Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Three myths about the Democratic race

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Three myths about the Democratic race

    MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.
    FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.

    While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," and "playing politics with war."

    This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a "monster;" and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is "deeply flawed" and has "character issues." That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?

    MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
    FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
    "The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.

    In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.

    MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."
    FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.
    The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.

    An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.

    Peter Daou: Three Myths About the Democratic Race - Politics on The Huffington Post
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; March 24th, 2008 at 10:17 PM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone

    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.

    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM


    It's interesting how each half says the complete polar opposite, all the while villifying the other side for being wrong.

    Clearly, one is correct and the other isn't. Thing is, which one?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Silver Member LastLook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006


    Thank you so much for posting this article. I wish every democrat would read it.
    Burt Johnson: I don't drink because drinking affects your decision-making.
    Arthur: You may be right. I can't decide.

  4. #4
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    May 2007


    So Peter Dauo wants us to believe that standing up for yourself and fighting back is "divisive." Doesn't Hillary include "being a fighter" as one of her strengths? I guess it's okay if she does it, but not him. Peter Dauo, who incidentally is the Internet Director for Hillary Clinton for President, also wants us to believe that anything Obama has said or done has been just as bad as anything Clinton has said or done. Show me again where Obama praised McCain at the expense of Hillary. Also, show me where he has done any of the following:

    -Ran a fear-mongering ad.

    -Accused Hillary of contacting a foreign embassy to tell them to ignore her position on an issue when, in fact, his campaign contacted the foreign officials and then used that lie in campaign speeches

    -Used personal attacks against Hillary for his own benefit.

    -Exploited race and gender divisions.

    -Threatened lawsuits on primaries - either beforehand or afterwards.

    -Insinuated she is corrupt and/or a criminal

    -Used a character assassination attempt on her as a wedge issue to try to lure superdelegates over to his side

    Every single one of Obama's charges against Hillary has to do with her positions, her record, or her campaign - all legitimate fields of inquiry. It seems that Obama is being held to a higher standard than Clinton. Clinton can call herself a fighter, claim she's been fully vetted and throw the kitchen sink, but when Obama responds to one of her attacks or points out flaws in her record, all of a sudden he's not playing nice and is to be held responsible for not uniting that which Clinton strewn asunder. How dare he fight back when she attacks him. Is he supposed to roll over and just take it?

    Because, you see Peter Dauo, Internet Director for Hillary Clinton for President, what you and Hillary seem to fail to recognize is most of us Obama supporters did not initially hold this much animosity towards her. It wasn't until she started wallowing in the mud, when she threw the kitchen sink, that we started to see her for who she really is. I'm not just talking “going negative.” You know what I'm talking about. Hillary knows what I'm talking about. Don't insult our intelligence by comparing the dirty, mud-slinging, divisive campaigning Hillary has been doing with the sometimes-negative-but-still-clean campaigning of Obama.

    Your complaint that Obama is divisive rings hollow. He has shown himself to be a formidable candidate who will not degrade himself or the American electorate with the politics of character assassination and mud-slinging. Hillary has not.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Speeches, myths and the mess
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 09:02 AM
  2. Crazy celebrity myths...
    By moomies in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: March 31st, 2007, 01:21 PM
  3. Urban Legends and Myths
    By AliceInWonderland in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 28th, 2006, 06:40 PM
  4. Lipstick Myths
    By NoDayButToday in forum Beauty and Skincare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 30th, 2006, 07:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts