With the increase in bad blood around here, I thought to address some issues. Since I am an Obama supporter, and contributed no small amount to this bad blood, I will address the issues on my side.

Innocence
The Obama campaign is not innocent. It is not free of negativity. It is not an angel defending against evil smears of a Clinton Machine. It is anything but helpless; in fact, I would suggest that the Obama campaign has mastered negative attacks, especially the subliminal kind, far more than the Clinton campaign has. Phrases such as "turning the page" are accusations of substantial heft, yet we have been brought to believe such statements as intrinsic truth. Obama has managed to firmly affix Hillary Clinton to the nineties in spite of her exemplary Senate tenure and record of working well with New York Republicans. If anything, Obama has smeared Clinton much more effectively than Clinton has smeared him. If masterful poetic insinuations are Murder on the Orient Express, the Clinton charges (e.g., the kindergarten essay) are a third-rate thug with a bat that does more harm to home team. When the Obama campaign has made a third-rate attack (e.g., D-Punjab), it is no more commendable than any other campaign.

Personality Cult
Barack Obama has an excellent platform with substantial details. His campaign is not a personality cult... except that many of his most rabid supporters do not know much, or anything, about his policy proposals. Of course most supporters of any campaign are not well-versed in policy details, but this issue is most acute with the Obama campaign. He indeed could become the Democratic Ronald Reagan, in the sense that he may convince masses of people to vote against their ideological interests based on character assets. Barack Obama is a liberal with an extremely liberal Senate record. It is up to anybody's guess how he will reconcile his platform with his pledge toward bipartisan teamwork.

Winning
Obama is fighting to win. Uniting the country; serving the American people; bringing hope to the hopeless; all the platitudes carry no meaning unless the candidate wins first. Make no mistake about that, even if Obama pulls off the "I'm running for you, not me" element more convincingly.

Media
In Obama's defense, I do not take issue with any pro-Obama media bias. The bias that does exist (read: MSNBC) is well-deserved vengeance for the Clinton campaign's inevitability attitude in early 2007, such as when McAuliffe said "It'll be over on Feb. 6. We will have a nominee." Despite such unconscionable displays of arrogance, the media did wholeheartedly credit Clinton when credit was due. There were all the "Comeback Kid" stories following New Hampshire, as well as the Super Tuesday stories that objectively reported a tie despite, in practical terms, it being a massive Obama victory (Clinton did not have a coherent post-2/5 plan).

If there is any other beef about me, Obama supporters, or the candidate himself, voice away!

I agree with all of the above

I think the bad blood in here, more than anything, is attributable to stupid unneccessary and highly rude pot shots being taken by certain members on this board right now. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out who they are.

Well, my posts tend to cause a lot more trouble than they're worth, and I admit as much here. Hopefully some of the others will come forward as well.

Carol Moseley Braun - If democrats were only voting on race, she would have been the candidate in 2004. If democrats were only voting on gender, she would have been the candidate in 2004. If democrats were voting on likeablitity, experience, and bi-partisan work, she would have been the candidate in 2004. If democrats were only voting on a political platform, well, she still would have been the candidate in 2004. Democrats are voting on the intersection of many things, social identity included, but not being the only factor. Name prominence, political background, star status, and actual platforms are all important. Lets get down to making the race as complex as it is, and recognize that both democratic candidates have all these things, use all these things to their advantage, and can have all these things used against them as a disadvantage.

Hope that helps!

I'm tired of the Democrats on this board thinking that Republicans are idiots.

They have a smug attitude and deserve to be smite-ed.

I'm for practical intents Republican, having gone Republican for the last presidential and gubernatorial elections; do I deserve to be "smite-ed" as well?

Not all of them.

I appreciate the olive branch, but I take issue with this idea. It is revisionist history with no basis on actual events of the past decade.



http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012508.shtml



http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.shtml

Matthews and GE (MSNBC's parent company) have been doing this for over 10 years. They will do the same thing to Obama once he wraps up the nomination. I don't think it will be as vicious, but they were Pro-Kerry until he got the nomination. Then they had Swift Boat Supporters on for a few weeks and didn't challenge any of their allegations, which had factual innacuracies. There were numerous other incidents of bias in their Kerry coverage, after he was the nominee.



http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092404.shtml

The entire idea, that Clinton deserves some of this vitrol ties into the Cult of Personality issue. Many non-Obama fans, whether they support Clinton or are just uncommitted in the primaries, are taken aback by the lack of awareness of many Obama supporters on the media landscape and the serious obstacle Obama faces in a GE. I saw too many Kerry supporters gleeful when MSNBC did the same thing to Dean in the 2004 Primaries.

Not trying to be harsh or dismissive, which I probably have come across as in previous posts. Just trying to keep it real.

I don't imagine for one second that the media and the right-wing spin machine won't come after Obama with everything they've got. Heck, YOU'VE attacked him and his supporters, and belittled his campaign and you're in the "Democrats at all costs" camp.

But what's your point? That because he's going to get attacked, we shouldn't support him? I guess the argument is that they will attack whoever is the nominee, and that Hillary is somehow better equipped to deal with the criticism, given the insane amounts of right-wing vitriol toward her over the years. I just don't buy it. What have they got on him? His middle name is Hussein? He's liberal? He's black? He's inexperienced? Don't think that Obama isn't prepared for this kind of stuff. He's already heard it all. And if Americans won't vote for a guy because his middle name is Hussein, then they deserve the president they get because of it.

My point was in that paragraph. You cut and pasted one point to take it out of context, then made some misleading claims. Thanks again.

If wasn't clear. Angela makes a point that Clinton gets what she deserved due to some arbitrary comment by Terry MacAulife. That is not the case. It is disregarding 10 years+ of previous bias. Obama supporters are willing to ride that train of media bias when it is in their favor. However, they will have to accept the inevitable backlash when (or if) the train ends. Then they might understand how difficult it will be for Obama's message of hope to resonate with the masses, when Matthews has someone on Hardball smearing Obama on Rezko, his church, his non-votes, inaction or his lack of experience, or whatever the Republicans view as his weakness or to tear down his strength. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Doesn't mean he won't be able to win, it just means he won't have the same advantages he as at the moment.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 before Hardball and Fox News. I wonder if he still would have won if they had existed during the election. I don't think the media can stop a real groundswell of support, but they can confuse the less informed voters enough to make elections close enough to be manipulated.

The media was very much pro-Clinton for most of 2007, and played along with the inevitability theme. Differences in policy were labeled as Obama "rookie mistakes" once and again. Terry McAuliffe's quote only paraphrases the whole phenomenon. Be fair here -- both of our camps have received biased coverage at one point or another. I believe that, MSNBC aside, the bias right now is tolerable. Just watch CNN and you won't catch the flu, I promise.

Um yeah, from the guy who's tried to baselessly smear me by calling me a sexist for not supporting Hillary. You're welcome.



Again, what is your point? We shouldn't support him because the media will be hard on him? You and other Hillary supporters have already dragged out all of that nonsense about his church, his middle name, his lack of experience. In fact, you do it every chance you get. You've taken your cues from the Karl Rove slime machine and it has backfired. Maybe it will backfire again in the general election, or maybe it won't. But if the American people want to vote against the guy because of some dumb claims about his church, then they deserve the president they get.