I'm really disappointed in you Obama-dislikers.

[Mooney]

It seems like every week there's some new scandal that the Obama-dislikers swear up and down is going to "implode" the junior senator from Illinois and render him unelectable. First, there was his unfortunate middle name. Then, there was him not putting his hand over his heart in that picture. Then there was his status as a secret Muslim double agent. Then there was the lapel pin outrage. Then there was the accusation that he had "swiftboated the Clintons on race." Then there was the Rezko trial. Then there was the gay prostitute crack-smoking thing. Then there was the overwhelming buyers' remorse personified in Obama's inability to win Ohio or Texas. Then there was MonsterGate. Then he made Geraldine Ferraro say all those mean things. Now there's his crazy pastor.

Every one of these outrages has been characterized as a campaign-destroying deal breaker, and yet they have all failed to derail the junior senator from Illinois. Could it be because the people putting forth these scandals lack perspective, due to their intense dislike of Obama?

This week's scandals, the ones that really had legs, should tell you something about what kind of scandal is necessary to really derail a career or a campaign. Eliot Spitzer had to commit a felony while fucking prostitutes for his career to sink. By contrast, Geraldine Ferraro making inflammatory statements, and repeating them several times to anyone with a microphone, hasn't really damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign to any real degree. So if you want Obama to get chased out of the race by a scandal, you'd better hope he commits a felony. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky and he'll turn up on "Cops" holding up a 7-11. Maybe he'll be busted making a buy of ten pounds of pure uncut heroin. Then, you would have the type of game-changing scandal you're hoping for. Until then, you're just displaying wishful thinking.

So come on, Obama-disparagers! Get it together! You can do better than this. Go manufacture a resonant scandal that might actually grab the public's attention. It's going to take more than these weak attempts to grab the public's attention. Go find us some surveillance footage of him in an Amsterdam whorehouse shooting up black tar heroin. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton might have to beat him with delegates, popular vote and number of states won.

So get out there and make it happen! You only have six weeks until Pennsylvania, the next state that Mark "Cheese In His Fat-Folds" Penn has proclaimed is a must-win for Obama! Fuck phone banking! Fuck canvassing! This is zero hour!

[leftofcool]

1. Sorry, I wouldn't vote for him now on a bet!

[Kittycat]

2. Great. So when he becomes the nominee - you plan on leaving DU, right?

Because he will be the nominee. Most Votes, Most States, Most Delegates. And all the rest of this crap is just petty republican-like garbage and you know it.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. There's no rule that DUers have to vote for the nominee...

how would it even be enforced?

[Kittycat]

5. The Rules is you MUST SUPPORT the Nominee.

So if you want to parade around this board and continue to disparage him after he gets the nomination... I'm sure Skinner will be glad to show the disrupter a tombstone.

[ensho]

8. why are you putting words and actions on the poster?

"parade around this board"

just because the poster disagrees with you?

[Kittycat]

10. Poster would rather see McCain in office than a dem.

That says it all.

And the poster wasn't disagreeing with me, he was disagreeing with the OP. I was disagreeing with the poster on his statement that he would never vote for Obama, and reminding him of the rules - if we're being exact.

[leftofcool]

13. No, the poster doesn't want Obama as president

[Kittycat]

18. So if Obama is the Dem Nominee, and doesn't vote for the dem nominee...

Then he's supporting McSame.

[Texas Hill Country]

29. No, they could write in Richardson, Clinton, Clark or Edwards or whoever else... Mickey Mouse.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. I never said any such thing

Why must people lie so much here?

[leftofcool]

11. Did you see anything in my statement

that said I would disparage him? I just dont think I want a president who would take his daughters to a church where the "preacher" is making sexual motions from the pulpit. Thanks but no thanks!

[Kittycat]

20. Pastors do crazy shit.

I went to a private christian school, where our bible teacher explained to us in graphic detail was "Fisting" was, and why gays were going to burn in hell. Of course that's completely acceptable in most RW churches... Kind of like the pastors that aren't just supporting but are STANDING ON STAGE with McCain. That speak about abortions, gays, aids, etc. As a matter of fact, the only Sex education I had in school was Gay Sex education.

Also, do you have video that his children where in the audience? Just curious because many churches have sunday school for kids, and adult sermons for adults.

[susankh4]

14. I'll be supporting the Dem nominees

for my own State, City, County.....

[metalluk]

27. Isn't the rule

something to the effect that posters have to be generally supportive of the principles and candidates of the Democratic Party? Surely that doesn't mean EVERY candidate for every position. If BO is nominated, I won't vote for him and will encourage others not to vote for him, to the best of my limited ability, BUT I will continue to support the many excellent Democratic candidates in my home state and Democratic principles in general. Surely the Democratic Party and this board are not basing participation on unqualified support for EVERY candidate.

