Why I am an Obama supporter now

[proud2BlibKansan]

I have told about this before but I will tell it again. I am the political chair for 2 different DFA groups here. One of the groups trains grassroots campaign workers. The other groups sponsors events. Claire McCaskill's staff told one of my groups that she would not have won this city in her 2006 election without the work and support of our group members. We are not the most powerful political group in town, but we are a player. About a year ago, we were contacted by the local reps from the Obama campaign. They have been coming to our monthly meetings ever since. A few months after the Obama people contacted us, the Edwards group contacted us. Then Kucinich. And Dodd. And Richardson. By this past September, all of those campaigns had approached both of my groups and regularly send reps to our meetings and events.

I am also active in my local county and congressional district Democratic party groups. All of the above mentioned campaigns have come to at least one (usually more) of our meetings and handed out literature and tried to sell us on their candidate.

EXCEPT HILLARY.

We have a Kennedy dinner here every November. This year, all of the campaigns were there with literature and they were each given a few minutes to speak.

HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN WAS A NO SHOW.

I can sort of understand Hillary's campaign avoiding DFA. It is a very progressive organization and Hillary seems to be appealing to the moderate and conservative wing of the party. But it makes ZERO sense that her campaign would ignore the Democratic party here.

Hillary finally opened an office here. I called and asked if they wanted to come to our DFA meeting and bring literature and maybe speak for a few minutes. Their response stunned me. I have been doing this for years now and it was the first time a campaign wasn't thrilled to hear a political group wanted more information and wanted them to come speak to our members. Hillary's campaign wanted me to sign up and send volunteers to THEM. They are just too busy to come talk to US. I said but you can sign up as many volunteers as you can get at our meetings, and network with the most active grassroots activists in the area. But no, they couldn't trouble themselves to come meet with us. The person I talked to didn't even ask for my name or contact info, which spoke volumes about their interest in me or my groups.

Bill Clinton was here a few weeks ago. I went to hear him speak and they asked for my name and phone number at the door. The next day I got a phone call from a Hillary campaign worker asking me for a donation or to volunteer. I said thanks for the call but I am supporting John Edwards. The campaign worker asked why did I go to a Hillary campaign event and give my name and number if I didn't support Hillary. I explained I went to hear Bill Clinton speak and they asked for my info at the door. And the worker said "BUT IT WAS A HILLARY CAMPAIGN EVENT!" I said I know but I am supporting Edwards at this time. And the worker HUNG UP ON ME.

I see this same arrogant attitude in many of Hillary's supporters here. DUers I used to like and respect have turned into Hillary activists who are demanding my loyalty because . . . well I guess because she is HILLARY.

A few days after Kucinich dropped out, I was contacted by both Edwards and Obama's people here asking for my support. Hillary didn't call me. The day after Edwards dropped out, the Obama campaign called me and not only asked me to volunteer but asked me to lend my talents and experience to the local campaign. No I am not that important but it sure meant a lot to me that they thought I could actually contribute something to the group.

Hillary has yet to call since the campaign worker hung up on me. Well I did get a robo call that went out to all of the members of my union. But no personal contact.

I know this is only one metropolitan area and DU is only one of many discussion boards. But more and more I sense this arrogant 'you are with us or you are against us' attitude from the Hillary camp that is more reflective of Republican party politics than Democratic groups and candidates. It certainly is not very progressive.

I see far more 'do as we say, not what you think is right' coming from the Hillary campaign. There is an arrogance in her campaign which seems to grow as she drops in the polls and the delegate count. Instead of focusing on issues and Hillary's stance, and giving us a REASON to support her, we are criticized for not swallowing her as our next great savior.

So rather than being persuaded to worship at the altar of Obama, I can honestly say his campaign EARNED my support. Since there is very little difference in the platforms of our two candidates, I honestly could have been persuaded to go either way when Edwards dropped out, especially when Hillary changed her rhetoric about the war. No I have never been a big fan of Hillary but I could have been won over. If they had tried. My best friend is a Hillary supporter as are most of my co-workers.

So that's how I came to be an Obama supporter. No magic, no cultish attitude, no promises. Just a few phone calls asking for my help and treating me like I mattered. If Hillary tried that, she might not see her numbers dropping at this time.

[Bluebear]

1. Cool. But I didn't matter to Obama, that's why I can't support him.

I called his state and naitonal office begging him not to feature "ex-gay" acts at his events down South. He ignored me, his campaign said they "got what they needed" out of the events, so he treated me as a gay man as if I did *not* matter, but to each his own.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I understand perfectly why you feel as you do

This all kind of fell into place for me. But had the Obama campaign treated me like they did you, I wouldn't be supporting him.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Everyone but Obama

Answered my every question about gay rights and the McClurkin events. John Edwards won my support by facing his own personal issues and speaking about them clearly when asked. I do not have to agree with a candidate. Hillary's campaign replied with a great message. Kucinich, my actual cadidate of course gave all the right answers on gay stuff and the war and everything else, but he's short so we had to eliminate him right away!
If I got personal and specific to who said what to me, the only one who would be fully eliminated is Barack Obama. Email, phone calls, a 'snail mail' letter, all without reply. Expect for donation requests.
That will not be my final method of choice, however.

[yardwork]

84. So you're saying that it's ok for a candidate to treat other people badly?

Just as long as it's not you?

Even if I weren't gay, I'd be troubled by Obama's persistent use of "ex-gay" professionals in his campaign. Why this doesn't trouble other supposed human rights activists is a puzzle to me.

With the choice between Hillary and Barack, a lot of us are going to have to compromise somewhat. Neither is perfect.

[delt664]

87. "With the choice between Hillary and Barack, a lot of us are going to have to compromise somewhat...

Neither is perfect"

I think thats the smartest thing I've read on here in weeks.

Neither one is perfect, and the people running around pretending like their candidate is, and attacking the other for not being perfect is rediculous.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. No I understand why he made the choice that he did

As a human rights activist, the war is HUGE, and Obama has a better position than Hillary does.

[yardwork]

94. So some human rights are more important than others?

Gay people are used to be being told to get off the bus.

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. So I should choose gay rights over the war?

Is that what you are saying?

