I’m not going to name names but I’m getting a little tired of the petulant attitude a lot of other bloggers are taking about the rise of Barack Obama. I wrote two pieces last week on the meta aspects of the blogosphere and the race: Why the Blogosphere Went for Edwards and Obama and the Blogosphere. My basic point was that Obama’s differences with the blogosphere were less about substance than style and that Obama’s style was, in large part, due to constraints facing any African-American candidate running for president.
Now that Obama has won Iowa and is poised for a blowout win in New Hampshire, there are a bunch of sour grapes. Boo hoo, the people are changing their preferences and moving in hordes for Barack Obama. It’s so unfair. Why should a few corn farmers in Iowa change the preferences of so many people. Are they sheeple…what’s their problem?
This is basic psychology. Go down and talk to the black community in South Carolina. I know what they’ll tell you. They have experienced so much institutionalized racism in their lives that they simply couldn’t imagine that a black man could win the nomination, let alone the general election. Therefore, they were inclined to support Hillary Clinton. The Clintons, after all, have a very good and long lasting relationship with the black community, especially in places like South Carolina. There was a lot of good will and trust built up…and then there was the electability issue. Add to this the inclination not to make oneself vulnerable by getting one’s hopes up. But that all changed once they saw Obama knock the living crap out of the vaunted and feared Clinton Machine. It’s going to totally evaporate when Obama clubs the Clintons by double digits on Tuesday. In fact, Obama’s momentum will be so strong after New Hampshire that there will be very strong peer pressure in the black community in South Carolina for everyone to band together behind Obama.
Does this make them sheeple? Or does it mean that Obama has passed a test, a hurdle, and allowed people to let down their guard and dream?
People are flocking to Obama, not because they saw him on television dressed in garlands and basking in victory. They’re flocking to him because he has answered their doubts. You think he isn’t tough enough to win? Tell it to Hillary Clinton and her team. They got hit so hard they don’t even know what state they’re campaigning in anymore.
The scope of Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking.
The bigfoot reporters smell blood.
Is this what it would have been like had Elvis been reduced to playing Reno?
Former President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke…
Why wouldn’t people be newly impressed with Barack Obama. Last week he was just one senator out of 100 that hasn’t done shit to stop the Bush administration. This week he is queen killer. He’s proven his ability to build an organization that works, and he’s taken down the most formidable political family in American politics. What is Mike Huckabee by comparison? And he did it in two of the whitest states in the nation. What was that about a ‘black man can’t win’ again?
People are flocking to Obama because he is now a proven winner with a proven organization who obviously knows how to fight. People are just tuning in and they’re seeing a man and a campaign that is operating on a very high level. And, so, yes…they’re changing their minds…they’re losing their skepticism. They’re convinced he can win.
Edwards is doing pretty well, too. Edwards is still in the game. But just because your preference is for Edwards is no reason to get grumpy about the Obama surge. It doesn’t mean people are stupid. It means they like what they see.
All this grousing is unseemly. It’s about as lame as watching Bill Clinton’s visible disappointment at the high turnout of young voters in Iowa.
Thanks for this, Booman. I was writing my post while you were writing this. I’m happy to be a supporter of Obama, and decided it was time to lay out the data why I support him.
I never mind when people have a difference of opinion, or choose a different candidate. Edwards is a great guy. He’s just not my guy, and that must be acceptable, if we live in a Democracy.
But what has bothered me is how uninformed the criticism of Obama has been. I’m all in favor of learning more. But when people espouse another campaign’s talking points without even realizing they’re not factual, that shows a shallowness that bothers me in fellow citizens.
Anyway, kudos for you for pointing this out. I hope people will give Obama a second look now, because he may well be our next candidate.
That’s pretty broad, Lisa.
My criticism of him as come from being one of his constitutents as well as working on his Senatorial campaign.
I might add that my visceral, overly broad characterization of a lot of Obama backers is that their support is coming from an uninformed and shallow place.
I suspect you are right in some cases. I suspect I am right in some.
It just really struck me that your characterization of those who don’t support Obama is an almost verbatim assessment of my reaction to those who do.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
And I think we expect miracles from our elected officials.
Anyone who has ever had to try to get a large group of people do anything probably has more sympathy for our representatives than those who haven’t. Forging a consensus is very, very hard work, even among somewhat like-minded people, and nearly impossible against those with opposing points of view. Obama has done better in that regard than Hillary, who wasn’t able to get us ANY health care reform after her big effort.
Edwards doesn’t have enough of a track record to evaluate in that regard. In fact, he didn’t like being in the Senate (he said), which is a flag, to me. You have to enjoy the process a bit to be good at it.
I, for one, am not grumpy about Obama’s success. The mere fact of it says volumes about how far America has come in matters of race, and while I’m not especially fond of Obama, his success in Iowa is the first thing that’s made me feel good about America in a long, long time. And I’m also glad that the Clinton campaign appears to have been derailed.
And there’s the rub. The problem is that he’s still just one senator out of 100 that hasn’t done shit to stop the Bush administration. Unless that changes, I’ll still hold my nose and vote for him in November if he gets the nomination, but it will be with the same lack of enthusiasm I felt when I voted for Kerry. I doubt he’ll be a bad president, but I have no reason, based on his voting record in the Senate, to expect he’ll be a great president. I hope I’m wrong.
The reason I’m suspicious is that the whole “wait until we have the White House” approach reminds me way too much of the anticipation I felt when the Democrats took both houses of Congress — and then nothing, nothing, happened.
To be honest, I have reservations about Edwards, too, in part because he’s been out of government, and it’s easy to talk when you don’t have hungry lobbyists to feed. He is at least saying the right things, while Obama seems content to utter lofty but vague speeches after the manner of another inspiring but ultimately not very good president, John F. Kennedy. We don’t need another JFK. We need another FDR.
So we’ll see. There’s not much I can actually do about it but vote when the primaries roll around to my state. But I’m not grumpy, just wary.
This was a very good analysis.
I think the blogosphere often forgets that most people, as you say, are just tuning in. Bloggers have been living and breathing this race for months but for most people it’s been nothing but background noise. They are aware of it (how could you not be) but they haven’t really focused on it. They are finally starting to look at the races.
And I think you are dead-on about the black community. All this griping about how Iowa is not representative of the country is somewhat humorous – almost as if they are intentionally missing the point. Iowa isn’t representative because it is so homogeneous — and yet a new, untested candidate who was most unlike Iowans in race and background won! And won by a good sized margin and did it by bringing in so many new voters. It is incredible.
I have always liked Edwards best. I have issues with Obama’s style and I have concerns about him if he wins. But I am blown away by his campaign this past week.
You know, the “style” issue didn’t gel for me until just now. I mean, I knew what Booman meant when he mentioned it earlier, but here’s the angle that just dawned on me…
The virtue of “disagreeing without being disagreeable” is not something that blogs are typically known for. And if that is your preferred style of interaction–genuinely engaging in dialog with the other side, listening to each other, avoiding name-calling, etc., then a lot of the “lefty” blogs probably don’t feel like a good fit for you.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being a “fighter”. What I’m saying is that the blogosphere “culture” seems to select for that style. The style that’s more consistent with Obama’s is likely to be underrepresented on the blogs. But not at the polls.
An excellent point, Renee! Very well said.
Style over substance? Forget that Obama’s not progressive? I think not. Obama shows little difference from Bush in his willingness to exercise American Exceptionalism abroad with an expanded military, except more competently of course. It’s gonna be third party time for many, at this rate.
Available in a non-green hue.
The grousing is indeed unseemly. Especially Kevin Drum’s corn farmer dig. Give me a break. How insulting. I’m sure the Iowa farmer attending his caucus is just as well informed and intelligent as the suburban California baby boomer housewife that is Hillary’s base and Drum would no doubt like to control Democratic politics. No wonder Drum and so many liberals were attracted to Hillary’s centrist approach–they have no respect for the voters’ intelligence so they think the best way to enact liberal policies is to trick the voters by running a centrist campaign and then sneak in a few liberal policies, wink wink, once their candidate is in the office.
Only thing is the pig and corn farmers of Iowa weren’t snookered by Hillary’s triangulation.
Bravo, Booman, well said. This essay gave me the same thrill as Arthur’s protestations that Hillary is just like me inside, but playing the game the way us wimmin and darkies need to for any kind of success in America.
It still comes down to ‘content of character’ and at this point my preference is for Edwards. I believe he can do the job, I don’t just hope he can.