[usrbs]

58. It would be foolish of you

As much as I dislike Obama, I dislike the GOP more, and the person at the top matters.

[metalluk]

61. It would be foolhardy

to support a freshman Senator with no executive level experience of any kind for the Presidency of the United States.

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to McCain. What concessions will he make to appeal to moderate democrats and independents? My backup alternative would likely be the Green Party candidate.

I will not be voting for Obama in 2008. I may very well vote for him sometime in the future, after he acquires a reasonable level of experience.

[leftynyc]

28. Only if they post in GD-P

They are free to contribute to Latest, Lounge, regular GD and any other forum they wish. Not everyone is in love with Sen Obama.

[Voice for Peace]

45. I'm not in love with Obama

But I think he is genuinely good for this country, and by far the best candidate still standing.

[roguevalley]

60. I love this country more than I dislike the candidates and we can't

have four more years of delusional dipshitery. People should get it that its not about them now. WIth global warming and the threat of war with other countries, its about survival. The best chance for survival is with a dem. Any vote against or a vote not cast is a vote for the idiot McCain. When we all die from that, there will no one to blame but those whose ego trumped the need for our children and grandchildren to have a liveable life. It is that serious now.

[Adelante]

64. delusional dipshitery

I like that one :D

[MonkeyFunk]

33. No

the rules don't say we must support the nominee. It would be an entirely unenforceable rule - is Skinner coming into the voting both with every one of us to see how we vote?

You misunderstood the rule.

[qnr]

51. There's a difference between not supporting and making disparaging comments. I can easily not make

a single comment against Senator Obama, and still write in Senator Clinton on the ballot.

[meow mix]

9. if ppl are attacking the nominee they get a tombstone. they can go attack the nominee on any

of a thousand other sites.

[musicblind]

24. Actually, Kitty, that is not true. It does not say you must support the Dem nominee

You may not advocate AGAINST the Dem nominee. You can still come here and talk as much as you like as long as you do not advocate to the board members that they vote for someone other than the nominee. In fact, you can even TELL people you are voting for Nader or writing in Clinton, or whoever, you just may not tell them that they should vote for those people. Skinner was asked specifically by a Nader supporter in the thread that is locked to the top of this forum, and he gave that answer. That the supporter could support Nader and vote for Nader and remain here. If asked, or if done in a way that did not advocate others to go against the Dem nominee... that Nader supporter could explain that he was voting for Nader. The rule is that you cannot campaign against the Dem nominee here on this board.

BTW, we do not KNOW that Obama will be the nominee. Nice try, but that is a lie, just like the lie you wrote when you claimed that anyone who does not supporter Obama has to leave DU. In fact, Skinner also said we would be allowed to post constructive criticism of the nominee. Why? Because Skinner is not a member of the thought police and this is a DISCUSSION board. Would be boring if there was nothing to discuss.

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Well the good news for you is

That even though you may have maxed out your McCain donation in the primary, you can donate again in the GE!

And when McCain wins you can really get the best deals on soap if you buy in bulk. You're going to need a lot of soap to wash all of that innocent blood off your hands.

[PVnRT]

47. Feel free to go to hell, then

[fbuzz]

4. Damn White Devils! Damn Hillary! Nader May End Up Being Our Next President Thanks To Obama

n/t

[AndyA]

7. One of the reasons many are reluctant to support Obama is due to the cult atmosphere

that surrounds him.

I'm not buying everything that Senator Obama's Traveling Salvation Show is promising.

I don't wear rose-colored glasses, so I tend to question more than most, and some of his promises just don't match up with his history. It doesn't mesh at all.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, and I sure as hell don't support McSame, but I do not believe that Barack Obama is the answer to our problems. Not by a long shot.

And once again, money does NOT equate to ability, nor does it indicate how much a candidate deserves an office.

[Mooney]

12. My post didn't mention anyone needing to support him

it's about the pathetic failure to bring him down.

You have every right not to like him and not to vote for him. You have every right to say whatever you want about him, however negative. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks this scandal is going to make any difference in the long run is wearing Long Primary Season Blinders, and if they're really hoping to knock Obama out of the race with a scandal, they'r going to have to do A LOT better than this.

[AndyA]

21. You better be careful about what you say.

I'm sure Spitzer felt pretty confident in January as well.

When the mighty fall, they fall fast. The same could happen to Obama. You just don't know everything there is to know about him. NO ONE DOES.

[Mooney]

25. Spitzer had been targeted by the Wall Street establishment for ten years.

As well as the entire apparatus of the New York State Republican party. He had hundreds of people gunning for him, and it was personal. If he couldn't keep it in his pants and take the most basic precautions when he was under that kind of scrutiny, that should really tell you something about his scandal deflection skills.