[yardwork]

99. Obama and Hillary have exactly the same voting record on the war.

If you want to believe that Obama would have voted against IWR, go right ahead. He wasn't in the senate at the time. As a representative to a very liberal district in Illinois, there was no risk at all for him to speak out against the war. Once he hit the senate, his voting has been a completely different story.

They're the same on the war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. And which one has closer ties to the military industrial complex?

Which one came out first and declared he would work to bring the troops home? Which one said just a few months ago that our troops would probably stay in Iraq throughout her first term?

There is more difference than you realize.

Of course neither one has the better position that Kucinich had. And Ron Paul beats them both on the war too. But I am not voting for Kucinich or Ron Paul.

[yardwork]

107. I'm disappointed in both of them. I supported Kucinich, then Biden, then Edwards.

I'm in a bad mood and I'm not about to pretend that Obama is way out in front on the war, because he isn't. Neither is Hillary. I'll vote for the nominee.

(Kicks the ground irritably.)

[loudsue]

113. This is how the DNC acted before Dr. Dean took over....Terry McAuliffe's

DNC management style (like the DLC) is to use the "machine" instead of the PEOPLE to get Dems elected. The machine is the media, the paid foot-soldiers, the local big wigs and their donors list...you know..the big boys & their corporations. The DLC doesn't give a shit about the people. That's why they're so adamant against any candidate with a POPULIST agenda.

Hillary is DLC.

[mopinko]

10. it saddens me to read these posts.

i do understand, as much as i can. but i do wish that you could understand that this does not represent OBAMA'S feelings, policies, or legislative record. i get it, but there is a bigger picture, and i don't think you see it.

[Bluebear]

48. If it does not represent Obama's feelings, he has to do but one thing:

"My campaign made a mistake hiring the ex-gay singers and speakers. I apologize to the GLBT community for Donnie McClurkin's sermon made on the stage in South Carolina while speaking on my behalf and promise that he and Kirbyjon Caldwell will have no further forum to feature their anti-gay views under my name."

[mopinko]

53. he has spoken out, and you know it.

i try not to put these "mcclurkin" posts in the same basket with the truly fake outrage around here, although i think a couple of the people who post them are phony. i don't think you are one of them.
but the man has spoken out, and has a legislative record that exceeds pretty much 90% of the democratic party. i can understand being underwhelmed. but the outright hostility to someone whose record speaks clearly is just :shrug: confusing. and saddening.

[Bluebear]

69. Obama's pretty press release cannot be reconciled with the ugly actions of his campaign.

And you know it.

[mopinko]

95. you do not understand obama. acceptance, which you claim

to want, is central to who he is. he stands up for what is right, but he doesn't shoot people who don't agree with him. he accepts that people are imperfect. that they don't agree with him on everything. and that you have to work with people you disagree with in order to move forward, and to change minds and hearts.
for once we have a candidate that can bring people together. who does not use these issues to wedge people apart. this is what we need to begin a new chapter. i could understand your feelings if donnie was indicative of his stance on the issue. but he is not, and you know it.
i want healing. i want peace. i want it for me, and i want it for you.
thankfully, we will achieve it without you. but we will miss you.

[Bluebear]

124. Here we go again. He didn't "work with" someone who disagreed with him.

His campaign HIRED him. The man gave a half-hour anti-gay sermon. Do we have to "work with" the KKK as well? Will that "heal" us?

No, fact is, he DID use the GLBT issue to wedge people apart by giving the "God delivered me from homosexuality" message center stage. And no, I do NOT know what Obama's issues are, because his words say one thing and his actions another.

[mopinko]

137. well, i know i won't convince you

so i will give it up. i will just say that around here, there is a lot of homophobia in the black community, and he could have just kept his mouth shut, but he didn't.
peace to you. i hate to see this. that's all.

[mopinko]

139. ok, i said i would drop it, but i want to say one more thing.

then i promise i will drop it- first, do you know that he was paid, which would be implied by saying hired? or did he volunteer? not to split hairs, just wondering, and don't know. maybe that would matter to you, maybe it wouldn't.
but my other point is that i do not think that the kkk is a fair analogy. i understand that there is fallout from this ex-gay bullshit that is tragic. but to compare that to lynch mobs, i don't think that is fair. i would say, do we have to work with bigots, rednecks? i was on howard dean's side when he made that comment about pick-up trucks and confederate flags. there are a lot of people out there that are bigots that never hurt a fly. i think we should work with them. i have to believe that change is possible. you don't have to change perfect people. you have to reach out to people that are wrong if you ever want them to see the light.
i don't say that for obama. i say that for myself.
seriously, peace to you.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. If he said that

I'd mail him a check and go get an Obama bumbersticker. Just what Bluebear said he needs to say. 2 freaking sentances. He would have my vote.

[yardwork]

85. Are you Obama? If not, how do you know it doesn't represent his feelings?

Seems to me that Obama's feelings about using "ex-gay" professionals are very clear - he's in favor of them! Seems to me that his policies are - to use "ex-gay" professionals as spokespeople for his campaign! Seems to me that his legislative record hasn't yielded any advancement of rights for gay people.

Now, you can say that Hillary is just as bad, or worse, and that may be true. But why do two wrongs make a right? Why is it ok to dismiss Obama's troubling feelings, policies, and record on using "ex-gay" spokespeople just because his opponent "does it too?"

I can understand weighing all the variables and choosing one candidate or the other. I can't understand dismissing the concerns. Who will you throw under the bus tomorrow?

[mopinko]

90. you apparently do not know his record.

he sponsored legislation in illinois to extend hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. he has included gay rights in civil rights for his entire career. hillary? not so much.
educate yourself.

[yardwork]

93. What was the outcome of Obama's legislation?

[democrat_nanny]

128. Condescending

Do you not get how condescending it sounds to tell someone, "...and I don't think you see it?"

If you want Senator Obama's feelings, etc. represented in a positive light then please, stop talking to everyone who isn't nuts over him as if they're children. I started out neutral in this race and the first thing that caused me to really tune in was the condescending attitude of superiority projected by the Obama Campaign and its supporters. I may be new to Democratic Underground but I'm not new to the Democratic Party and I can see this behavior backfiring already.