God knows I’ll celebrate a black or a woman winning the White House as long as s/he’s not a republican. Maybe this long drawn-out primary season is what we need to get used to the idea.
Perhaps I missed something here at BMT, but this advice would be well worth passing along to one of your guest front-pagers here (Larry Johnson).
quad 4s for you. I saw his post at another site. TPMcafe.
It was. Rabid. Mean. Dishonest. Shrilling for Clinton, while overlooking
“I did not inhale”
“Depends what the meaning of IS, is”
This is a great post. But is it believable or just a hope that the country is now behind its racist past (and present)?
But how would Obama do in SC in the general election? That is the question and no one is really able to answer it at this time. This poll was taken in 2003 and would give everyone hope that we are indeed beyond racism in electing candidates to high offices:
But here are the results of some 2006 senatorial races involving Black candidates:
Two races for governor, Ohio and PA, had similar results 2006.
Among Democrats, Obama is surging. Is he also surging among voters in general, especially in the border states?
Shergald,
The candidates matter. Just because someone black is running doesn’t mean ‘those who would vote for a black candidate’ will be automatically enchanted. Perhaps those candidates failed to inspire.
Most people who run for office lose. It could easily be as simple as that.
It could be anything, but I would rather look back at history: the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan, transformation of the Republican party, and racial divide within the parties. to ask how far have we actually come. An attractive white woman in a political ad asking Harold Ford in Tennessee to give him a ring, was not without its racial implications. He was beaten for the Senate by a good ol’ boy small town mayor. That too may have been meaningless. I just prefer to be realistic and to recognize the racism that still exists in American society.
Thanks Boo, I rec’d this over at orange but needto come back to the pond more often with writing like this. I’m amazed. Haven’t seen anything like this since Bobby Kennedy. This is going to be one heck of a ride. You’re right, it’s going to be a blowout and we have every reason to rejoice. What an opportunity.
I wanted Gore to get in. I was wrong. Obama is better, his campaign has done a terrific job and it’s going to get better. I realized over Christmas break (I went to undecided in Nov) that what was holding me back was Kennedy. I was in HS stumping for McCarthy but Bobby was great and then gone. I dropped out for at least 10 yrs. I was holding back ’cause I realized I might actauly Like Obama. I’m not worried, I’m hugely encouraged. What an impact he will have on the Senate races? It’s all very very good.
what exactly changed your mind or put you in the Obama camp? I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I truly want to know. People keep saying they now want Obama but don’t say why. I am confused.
What changed my mind is I realized what was holding me back..see the first post..and when I realized that and let that go, relatively easy decision.
I like Edward’s positions now but wish he had them when he ran as VP. I wish he had not only voted for the war but actively supported. He can change, he can have a new position but that was a key. I see Obama as leading a movement, not just a candidacy and I’m thrilled by the effect that is having (increasing turnout, bringing new voters, etc). Hope that helps
But maybe, maybe, in spite of the fact that you say there aren’t substantive problems with him, and that all our concerns are about how he can’t seem angry, maybe not everyone agrees with your analysis.
I don’t agree that it’s a purely stylistic matter to talk about reconciliation out of one side of your mouth and spit at progressives out of the other.
I don’t agree that attacking Paul Krugman or giving a mic to Donnie McClurkin happens out of a desire not to appear angry.
And I talked to a woman the other day who’s very well-informed, and who has a relative who’s very active in LGBT politics, who’d never heard about the McClurkin incident. Why? I’d guess because the media doesn’t give a flying f*** when Dems piss on gay people. But I’ll tell you, Clinton and Edwards would have never been able to pull that kind of stunt unscathed.
The public hardly ever hears this dog whistle crap. And apparently, that includes plenty of the blog-reading public, as well. Fine. Have Kerry. Have Obama. They’re still better than the alternatives. Hope and pray that you’re all correct that his progressive glory days didn’t die of neglect in his Senate seat, but that the best of them are yet to come. Can I have some evidence that this is the case before my position gets smeared as insubstantial and petty?
Yeah, it’s a great day for civil rights that a mostly white state voted for a black candidate. Yeah, it’s great that the youth vote finally, finally turned out in the kind of numbers everyone’s always hoped for. Good stuff, all.
Let’s hope it brings us some real policy changes, instead of one more Democrat who thinks it’s cute to bring olive branches to gun fights. Maybe that is a ‘style’ thing. But it’s also the reason we’ve got nothing to show for a year of a Democratic congressional majority besides a handful of symbolic victories and a basketful of crushing disappointments.
“does it mean that Obama has passed a test, a hurdle, and allowed people to let down their guard and dream?”
Re. letting down one’s guard and dreaming: I was having this particular conversation with my old man this weekend.
My dad was saying that he still sort of supports Hillary, and I was arguing for him not to do so.
He made the mistake of saying “I would certainly like to see your generation wake up and agressively vote its own interest.” Boy oh boy was that a bad move on his part:
“that why I’m for edwards and against clintoon. why do you think gore lost so bad, after bill clintoon stole everyone’s dreams? why do you think idealists went for nader who promised to give those dreams back?”
So whatever issues I have with Obama (and i DO prefer edwards for both style AND substance), both are preferable to the Clintoon machine, because stealing dreams is exactly what Clintoon did: they got everyone to let their guard down and dream again, and then they shipped all the jobs overseas, destroyed welfare benefits, and pushed the center way far to the right.
yeah, so fuck the Clintoons.
doesn’t solve anything either. It seems like yet another distraction from the real issues.
Issues that Grandma M. attempted to address in her diaries. Would we had more analysis and less soap opera.
Obama surge is happening because people are indeed just tuning in. Most IMO have been actively trying to tune out the endless pregame show the campaign has become. Now that there are actually a few games on, they are paying attention because they care, just not 24/7 for 7 months at a time.
Now that they’ve tuned in they are looking past Edwards blowdry and Hillary’s shrill and looking past the particulars of their policy proposals. People are bored and exhausted with the debate and divide around the details.
They want a candidate that won’t embarrass them to the world. They want someone who won’t make them dive for the remote when he/she comes on TV. They want to be inspired. They want to trust. They want a candidate and a team around him/her committed to the goodwill of all Americans, not someone committed to defeating the other half of Americans.
My concern is it is a long, long time from here to November and that is a long time to stay out front on inspiration alone. It’s a long time to keep people inspired. American Idol won’t keep peoples’ attention that long.
Secondly, there are still voices in the Black community that say they won’t won’t vote for Obama for his own safety. They are convinced some white supremist will take a shot at him. It only takes one I suppose.
Andrew Longman,
Were you trusting Obama when he endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in Connecticut? When he said on DailyKos that he would cast progressives aside and go central? When he threatened to attack Iran and Pakistan?
America rolled the dice and went for style over substance seven years ago and look what it got us. One thing it got us was you talking about Edwards’ hair and Clinton’s ‘shrill’.
There are serious problems in America that need to be addressed, including civil liberties, jobs, trade, corporate welfare, the environment and education. Obama wants to build up the military and pursue the “war on terror”. I suppose that Obama with Lieberman as VP will be able to do that, but that doesn’t make it right. Anyhow, he looks good and is bipartisan, like what we need in Washington is more unity on the wrong policies.
Not saying these are my views, just explaining why what is happening with Obama is happening.
Most voters have long forgotten who Lamont is and why he was important. And even at the time, most voters, not Democrats, in CT preferred Leiberman because of how he had served the state.
There are a ton of issues as you say, and most voters know that. But unlike the wonks on the blogs, they don’t have the time, energy or inclination to understand them in detail. They just know the usual suspects have had plenty of time to do something and have mostly made it worse with their partisan manuevering.
They don’t give a shit if someone is a centrist or progressive. They don’t even know the difference. Most think Teddy Roosevelt was the last progressive.
They will and are getting behind someone they perceive has the best chance of defeating the Republicans and the status quo on both sides.
I don’t think there is a significant constituency of African-Americans that will not vote for Obama out of fear for his safety. I do worry myself, that he’s channeling RFK a little to strongly. But that certainly won’t prevent me from voting for him.
To be clear, I’m still undecided between Edwards and Obama. If I vote for Obama it won’t be because I like his policies better than Edwards’, it will be because the differences pale in comparison to the opportunity to see historic turnout, especially from my generation and the generation that followed me.
Let’s hope, on the assisnation front, he channels Gerry Ford more than RFK 🙂
hillary = shrill
edwards = blowdry.
and can i meantion that both terms as used in today’s political discourse are deeply tied into sexism and homophobia? so nice to see at progressive blogs.
do you work for fox, or is that supposed to be meaningful critique of their policies and voting records?
some people are so easily brainwashed…
in fairness, I think Andrew is describing not prescribing.
Thank you and correct
For the most part there is no meaningful critique of their policies and voting records. Or there is so much of it (arguably not meaningful) that for many Americans they just don’t care anymore because they feel it hasn’t gotten us out of our mess and may have made it worse.
BTW I never knew blowdry was a homophobic term. I thought it was a derision reserved for 70s DJs, and slick looking politicians.
And I thought shrill had to do with the tone of a persons voice, not their gender.
Learn something every day. 🙂
As for my own views, I have little issue with Edwards except that I don’t have a good sense that will solidly defeat a Republican candidate which is what I think is needed to create the change needed.
As for Hillary, I have had Clinton fatigue for more than 12 years. Her husband was a great disappointment for me and as with Boo, I am tired of their crew.
Andrew-
The right-wing noise machine has indeed been calling Edwards a faggot (Ann Coulter has done so explicitly) and using his blowdrying as example A.
As for Hillary’s shrillness, there’s less of a case, since it is objectively true that she is shrill. But women in power tend to get hit with the same epithets, and shrillness is right up there with ballbreaker.
i misread your comment the first time and just reacted. emotionally! drat! boo can mock me forever now, and i’ll deserve it.
still- i really do hate seeing talking points on progressive blogs that come from fox. they make me see red.
Cool 🙂
I’m just trying to point out that not every voter is a progressive blogger and Fox sometimes reflects America’s POV as much as it shapes it. Sad, but there it is.
It could be anything, but I would rather look back at history: the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Reagan, transformation of the Republican party, and racial divide within the parties. to ask how far have we actually come. An attractive white woman in a political ad asking Harold Ford in Tennessee to give him a ring, was not without its racial implications. He was beaten for the Senate by a good ol’ boy small town mayor. That too may have been meaningless. I just prefer to be realistic and to recognize the racism that still exists in American society.
geez boo, next thing you’ll be telling me to be more Civil.
it’s primary season for gosh sakes, of course people are going to grouse, bitch, whine, moan, and otherwise show “unseemly” amounts of emotion when their candidates don’t do as well, or get treated as well (which is my main issue re: edwards) in the process.
but i think it’s silly to expect people to act as if this were not a time for rhetoric, high emotion, and in-fighting. i thought that’s a large part of what primaries are all about? not to mention the fact that if any candidate or supporter thinks it’s bad now, just wait till we get going during general election season. a little “dirty” oppo and mudslinging now is good practice. the SCLM is saving their best for later, trust me. no dem will get fair treatment then, and i hope whomever ends up with the nom has a group of supporters (which will be all of us) who can take it as well as dish it out.
go edwards! obama is a girly man! hillalry boots combat software! long live our insect overlords! 😉
grouse all you want, cd, but please don’t whine that people are sheep because they’ve suddenly embraced Obama.
words. when did you read me use the term “sheeple?”
i stopped using sheeple in all but the most extreme examples, long ago. corrente as a whole has banned the use of that term, or at least we try really hard not to let it show up there. you may provide a link next time you want to lump me in with those who still use the term.
i have tried, and will continue to try, to get people to talk about policy, voting records, endorsements, and the things that matter. that makes me a wonky member of a minority in the electorate. i’m sorry if it hurts people’s feelings, but i am going to continue to point out where i think people are basing their support on the wrong things.
haven’t we had enough of electing those we ‘want to have a beer with’ over those who actually are competent administrators? that’s what scares me most about the obamasurge. i don’t know what people expect him to do, other than make them feel good. which, along with $6.25, will get you a chai at starbucks. end the occupation, fixing the economy…not so much.
This is just us talking past each other.
This diary is in response to unnamed A-List bloggers writing the corn farmers’ opinions are driving sheeple to vote for Obama. That pissed me off. You told me I shouldn’t complain about it. I told you that I wouldn’t complain about it if you didn’t engage in it. It’s not personal, and I wasn’t accusing you of engaging in it.
It probably matters less if candidate A voted on the right side of an issue 10 times versus the 12 votes for candidate B than why he/she did.
Votes, endorsements, and the like are a result of compromise. Hopefully it is informed and principled compromise, but it also is a function of leverage.