In any case, "PastorGate" is nowhere near the level of scandal as what happened to Spitzer. One major difference is that going to Jeremiah Wright's church is LEGAL. Spitzer committed two felonies, and it was underscored by the fact that it was the type of case that he had spent years zealously prosecuting. It's like this:

2 Felonies + Extreme hypocrisy = Destroyed career

So you really can't compare Spitzer's situation to the Wright situation. If you want Obama to get brought down by a scandal, make sure it's a felony. Otherwise, it simply doesn't have the ability to grab the attention span of anyone but the most die hard political junkies, such as you and me.

[AndyA]

31. I don't want Obama to be brought down by scandal.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

The point is Obama's supporters need to throttle down their glee for their candidate, and take a look at what's really going on.

Most seem to have the Pollyanna complex, and I fear the GOP is waiting for the right time to go into attack mode against Obama.

[Mooney]

40. That's the main problem, is you fear the GOP.

Fearing the GOP puts us in a defensive posture, and that's why we lose elections. Wright would only become a major issue if we allow the GOP to make it one. We avoid letting that happen by keeping the spotlight on the GOP and their failures, rather than allowing them to run yet another smear-based campaign based on manufactured bullshit, which is all they know how to do. The point is to stand strong against them and not let them dictate what the debate is going to be. They got us into this stupid fucking war and the economy is in the shitter, thanks to them, and if we can't aggressively make the election about that, and we allow ourselves to be put into a defensive posture by their bullshit issues, then we deserve to lose.

And I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, want to manufacture a scandal against Obama. I should have used the neutral pronoun "one" instead.

[AndyA]

41. You're damn right I fear the GOP.

After the elections of 2000 and 2004, you bet I do. The GOP has proven they will spare no punches to get what they want. Disenfranchising voters is no big deal. Fiddling with voting machine programming is now a normal practice for them.

The Dems have never stood strong against the GOP. Just look at our current Congress. They've done little to nothing to stop the GOP, despite being the majority.

And now we're going to trot out a candidate that isn't proven. Great!

I'm not a Hillary supporter, and I'm not a Barack supporter. I find both of them to be second best at best, and both woefully unable to fix this country.

Both Barack and Hillary have supported this war, like it or not. They've both voted for funding. I'm tired of candidates who say one thing and do another.

We will never get back what we've lost by electing mediocre candidates who promise us the moon, and deliver far less.

[Mooney]

43. Well, if we fear the GOP, then that's how we'll lose.

In 2000 and 2004 we nominated candidates who wouldn't hit back. Hopefully, by now, Hillary or Obama have learned the lesson of these two campaigns and will actually hit back. But if we stay on defense, then we'll lose. We lost the last two elections because we allowed the GOP to define the issues and the debate. There's no other reason why the last election, which should have been a referendum on the war, came down to gay marriage and other such "values" issues. We let it happen. That's why.

The GOP aren't holding any cards this year, but they can still beat us if we're reactive and let them decide what the issues are going to be. Even if Wright didn't exist, this would be a losing strategy for us because they'll just make shit up. If they can turn John Kerry into a wound-faking liar, then they obviously have no compunction about just fabricating things. The trick is to not let them be in that position in the first place. And the way to do that is to attack, attack, attack and not be afraid of them.

They'll only win if we let them.

[leftofcool]

15. He's not even a close answer

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. Did you come to that conclusion through your own investigation?

Or did you just believe the spin put out by HRC and the media?

[Adelante]

65. The cult again?

I thought that was last month or the month before.

[Straight Shooter]

16. I see only two problems if he is the nominee: his pastor, and Rezko.

John Kerry was actually a stronger candidate, very well-credentialed, a ton of experience, just too aloof but he was overcoming that. It didn't take much to tear him down. Years later, I've stopped defending him against people who think he got only a "scratch" in Vietnam and that all his heroics were imaginary. I just don't care anymore to set those people straight. It's tiresome.

It will be the same thing with Pastor Wright and his "goddamn America" statement, considering his long relationship with Obama. The guy comes across as his father figure. Too bad, but if my priest ever said, "goddamn America," half the congregation would walk out and not come back until he publicly apologized. The rest of them would sit there, stunned.

Now I understand who has been bolstering Michelle's anger all these years. It's her pastor.

Anyway, we can go round and round on what will bring Obama down. I think by now the GOP has plenty to work with. Hillary hate is boring, and there's nothing the GOP loves better than a brand-new shiny Democratic demigod to tear down.

I'm out of here today.