[mopinko]

138. i'm not being condescending. i am trying to be as respectful

as i can to someone who i disagree with on an extremely emotional issue. an issue that i think has been flogged by a lot of fake outrage by a lot of disingenuous people.
it is a touchy thing to discuss, and i was doing my best to tread lightly.
welcome to the board. try to be a little more positive yourself.

[Baby Snooks]

60. Still a problem for me but I still support Obama...

Has Hillary Clinton really been much better? What did Hillary and Bill Clinton offer the first time other than "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Do you really believe she will do anything for the GLBT community? Do you really think she will do anything for women? Or minorities? What did Bill Clinton do? Not much in the final analysis.

Personally I could do without the religion on the part of all the candidates. Reality is Barack Obama is part African-American. The African-American community has some "soul-searching" to do with regard to the GLBT community. But they have to do it regardless of who is president. And so it just comes down to one thing. Do you want more of the same? Or do you want something new? Do you want to take a chance that you will be stuck again with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with Hillary Clinton or do you want to take a chance that while Barack Obama may not give you everything you want, you may at least finally have equality under the law. As in "Don't Ask."

[yourguide]

74. Bluebear

Just curious, did you ask the same of the Clinton campaign? Actually, did you ask her campaign to feature gay acts at her events? Perhaps the Obama folks treated you as someone with your own agenda as opposed to a gay man that "did not matter".

I would bet money, big money, you would get the same response from the Clinton camp under the same circumstances.

I support gay rights, I support animal rights, but just because someone from the ASPCA wants to have a bunch of puppies needing to be adopted on stage prior to or during a campaign event it doesnt mean that if the campaign says no to that individual's agenda, that the candidate wants to see dead puppies in the street.

[Jamastiene]

75. Your analogy does not work.

Obama did not have gay people on the stage with him. He had people who attack gay people on his stage. What if he had had dead puppies on the stage with him? Hmm? Would you still support him and tell other people who are for animal rights that is was ok?

[yourguide]

76. My point is

I think my point is everyone has his or her own agenda, and just because a candidate doesnt do for YOU what you ask it doesnt mean he is against your point of view.

And again, I am really curious what the clinton campaign has done that is so much more progressive than the obama campaign.

[Arugula Latte]

2. Very telling post. Thanks, proud2Blib.

The arrogance of Hillary's campaign turned me off long ago. I actually think it is a very understated factor in her lackluster primary performance thus far.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. It's really sad

I have never seen a Democratic presidential campaign behave like this.

[ErnestoG]

16. This is what you get with Entitlement candidates.

They pitch an unholy fit if they think their cake isn't coming.

[Bread and Circus]

5. from what I've read and saw on the TV news shows this am, your experience is not surprising.

Hillary has some really bad campaign people surrounding her.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. You'd think she knew enough about campaigning than to depend on bad advice

:shrug:

[Adelante]

6. Thanks for that full story

DFA in Texas endorsed Obama, btw.

[Cha]

9. That's Great News!

Thanks, WesDem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I don't think our state DFA has endorsed anyone yet

We meet in June. Maybe we won't have to choose by then.

[mopinko]

7. her rep at our party endorsement meeting was like

a whipped dog. she gave her schpiel, but when she was asked about the war, she just folded up, and asked us to not let the war split the party. this was someone from our own ward, who worked for the clintons for a long time. she came in and took one for the team, knowing that we were mostly already on the barack train. but it was a sad performance.
mostly nobody has bothered with us here in illinois, tho.

[Cha]

8. Very well written, supportive statement

of why you're for Obama and not for hilary. I'm glad you're on board..you and group are vital to any campaign that you believe in.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. That's about the most unusual Obama graphic I have seen

LOL

[Cha]

27. It goes well with the sig

line..I admired it from another DUer and she said, "feel free to use it".

[Rageneau]

12. Sounds like you're blaming Hillary for things that she herself would be pissed to know about.

Believe me, Hillary is too smart to intentionally antagonize potential supporters. Her campaign operation seems too heavy with Washington insider-experts instead of grassroots passion, which is certainly as big as problem to her as it is to you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I don't know her but I would like to think she would be concerned

if she heard my story. And it does seem to be repeating in other areas as well.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. She made the exact same mistake in 1993 with health care. She kicked out the grass roots

and held secret closed door meetings with select individuals and special interests and it ended up killing her plan, which wasn't all that good anyway (managed care)

Hillary has no real record of working with the grass roots, anytime anywhere. Her attitude seems to be that the grass roots need her more than she needs them.

[earthlover]

28. I have noticed, right here at DU, that Hillary's campaign seems to attract arrogant people

and lemmings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. I have been surprised by some of the DUers who are supporting her

Shocked by a couple of them.

[NikolaC]

86. It's Not Just At DU

I have noticed this attitude at other online boards as well. I am a Kucinich supporter, my mother and sister are Hillary supporters but not very strong ones. I voted for Kucinich absentee in VA, even though he dropped out of the race, because I do not like the tone of either campaign. I have pretty much said very little here or elsewhere about Clinton or Obama. I supported Hillary when she was running for the Senate in NY, but her subsequent votes for some of the Bush Administration's most destructive policies have left me disappointed and disgusted. I worry about her hawkish votes and if it will be a continuation of the wars, without a strategy to get out as soon as possible.

Whenever I pose questions to Hillary supporters about her voting record, excuses are made along with comments which are arrogant, insulting to my intelligence and condescending. I have been reluctantly leaning towards Obama (my 7 year old son loves him, he thinks that he is serious and telling the truth), though with some reservations. I hate what our process of "selecting" a president has been. The lesser of two "evils", a popularity contest, who can raise the most money, who looks the best on camera. In the end, decisions about whom our candidates should be are made in the media, dubious voting machines and by super delegates. A very discouraging process which needs a serious change.

Sorry for getting a bit off topic there. The fact is that the Hillary campaign has neither done or said anything to assuage my doubts and fears about her Presidency. I am edging towards voting for Obama in the GE - if he wins the Dem nomination - partly based on his foreign policy views. Again, I don't care for the back and forward nasty tone of either campaign, which has made the Democrats look like spoiled kids fighting in a schoolyard, or for the tone of some supporters on both sides.

[Sadie5]

103. Call me arrogant

or what ever else suits you because I won't toe the line, but Obama has some serious issues starting with the anti gay preacher, and no, I'm not gay. Another thing is his wanting to work with the repiggies. I don't want someone in office that feels the repigs deserve anything. What have they done for the Democratic party in the past 8 years?

[Tatiana]

13. Clinton is running a top-down campaign.

They are only realizing they need the grassroots when it's nearly too late.

Your story echos many others, of activists in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas. I really don't see how she can win (fairly) with this strategy of ignoring the people who have their finger on the pulse of their localities.

Thank you for your input and welcome aboard! :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Yes it is wrong to ignore the grassroots

It might be a fatal mistake.

[Yael]

18. Good -- you made this into its own thread! K&R nt

[babylonsister]

19. Great post, proud, and thank you for sharing! It's too bad you were

treated so shabbily; I guess that's what happens when someone thinks they'll win on Super Tuesday and doesn't even have a ground game in place. I'm sure you're not alone in the way you've been treated.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. And I am sure we will jump up and work for Hillary if she gets the nomination

Cause we do support the Democratic candidate.

[Guava Jelly]

21. I voted Obama as well (In kcmo)

He wasn't my first choice.
But Hot damn he is on fire..

And Michelle would make a fine first lady.

[babylonsister]

23. What a gorgeous picture! nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. You should get involved with DFA!

It's a fun group.

[Guava Jelly]

29. I know ..I know

I keep meaning to make it to a meet up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. DFHA is having an event next Sat

WWWD (What Would Woody Do?)

Join us February 23rd at 6:30 until 9:30 at the Lucky Brewgrille, 5401 Johnson Drive in Mission for a WWWD fundraiser for local community organizations. Portions of the ticket sales will go to KKFI Community Radio, Cross Currents Culture, and Democracy For the Heart of America (DFHA). We will also be encouraging contributions of time and money to local progressive candidates.

http://whatwouldwoodydo.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BPMfS107u8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETlAQntZLo

[DaDooRonRon]

25. Let me ask a question of you

If there is, as you say, "very little difference in the platforms of our two candidates" then this must mean that their respective stances on the illegal war are OK with you? I have read much of what you have written previously, and you seem to me to be a fervent anti-war voter. If this is the case, then how can you rationalize voting for either one, knowing that neither will end this war anytime soon, both will keep troops in Iraq, and BOTH continue to spout this bullshit 'war on terror' crap that is as false as a three dollar bill?

I don't understand this line of "reasoning" at all, but a whole lot of folks here seem perfectly willing to throw away their staunch beliefs and instead follow someone who doesn't represent what seems to me to be their core values.

Could you help me out a little here? What makes you (and I'm using you in the group sense here) decide that corporate puppets who bob and weave to the call of their respective money men and whose advisors are a who's-who of everything that we supposedly want to flush down the toilet are the way to get this country back? And how can you say you could have been "won over' to a war-monger like Ms. Clinton?

I'd like to know, but I would ask that you don't respond with a "lesser of two evils" argument. The goal, as far as I know, is to remove the evil completely, not water it down.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Both are now saying they will begin to bring our troops home as soon as they are in office

And either one is infinitely better than McCain who is willing to leave our troops in Iraq for 1000 more years.

No matter who is elected, I can assure you the anti-war movement will continue to pressure the president and Congress to end the occupation of Iraq.

[DaDooRonRon]

49. "Begin"

"Begin" is a nice easy word - rolls off the tongue. The only bad part about it is that it never comes with an "end." Anyone can begin anything - 1000 troops home in the first month is a beginning, but troops still remaining after all is said and done is the "end" that I fear both candidates see.

As for the anti-war movement, I'm really sorry but it doesn't exist anymore. It needed to ramp itself up to the next level, and it never did. The pressuring of politicians is a joke - they will no more listen to you then they will listen to me. GE, Honeywell and Lockheed Martin will tell them when the war ends, not you or me or 500,000 of our closest friends. Believing that in this climate "we the people' make a difference is almost laughable. This is no longer 1968, the whole world is NOT watching, and fake wars go on and on with a wink and a nod from BOTH parties.

The war, you see, is a very small part of the problem. Blind faith in charisma while the charlatans make the policy is a losing roll of the dice every time, and right now when I look in the Congress all I see are a bunch of small time hustlers playing off your fear that the "other guys" will take your house, all the while stealing your wallet and making you believe you're happy your house is still there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. So who are you going to support?

A Democrat who has a plan for bringing the troops home or a Republican war monger?

The anti-war movement is not dead. You are new here. Stick around. You'll see we are still very active.

[DaDooRonRon]

82. To answer the first part

Maybe none of the above. There ARE choices, you know. Don't delude yourself into believing a Democrat will bring ALL the troops home. Won't happen. Watch what they do, not what they say. There will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for as long as either Clinton or Obama is in office.

As for the movement? - deader than a doornail. I'm glad you are still working towards ending the war, but the movement per se is now nothing more than the Saturday morning vigil. Where are the successes? Where are the politicians standing shoulder to shoulder with you saying not one more dime to Iraq? Where are the college kids pouring into the streets?

Nowhere. Like I say, it ends when it make no more $en$e to continue it. Hell, you can't even get a majority in Congress to stop perpetually funding it. And a Democratic president is going to do it? Nope.

(P.S. There is this Gold Star woman running for Congress in California who I like a lot, but since she decided that she wasn't going to carry the right letter next to her name I guess she doesn't matter anymore. Well, she still matters to me.)

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. No the movement isn't dead!

The 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is approaching. There are activities planned all over the country and in DC, where I will be. There is also a conference planned for this summer to organize future activities on a national scale.

Not voting for the Democrat is a vote for 1000 more years McCain. No thanks.

Our real work is in Congressional elections. That's where the power to end this war lies. So, as an anti-war activist, I am honestly more concerned about those elections.

[DaDooRonRon]

96. Really?

Please give me a list of all those Democrats who are running on ending an ILLEGAL war RIGHT NOW.

As for activities - gee, are we all going to go to D.C. and hold up signs again? I've done that more times than I can count.

THAT worked really well.

I know you have to believe, but facts is facts. You can have conferences until the moon turns blue, but your "leaders" will laugh behind your back and commend you to your face.

It's been SEVEN Years - you think Ms. "Impeachment is off the table" cares?????

How about "Harry the fighter"? Or Steny Hoyer?

THESE are who you are going to battle with and they ain't going anywhere - I don't give a flying f$^K how many more folks get elected.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. The ones who get elected are the ones who have the power to end the war

so you SHOULD care.

One of the March activities:

http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier

[DaDooRonRon]

101. But they won't use it!!!!

Don't you see?

It's a business decision to them.

They count on folks THINKING they care.

They don't, and every time someone sticks a dollar in their bucket they put on a show for them.

Like a fucking marionette.

If they cared so much, WHY are they still funding this war?

Why are they giving telecoms immunity?

Why are they rolling over on the bullshit "terror" meme?

You know why, but you just can't make yourself believe it yet.

It truly IS a fucking ruse.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. Walking away from it won't change anything

I am not quitting, but working even harder to hold them accountable. I agree it is a ruse. But I can't walk away and let it continue.

[DaDooRonRon]

110. I see your point

I just don't see it as walking away.

I see it as the first step in getting it right.

[krkaufman]

55. Nice rant, but I don't see how it applies to the reality of the election in November.

You now have a choice of President between McCain, Clinton and Obama; and soon only 2 of those.

The November election will in no way bring the war to an end, but the choices we make will make ending the war more or less difficult. It can be argued that the choice is moot, but the argument would be as empty as it was in 2000 when many argued that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

[DaDooRonRon]

80. I have a choice between many candidates

YOU'VE been told you only have A or B.

I may vote for a mainstream one, or I may not. It depends on who best meets MY needs, not on some ridiulous notice on who you've been told can win.

You see, last year everyone here was all up in arms over throwing out the DINO'S, and refusing to vote for anyone who would not end the war RIGHT NOW and who would stand up to corporate interests etc. etc. Today, however, those same folks will gladly cast their ballot for the same folks who they chastised a year ago, thinking for some bizarre reason the outcome will be different.

Interesting.

[krkaufman]

83. You *may* vote for Elmer Fudd.

But Elmer Fudd isn't going to, realistically, win dog catcher.

The situation is as the situation is. We have yet again failed to repair our Presidential electoral process, and so are left with a system that heavily favors money and is nearly impervious to underdogs. In the Democratic primaries, if your candidate can't get over 15% in your state, your vote is effectively discarded; in the general, in all but a couple states, if your candidate doesn't win a plurality of the votes in your state, your vote is effectively discarded. Them's the facts.

Loads of changes are needed to the process before we'll ever see a candidate truly representative of the public.

[DaDooRonRon]

91. And who would have thought a pro wrestler would be governor?

This saddens me:

"The situation is as the situation is. We have yet again failed to repair our Presidential electoral process, and so are left with a system that heavily favors money and is nearly impervious to underdogs. In the Democratic primaries, if your candidate can't get over 15% in your state, your vote is effectively discarded; in the general, in all but a couple states, if your candidate doesn't win a plurality of the votes in your state, your vote is effectively discarded. Them's the facts."

What you have just said is this: I.Give.Up.

You wail about all these changes being needed, yet you PERPETUATE the same system you decry! These changes you long for will never happen if you continue to play by the stacked rules. To say you really wish people would be kind to each other while hitting your neighbor with a (pre-approved and long-standing politically approved) brick does not make for a real persuasive argument.

If you believe in what you say, you need to act. Otherwise, it's all just empty rhetoric. People do that here all the time - they get recommended to the Greatest Page.

Whopee.

[krkaufman]

108. Then you're either misinterpreting what I said, or intentionally obfuscating.

> What you have just said is this: I.Give.Up.

No. That's what you choose to infer and misrepresent as what I said. How about you explain to the viewers exactly what changes can be made to the 2008 election process that will effect any relevant change relative to your perspective.

Short of physical revolt, there is very little that can be done, at this date, to change how the 2008 Presidential election will be conducted, from a system/mechanics standpoint. So you *are* left with selecting a card from a stacked deck, or choose not to select a card and a card will be drawn for you, regardless.

Fixing the system *does* need to occur, but the timeframe effectively precludes any relevant fixes for THIS cycle. You presume that I'm not acting to fix the system. I was out in the streets following the 2000 theft; were you? You don't know jack about me.

[DaDooRonRon]

109. The election process offers numerous choices

It is up to you to decide who to vote for. The deck has 52 cards, not just two. Do not think that your card is any more or less valid then any other.

The 2008 election, as you know, is not the problem. The mainstream candidates who are selected for you (and if you think you have the slightest bit of input as to who the respective parties allow you to "see" then you are quite naive) have passed the corporate test. They then put themselves in front of you so you can make your "choice", which is of course no choice at all. Really, is beef or chicken a choice to a vegetarian?

Congrtulations on being out in the streets - I was as well - although I am not quite sure why in hindsight it is that commendable. We were, after all, lobbying for Vice-President Lieberman.

[krkaufman]

111. "Validity" has nothing to do with it. Pragmatism does.

As I said previously, we're all free to vote for whomever we choose. My preferred candidate is not in the race, but I want my vote to count for *something* and so will make a pragmatic choice in the voting booth based on the reality we face on election day.

Personally, I was lobbying *for* Gore, and *against* Bush. Lieberman's certainly been revealed, now, as more repugnant than I thought him back then, but even Lieberman would be less cancerous than Cheney.

[DaDooRonRon]

131. And you realize by making this "pragmatic" choice you ensure that

nothing will ever change, despite your protestations to the contrary.

As long as you believe that one side is "better" than the other (remember, your "opponents" do as well) and that the real answer to what you wish for may be years away and requires a lot of heavy lifting (and more than its share of setbacks) then you'll get your crumbs of bread. While the other Republican option is no food at all, the real choice is a full meal, but your "side" as of today doesn't even know how to cook, and quite frankly doesn't want to learn.

Why should they - they got all the suckers believing crumbs are just fine, and whenever the flock makes its hunger known a quick flip of the "would you rather have no food at all?" card quickly shuts them up, and they line up for nibbles.

[krkaufman]

140. Can't you answer a simple question...?

Whom are you going to vote for in November that will effect the change for which you rant?

The system is broken, but that doesn't mean that I will ignore it completely and forgo the maintenance that will prevent irreparable destruction of the system.

Your song was sung 8 years ago, by Ralph Nader and his supporters, and it echoes today in hundreds of thousands of homes suffering after 7 years of rule by the man who was "no different than Al Gore."

[John Q. Citizen]

62. This may at least partially answer your very good question.

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/1089

Also, I would add to that the fact that Obama's whole campaign has been exceedingly grass-roots driven. If he's elected he's going to owe the grass-roots almost as much as he owes his big money backers and his brain trust,

That will be a big change for the Dems, who for years have taken the grass-roots more or less for granted.

And one more reason. An Obama victory will severly diminish the influence of the DLC as an organization and also diminish it's individual members influence.

Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

[DaDooRonRon]

88. Ah, I like David a lot

My problem with the "grass roots" theory is that we saw that before, with a certain Mr. Dean, who is now as much a part of the mainstream as anyone. To think that a politician of any stripe will remember the people who got him/her there is incorrect and is a dangerous position to take, for it continually legitimizes those so-called "grass roots" candidates who run under the moniker of either Corporate Red or Corporate Blue. While it is an effective marketing strategy for the "Big Two" to pretend that they listen to the minions it is of course quite the opposite (as crazy as it sounds, the Republican Party gets higher marks in this regard).

Once a "grass roots" mainstream candidate gets elected (and I will argue that the term is mute when looked at in this context) his/her obligation at that point is to get RE-elected, and that has nothing to do with any type of grass roots support.

Of course, a truly defined grass-roots candidate is by definition independent of any mainstream party, but that is a discussion for another time.

edit: I am not of the take what you can get faction - it's the easy way out, and we never seem to "get" anything (see: Congress, Democratic Majority; also see: Pelosi, un-indicted co-conspirator).

[dansolo]

134. Dean part of the mainstream????

If he is part of the mainstream, then why is the DLC so desperate to get rid of him? Dean is the one who was pushing the 50-state strategy, and backing progressive candidates. If we had more people like Dean, then we would be a lot closer to solving the problems that this country has.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. As you may know, I'm also supporting Obama over Hillary.

One reason I'm supporting Obama over Hill is his amazing organization of the grass roots.

When Obama wins, (and I believe he will) he is going to have to 'dance with them that brought him ' so to speak. He knows this, and it is an opportunity for the American left/grass roots that hasn't been available to us in 30 years. It's an opportunity for a major re-alignment in American politics. Not a certainty but an opening surely.

So let's get to work and make it so!

edited to add-

PS Obama has a webpage where he is asking supporters to send their story of why and how they came to back his candidacy to a super delegate. I think your piece (OP) is extremely worthy of such a use. Here's the site

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/superdelstory

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Here! Here!

:applause:

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

47. I also think your piece (OP) is extremely worthy of that use n/t

[WolverineDG]

31. K&R

They are a bit out of touch, wouldn't you say? The whole attitude gives their approach to the primary season: We've already got the nomination, why the heck should we actually do any work?

dg

[eridani]

32. This isn't entirely true

In WA state, the Clinton state organizer is a real asshole who read the riot act to all the Legislative District chairs last September about how they'd just better get in line with the inevitable. However, the Clinton campaign contact in my own LD is a really great guy who is very willing to listen. His main issue is education, and Clinton actually has some notable accomplishments in that area, so I can understand his reason for supporting her.

Given that my issues are health care and the war, when I have my policy wonk hat on I see little difference between Clinton and Obama. When I have my organizer hat on, I see that Obama is waging a real 50 state campaign and has brought more new people into politics.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. I am glad to hear that about your local campaign

I keep thinking if Hillary does get the nomination, she is going to need the grassroots supporters. It will be a tough campaign.

[Fox Mulder]

34. I have just became an Obama supporter also.

Why you ask? Because he's not DLC.

[David Zephyr]

35. I'm just happy you made your decision.

Mine was anti-climatic last month. He proved me wrong: he could organize a 50 state campaign, raise money and inspire his supporters.

I've never seen anything like this since 1968 with Bobby. I'm not cultie either, but I sure like him and am most proud of his position against the war as it will be crystal clear against McCain.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. It is like 68, that's very true

[Cha]

40. Good POINT..It will be

"crystal clear"! "..but I sure like him and am most proud of his position against the war as it will be crystal clear against McCain."

[K Gardner]

41. Absolutely inspiring, Proud2b.. so happy to hear from you ! And glad to

have you aboard :-) :hi:

[protect our future]

43. What a wonderful post, proud!

Proud, thank you for your post, and thank you for your decision to support Obama.

I'm thinking the Obama people who called you were probably from the local campaign headquartered in Kansas City. Besides handling the efforts on the Missouri side, the office also took care of the caucuses just across the state line.

You would have liked the principled way this office did business. Nothing that could remotely be seen as slightly underhanded or sneaky was allowed. No stretching of the truth, even a tiny bit. No pressure, no trying to talk anyone into voting for Obama. And ABSOLUTELY no negative remarks about Hillary or any other candidate. Everything was to be done in a totally honest and aboveboard manner.

It was enough to restore one's faith in government ... or at least to restore one's faith in the government that may be possible if only we can prevail ....

Proud, your talents and experience would be so appreciated if Obama becomes the nominee. Won't you please consider joining up once KC HQ reopens?

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Of course I will be there

and do all I can to help the campaign.

[protect our future]

123. You rock, proud! n/t

[TexasObserver]

44. Thanks for a thoughtful and informative post.

I lurked all last year, and I remember your name as one has steadfastly opposed the war and supported those who have tried to stop it. I recall you're from Kansas City also.

I have liked John Edwards since 2004, and he was my choice as of a year ago, when it became obvious that neither Al Gore nor Russ Feingold would run. I stuck with John until he bailed out, and saw the handwriting on the wall as his campaign declined after Iowa this year. So I was ready to jump to Obama, since I find Hillary's devotion to lobbyists and their interests truly disturbing. Her lack of transparency, her refusal to produce tax returns, her lack of commitment to uncovering the criminality of the Bush administration, and her blind ambition all trouble me.