You need to be in a position of strength, through coalitions and constituents to negotiate from strength.
For the last 15+ years the game has been played by getting just one more vote than the other side. Stay strong by keeping the other side weak. Well, that makes everyone weak.
The excitement Obama is creating is he seems to be attracting everyone. Its easier to be bi-partisan when the other side doesn’t think you’re the Anti-Christ.
I guess it’s just not cricket that some of us have substantive differences with Obama, in particular his pleasing but disempowering rhetorical frames: a partisan foodfight, not a runaway conservative movement; insufficiently pious progressives; a Social Security “crisis”; dangerous special interest groups like unions; disreputable professions like trial lawyers; and obnoxious past candidates like Kerry and Gore.
Just pass me a sour-grape Kool-Aid, sport. Sorry to raise a fuss here in Happy Valley!
All those things (except the last) bothered me about Obama too, but they’re really not very significant. That’s rhetoric. I don’t pay a whole of attention to rhetoric. If you have read me over the years, you’ll know my hostility to framing and my preference for the nuts and bolts of coalition building. In a prior piece I discussed some of the constraints limiting Obama’s playing field. He has successfully reassured the press, big business, and media, without offering them much of anything. Yes, he’s taken the left for granted, but he had that luxury. I don’t know anyone who will really not vote for him because of any of his dog whistle decisions. He’s done a masterful job. And there just isn’t much of substance that distinguishes him from Edwards except style and rhetoric.
Actually, I’m a first-time visitor, brought here by Chicago Dyke’s link, so I’m not familiar with your history (though she speaks of you most highly).
Would you be so kind as to point me to a definitive (or near as might) statement of your views on framing?
I’m of the opinion that the way the press and public conceptualize issues matters. The rightwing has done a masterful job at getting its narratives into people’s heads, to — it seems to me — considerable effect:
* Flag=GOP
* Patriotism=GOP
* Fiscal prudence=GOP
* Strong defense=GOP
* Supporting our troops=GOP
* Moral values=GOP
* Old-fashioned values=GOP
* Faith=GOP
* Jesus=GOP
It takes several years of disastrous GOP hegemony for people to start thinking about going to an alternative, and in four-to-eight years they’re ready to replay the fantasy that these themes are true.
Reminds me of a story related by a colleague. On a plane, he was seated next to an executive from KFC. The chicken man admitted that the biggest limitation on their success was that people wouldn’t come back until they forgot how greasy the food was. Once they did, I guess, they just remembered the smilin’ colonel on that bucket o’ bird.
I don’t mean that framing isn’t important. It has an effect over time. But you don’t win elections because you framed the issues better, you do it by defining your opponent on a personal level, by projecting a winning persona and campaign team, and by getting out your vote. Likeability is still the single most important factor in most national elections (except in times of national peril).
There are all kinds of subsets to the above categories. For example, cultivating a positive relationship with the press is most helpful in winning the battle to define your opponent and not be defined.
When you look at Edwards, he has utterly failed to cultivate a positive relationship with the press, while Obama walks on water. You can complain about it, but it won’t change the truth of it.
Obama might throw a bone to bigfoot reporters by criticizing bloggers. His reward? Better coverage.
This is not beanbag we’re playing here, and Obama has a lot of reassuring to do. He’s managed to conquer all the important groups: white flight suburban voters, pro-business social liberals, the mainstream press…that normally fear liberals, especially of the ethnic minority variety.
In the process, a few lefties got their feelings hurt. My advice is not to take it personally. He’s been playing chess when we’re accustomed to tiddlywinks.
He’s an old school urban community organizer. As one of those myself, I can tell you, it is the best experience possible for a president to have.
And…I’m still probably going to vote for Edwards just to reward good behavior.
Take it personally? Moi?
It’s exciting to see a “
fight back” from the years of being hammered by BushCo. But as exciting as it is to have a black person running effectively for President, that is not alone a good reason to select this guy for President. Unfortunately, due to his lack of experience in big time horrible American politics, he will be made into mince-meat by the Rethugs. This is not the outcome of choice. For example, why is he running a $100 million campaign on big corporate money? That is not the conduct of a candidate in favor of re-instating the middle class. Edwards remains the candidate with the most threat to the Republicans and should be supported. The main stream media will never buy him because he threatens them, too.