Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If North Carolina Democrats are seething with a pathological hatred of women (misogyny), they've got a damn funny way of showing it.
I'm really am not sure why it is that the rules have all of a sudden been changed for Hillary.
Jessie Jackson fought all the way to the primary with half the delegates of the front runner.
But Hillary who will lose with 49% of the vote, consistently doing better than Obama in match-ups against McCain and with Democrat membership and participation at record levels and yet she is supposedly a self-obsessed destroyer. But the men who preceded her and did far worse than her were just considered honest fighters.
It's a bit weird what ever the reason.
-
Race, gender, MyDD have some interesting observations about one of the other splits in the Dem party age.
-
Noonan and Will have both been very far from impressed with GOP demagoguery on immigration, for a start.
Glad to hear it. It sill doesn't mean I'd take any notice of anything they had to say about the Democratic primary.
I suppose it's just that the criticism of Clinton has been more balanced - she gets ill-informed and bitter attacks from both ends of the political spectrum.
Anyone know how many men had very little chance (actually a lot less of a chance than Hillary) of gaining the nomination but fought all the way to the convention? Quite a few.
It does raise the issue of what's different this time round.
-
And can I give Peggy Noonan props for being one of the very few voices in the Republican/right commentariat (along with George Will and, most of the time, David Brooks) who've kept it real and sane in their commentary on the Democratic primary.
It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose but I don't really have time for right wingers slandering Clinton with the racist tag. It's sort of ironic.
-
And you know what makes it so much worse -- I don't believe for a moment that John McCain or Hillary Clinton are bigots, they're just willing to pander their arses off for a poll point.
I haven't been following McCain's campaign so don't know much about it although I saw the CNN interview with Obama yesterday where he reacted to McCain's allegation that Obama was the Hamas candidate. Now that is low politics. Obama's response was very good.
He came across well in the whole interview. His comments on the Supreme Court and its role were particularly impressive I thought. Given his background in constitutional law that's not surprising.
As for Clinton I think we're going to have to have to agree to disagree - I just do not think she has been so Machiavellian over Wright and the issue of race. She hasn't helped Obama out of the Wright mess but that's not her job - that's something only he can do.
As for race, this all goes back to Bill's comments during the South Carolina primary and I can't see how they can be interpreted as playing the race card. Making the observation that Obama did well because he got huge Afro-American support is racist only if you think that saying Hillary did well in New Hampshire because of women is sexist. It's just a reality of the demographics of their respective support bases. It's odd since Obama supporters themselves aren't slow to point out the benefits to the Dem party of how well Obama does with Afro-Americans.
But this is all starting to make my brain hurt, the good news though is how well the Democrat party is doing.
While writing this they posted Obama/Clinton Would Be Good For Downticket Democrats. I'd like to see them on the same ticket but I'm agnostic really. It may not be the best strategic arrangement or then it may well be.
-
I'm tired of arguing about this. I try to remember that I like Obama, and that its the comments of his supporters that I tend to have issues with.
that is so what I feel.
Whether you agree with it or not, Clinton's argument is that she is more electable on an electoral college basis notwithstanding Obama's delegate lead.
That's the bottom line and it's been true - uptil the last week. Clinton has been more electable, she has been the one who would beat McCain. But Obama has moved ahead of McCain - not as much as Clinton, but enough to win, theoretically.
But it's still a tenuous advantage and Gallup is comparing 2008 with Obama to Kerry in 2004 in terms of voting patterns. Great. The Dems are going to have to stitch together a negotiated settlement to this campaign to ensure the current demographic support divide gets stitched back together. I think Obama understands this. He's been much more gracious to Hillary and her supporters than many of his internet fans.
-
The angry, delusional take on a Michigan compromise on the part of the Clinton diehards at TalkLeft is ... weird.
To accuse Obama of "vote stealing" when both candidates agreed the primary there wouldn't count -- but Hillary stayed on the ballot -- you've got to be pretty far out there.
I don't think you understand their argument - they are saying that any deal that has Obama get uncommited votes that were from the supporters of Edwards is a bit of a vote steal.
You might be a bit more careful about calling anyone at TalkLeft "Clinton diehards" - you might be a bit surprisd at who some of them support. Not everyone feels the need to indicate their support for Obama by rabid attacks on Hillary.
I think the stronger claim is viable i.e. that the "get out" campaign is fuelled by misogyny.
Andrew Sullivan, Mathew Yglesias, Michael Tomasky.......the list of males that have demonised so irrationally is a long one. Their venom is quite disturbing.
...it would have been great to see the mad patriarchs in places like Afghanistan forced to deal with that most perfidious of creatures, a woman.
guess which candidate is the most popular in Pakistan according to a recent Pew poll - Hillary.
-
Gawd, he's a horrible man ...
we agree on something. but he's consistantly horrible. he never much liked the Clintons.
-
The goss is that they believe they have a majority on the party's Rules and Bylaws committee and could force through a decision to seat the delegates. Which would not go down well.
Obama's reasoning may be that he'd rather not go into the election with the Democratic Party in flames.
I see, so the very worst interpretation for Clinton based on the goss and the best interpretation for Obama based on speculation.
It's no secret that Clinton wants those delegates seated and it's no secret Obama doesn't. They're both motivated by self-interst here but in judging the morality of their resepective positions it's worth considering who doesn't want votes counted and who does.
If it's true that Obam now wants to deal on this issue then that is a change of position - a change that comes about becasue he's pretty secure. He's dealyed any sloltution to Michigan and florida until it suits him.
But I agree that one reason he wants to do a deal is not to damage the Dem party. Which he would if he continued to be obstructive. He will need the Florida votes and the rest of Clinton's support base come Nov.
-
Why did it take you 20 years to decide you don't like Rev Wrights rantings? Most people could have figured that out in 20 minutes or less.
It's an interesting question, even Orpah saw through Wright after just a few years. Most likely he was a little bit blinded because of the strong mentor role Wright played or it was politically expedient at the time not to saying anything critical. Or a combination of both. Either way it just shows he's human and has the usual human failings, he doesn't share any of Wright's crazier ideas.
(I think Hitchen's theory is that Obama didn't ditch Wright earlier because of his wife but his evidence is underwhelming).