She and her team act as if she is entitled, and your post captures that well.

[ellisonz]

45. K & R

I would note that campaigns do reflect the candidate.

"35 years of experience" is a lot of "experience," I'd be bitter too if I had that much "experience."

}(

[WillyT]

46. Wow !!! - Excellent Post !!! - K & R !!!

Thank you for the valuable insights!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:hi:

[Laurab]

51. Excellent post AND thread. K&R n/t

[AZBlue]

52. We've had 8 years of arrogance and hubris...

I, for one, won't stand for even 1 more year.

[dansolo]

135. Correction - 16 years

The DLC treats Bill Clinton's presidency as a sort of mandate that they should be running things.

[Major Hogwash]

54. Hey, I'm proud to be liberal, too! Glad to hear you're going to support Obama.

Some of the people I have talked to who supported Edwards or Kucinich don't want to get involved much anymore. I told them that we sure could use their help because we know the GOP will throw everything at us this fall, and probably a lot nastier stuff than we've seen so far.

I know it's hard not getting to dance with the first one that asked you, but at least you'll be at the ball when the dancing is done - and that's what it's all about.

No glass slippers at this ball - we're staying until we win!

[demonsweat]

57. I'm voting for Obama cuz ...

...I have hope for change in a future filled with change and hope. :crazy:

[demonsweat]

58. he such an inspiration!

I heard him speak and I wept.

[Redstone]

59. You such a troll!

Redstone

[proud2BlibKansan]

119. LOL

You so bad :rofl:

[joshcryer]

61. Hillary spent $5 million on one staffer. Obama spent $20 million on thousands.

Obviously she fucked up there. But that's a pretty shallow reason for not liking a candidate. I go by the issues.

[woolldog]

67. Poor judgment IS an issue. (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. And there is very little difference between them on most issues

So I looked at issues that weren't issues. :)

[grantcart]

63. The reason you didn't get a call is that it isn't

Day One Yet!

Sorry could not resist. Thank you for all of your hard work for all kinds of democrats in the past.

Years from now they will still be writing dissertations on what the Obama organization has done from its begining. It does start with the person at the top. Did you read the article by Joshua Green about the inner workings of the Clinton campaign?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle The one that GQ spiked so they could get inside stuff on the inauguration or whatever. Did you read the one they did on Obama? It doesn't exist - no feuds - no mess - no leaks are you kidding me?


A short detour. Clinton's second term. Kenneth Star has over 120 investigators and attorneys going through every detail in the administration and after the witch hunt is going full bore Clinton starts with ML.

Here is my point. At some point the Clinton's stopped being workers and became management in the party. A while later they moved in their minds from management to ownership. Hillary's cavalier campaign profile, which you experienced, is directly related to Bill's cavalier attitude in his second term. They are related to the fact that these two campaign masters have lost the ability to craft a theme that is resonating with the common folk. It is an attitude of ownership or as some have said entitlement.

Obama is talking about running now. Now before he has been in Washington so long that his attitude has changed from workers in the movement to owners in the movement. I think he and Michelle have earned a special trust because they seem to trust workers like you and be suspicious of themselves "if we wait to long we will have lost touch with the real world outside of Washington". I think he has diagnosed a problem that has been overlooked in the past. I do not think they will take the trust that we give them lightly. I think it is a very good sign.

[cooolandrew]

64. Welcome to team Obama. We'll get you some coffee anything else we can do for you just ask. = )

[sonias]

65. thank you, proud2Blib

Very well written post. Realistic and heart-felt.

And since I know you're DFA I know you're already trained and ready to hit the ground running for November. It's all about the roots, baby.

Every victory I see these days, I see some evidence of the grassroots. It's about engaging people in their country, their elections and their kind of candidates. And I thank Howard Dean for that from the bottom of my heart for the 50 state strategy. The 50 state strategy that helped revitalize the Texas Democratic party through grassroots training. Dean told us "we had the power". And we do. And even if the powers that be didn't cut Dean any slack, those of us that he inspired stuck with it.

Molly Ivins said "We're the deciders". And I believe Molly too. This is my county, my race and I'm going to participate on my terms. I want my country back, new - brand new. New vision, new direction, new crop of voters.

I believe in the next generation of Democrats - the kind Barack Obama is bringing into the campaign. If this is our future - I'm very happy to see it.

Hopefully, those of us in Texas can give Obama a great night on March the 4th. We're working digging those trenches under that firewall, right now.

Never give up and never surrender!

Peace and Love

Sonia

[intaglio]

66. I saw a post somewhere that pointed out the Poll threads

here always seem have Obama running at 2 or 3 or more times the support of Hillary. It is thoughtful posts like yours and NanceGreggs that show the way.

[proud2BlibKansan]

118. What an honor

to be compared to Nance. Thank you.

[liberal N proud]

68. Our local Democratic organization was shunned by both

Both Hillary's and Barack's staff turned us down for our pre-election candidates forum. Several different people from our group contacted them and asked them if they wanted to send someone to speak at the forum.
It is tomorrow evening and both have said they didn't have the time. Didn't even offer to send a representative with literature. NOTHING!

[alteredstate]

70. Are you in a March 4th state?

Just curious.

[liberal N proud]

71. Ohio

You would think that someone would want to be at this event. It is not a huge event but if one of them were to make an appearance, it would very quickly become one.
We will have all the local, county and state candidates for our communities present. We have done this for the last 3 elections growing it little by little.

If Ohio is so important, why didn't either one care to respond?

[alteredstate]

72. They probably don't have any available staff members to send to your forum.

How much notice did you give them? They're probably training precinct captains tonight.

[DeeDeeNY]

73. One line of yours speaks volumes

"I explained I went to hear Bill Clinton speak. . . "
Hillary's group takes it for granted that anyone who supports Bill will therefore be pro-Hillary. Unfortunately, politics doesn't work that way.

[Geek_Girl]

79. I really get the sense that the Clinton's are out of touch with the party base

I thought Bill would be a great asset to Hillary in the campaign but he comes across as completely out of touch with progressives. I think he's been living in a bubble the past decade.

