infractions and embrace the human interest of the picture.

BTW, I bet Obama isn't sleeping well worrying about what Bill is going to say. You know its going to be at least 50% geared towards reminding folks of his success for 8 years. "Oh yeah, vote for the black guy" may come out, too.

Kind of off topic but I find it amusing he gets labeled as black when he is 50% white and was 100% raised by his white family.

No need to invent reasons, there are plenty of legit reasons.

 

My guess is Hilliary votes for McCain. Obama wins she won't get a another crack at for 8 years. McCain wins she back in it in 4.

 

Fine. If you think there are legit reasons, cite them when someone asks. Don't say crap about the fist bump and her mothering capabilities.

 

To your second point, I put nothing past the Clintons. They can talk all they want about "the party" but they're really talking about "the Clintons."

Kind of off topic but I find it amusing he gets labeled as black when he is 50% white and was 100% raised by his white family.

 

Survey the public and ask if there is a "black candidate" then get back with me - although you are 100% correct.

 

Its like the lady in Louisiana said in the Rolling Stone article when talking about being white - you either are or you aint and he aint.

Fine. If you think there are legit reasons, cite them when someone asks. Don't say crap about the fist bump and her mothering capabilities.

 

To your second point, I put nothing past the Clintons. They can talk all they want about "the party" but they're really talking about "the Clintons."

I agree 100%.

Survey the public and ask if there is a "black candidate" then get back with me - although you are 100% correct.

 

Its like the lady in Louisiana said in the Rolling Stone article when talking about being white - you either are or you aint and he aint.

My post was more of an observation. I wasn't calling you out or anything. And again I agree. Perception is everything.

 

BTW, how many people in Thailand do you think claim the best golfer ever is Thai?

My post was more of an observation. I wasn't calling you out or anything. And again I agree. Perception is everything.

 

BTW, how many people in Thailand do you think claim the best golfer ever is Thai?

 

 

You got to admit that Thai was pretty good in that match game with the judge in Caddy Shack. :thumb:

 

Night putting will get you in trouble everytime.

You got to admit that Thai was pretty good in that match game with the judge in Caddy Shack. :thumb:

 

Night putting will get you in trouble everytime.

:laugh:good one.