[Ahmed]

81. this isn't uncommon

Hillary's campaign was doing this 10 months ago in IA. They
ignored donors, county chairs, THEIR county chairs, and
potential contributors. They wouldn't let supporters sit on
the stage at a Bill event, but they put a defeated Republican
county supervisor onstage. They pissed off the local press,
activists....pretty much everyone. I think Obama's a used-car
salesman and he has miles to go before I will vote for him,
but there is no way I would ever vote for Hillary.  And for
those who say HRC didn't know about this stuff.....WRONG!! I
know her County Co-chair sat her (and Bill) down and told them
what was going on. It's a bad campaign run by bad people.

[Maineman]

102. Who is least like Bush??

It is not Hillary.

[greengestalt]

105. Obama or third party

Well, dare I dream Gore will run?

Seriously, Hillary is obviously a sell-out to the Bush administration. She's had years to oppose him and all she did was vote for him. She's proven herself a sell-out.

IMHO, this is a "Hot Potato" election and the Republicans want someone to take the blame when the bills come due, but not do anything like rescind tax cuts or end the war. Hillary's the perfect toady.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. Oh Please ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who is a regular DU'er here knows from day 1 you would've NEVER supported Hillary. You think we were all born yesterday???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

116. I couldn't have until she changed her stance on withdrawl from Iraq

Perhaps you weren't paying attention?

[Kurovski]

112. K&r.

This reinforces the idea that the Clinton campaign truly did feel her candidacy was inevitable.

It also reinforces the whole reliance on "super delegates", "favors" and big money from corporate players.

[puebloknot]

114. I had to wade through the literature from the Obama campaign...

...here in Santa Fe. They were certainly more organized about making phone calls and delivering door knockers.

I don't see that as a reason to support Obama. In another neighborhood, Hillary supporters may have done the same.

Neither candidate is anywhere close to what we need to turn this country around. Either is better than a Republican in the White House.

I agree with you about stridency from Hillary, et al. I agree with those who are concerned about the adulation (possibly without thinking involved) surrounding Obama.

Our whole political process is designed to keep us playing at the fringes, and believing we are *really* involved.

This is the kind of day I'm having. I honor that you are feeling differently!

[Orsino]

115. I have no idea how widespread this phenomenon is...

...but it sounds like a good reason to join the Obama camp. He joined yours before it was cool, so to speak.

His support has always seemed to be a little more grassroots than Clinton's. I still have grave doubts about his execution, but I still lean his way.

[democrat_nanny]

120. So you're basing your choice for President on...

...the person who gave you the most attention? That reminds me of something...hmmm...oh yeah! It reminds me of 2000 when people based their votes on which candidate would be the most fun to go have a beer with. How'd that work out? Anyone?


(What's DFA? Is that the remnants of the Dean campaign from 2004?)

[proud2BlibKansan]

121. No, not me,

and I thought I made that pretty clear in my OP. Maybe you should read it again.

You honestly don't know what DFA is? LOL

Welcome to DU. Maybe you will learn something while you are here.

[democrat_nanny]

125. Smarmy, smarmy, smarmy...

Nope, I don't. I've been too busy out in the "real world." Not sure why you think that's that funny.

Thanks for the smarmy welcome. LOL ROTFLMAO HA HA!! (pretty much sums up my current impression of Sen. Obama and many of his supporters).

You are a perfect example of why I am not supporting Sen. Obama.

[proud2BlibKansan]

127. The real republican world?

:)

[democrat_nanny]

130. Life long Democrat

Just because I'm not super well versed in all the "DU web lingo" doesn't mean I'm a Republican.

So I wasn't positive that DFA was what I thought it was (the remnants of the failed Dean campaign). So what? To me that says more about the organization's relevance and reach than it does about my political party affiliation.

[democrat_nanny]

126. And, it looks like I did know what DFA is...

I thought it was the remnants of the Dean campaign and, after looking it up, I see that I was right.

I knew the Obamatron language sounded familiar. It's recycled from the Dean Campaign supporters who sat behind their computers and blogged incessantly about how HE was the next Democratic Messiah and then forgot to go vote for him when the time came.

(Oh and, McCaskill's people probably told you that line about how they "couldn't have done it without you" because...that's what political people say to supporters. Welcome to Politics. Maybe you'll learn something while you are here).

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. You've been here 10 days

Don't get too comfortable. :rofl:

Your talking points have been posted here before. Many times.

BTW, it might do you some good to know that there are a LOT of Dean supporters here. And many of us have been involved in politics for many many years. Unlike those who don't know what DFA is.

[democrat_nanny]

132. No doubt in my mind there are Dean supporters here...

What kind of "power" is it that you hope to achieve from insulting me? DFA was created in 2004, is based out of Vermont and hasn't achieved wide enough "fame" to be recognized by its initials.

Sorry for posting here. I didn't realize new posters weren't welcome.

[proud2BlibKansan]

133. You started this exchange by insulting ME

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4635235&mesg_id=4649907

Don't dish it out, sweetheart, if you don't want to get it back.

[muntrv]

122. I agree. Last week, there was a post from an Iowa resident regarding why Obama

won the Iowa caucus. The poster cited reasons similar to yours regarding Hillary's campaign.

[poomie123]

136. What should be more important in making a choice?

Is it what's best for America? Or is it how well one is treated by campaign workers?

[Horse with no Name]

141. Hope it works out for you.

:hug:

[Horse with no Name]

142. Was wondering if you saw this little nugget

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4686870

[CorpGovActivist]

143. .

[mythyc]

144. Your post really demonsrates the efiicacy of

his campaign's organization. I've never seen anything like it. If all he is is "empty rhetoric" as McCain and Hillary keep saying, that is not attested in the nearly flawless way this campaign has been administered. What I've been seeing have been deeds behind these words, evidenced in the bottom up movement that has somehow even in its breadth and depth (this blows me away, America has never seen this) been united in both organization and inspiration. Not a single misstep anywhere, yet we have no evidence of his leadership or experience? funny thing, is that this is just turning rhetoric back around on him (notice the way they weave their words together to attack him).