[Mooney]

17. So far, nothing has had legs.

And I guarantee you, Hillary Hate is alive and well and in loooooooong supply. Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against her, even if their nominee was Charles Manson.

[frazzled]

22. You've got to stop and ask yourself ...

Why has John Kerry (not to mention Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd, Claire McCaskill, and all the rest)--the "well-credentialed" candidate with a "ton of experience"--thrown his weight behind Obama, and continues to do so? Why (as is reported in another post), are the superdelegates, party elites who are not dumb about politics and elections, moving in his direction recently?

Every time I have my doubts about Obama I ask myself this question. Would all these people I respect really support a guy they think cannot win, or a guy they think has too many skeletons in his closet? Why did they back him? (Kerry did so fairly early, before the numbers might demand it. And he didn't have to back anyone.)

I think that when we see John Kerry, Pat Leahy, and Chris Dodd jump ship because they think he is too damaged, then I will consider these "scandals" insurmountable in a general election. They may eventually do that. But I will be watching them for clues. I don't really care what individual opinions on a message board are about these things: I'm waiting for the "professionals" to show signs of jitteriness.

[leftynyc]

30. I'm wondering where Al Gore is

He's the only one with the clout the stop the madness.

[Mooney]

36. I think he's chosen to stay out of it.

And to be honest, I can't say I blame him.

[leftynyc]

55. I also don't blame him, however,

to me it speaks volumes. It seems Sen Obama supporters are absolutely sure he'd endorse Sen Obama. Are they bothering to ask themselves why he hasn't? I sure am.

[Mooney]

56. Some of them are absolutely sure.

Not all of them. But there are a lot of possible reasons he hasn't endorsed anybody. It could be anything.

[dansolo]

66. Remember what happenned in 2004

He endorsed Dean, and got viciously attacked. But I have no doubt who he will end up casting his vote for.

[PVnRT]

48. Hillary hate is boring?

Come around to where I live, where it's acceptable for someone in our office to say he's just "waiting for that fucking bitch to die."

Those accusing Obama supporters of having their heads in the sand about Wright have their own heads in the sand when it comes to Hillary and the Clintons.

[Mooney]

52. It's amazing, isn't it?

The fact that anyone still believes HRC is anything but a loser in the general election is astounding to me. Anyone with a pair of eyes and ears for the last 16 years should appreciate how deep and wide the reservoir of hatred is for her. The fact that anyone can overlook that is totally amazing to me. Have they been in a coma for the last 16 years?

[rainman99]

19. All along, I have gone back and forth.

But if I slightly lead to Hillary, I'm labeled 'an Obama hater' and a 'racist'.
Forget that I've always said I'd be happy either way. I don't hear that from
the Obama supporters. Isn't this about beating the Republicans? I really
DON"T CARE as long as they beat McCain.

[NDambi]

23. Moooooooney...You Rock ...

[metalluk]

26. Dislikers and disparagers not the same thing

I, for one, like Obama as a person more than HRC. My only problem with BO is that he is running for President without having acquired anything close to a level of experience that suggests he could succeed in the position. I disparage him only in the context of his being a candidate for a position for which he is not qualified.

The Wright scandal doesn't much interest me as it relates to Wright himself. The only part of it that weighs on my mind (and will ultimately weigh heavily in the thinking of many voters, as they become more aware of it) is that Obama belongs to a church that has a racist doctrine and he has not repudiated that affiliation. That has to give pause to any reasonable voter. It is also one further indication of Obama's lack of mature, well-honed judgment.

BO needs seasoning. He might someday gain my support and that of other careful voters, if he takes the time to develop his experience, skills, and judgment to the level of his rhetoric prowess.

[Mooney]

32. Those are all valid points

that I wish more people wanted to sincerely discuss. I'd say in your case you're neither disliking nor disparaging him. You're questioning him and you're questioning his viability, which needs to happen.

My post is targeted at the people who are trying/hoping to manufacture scandal and melodrama. You seem to want to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion of actual issues. That's very different.

[SeaLyons]

35. I think this scandal has definitely caught the public's attention

and I will never vote for Obama.

[Mooney]

38. I never said anyone was ever under any obligation to vote for him.

I'm just saying "Find a real scandal." This won't cut it. He needs to commit a felony. Otherwise, it's all wishful thinking.

[SeaLyons]

42. he needs to commit a felony????

Good grief. After 8 years of being terrorized by the Bush administration, the best we can do is find a nominee that at least doesn't have a felony against him. How pathetic.

[Mooney]

44. If you want a real scandal that's going to stick, yes, he needs to commit a felony.

The whisper campaigns so far this season have been very 2004, and they're not doing any real damage to either candidate. This is because after 8 years of Bush, yes, you have to commit a felony to have a scandal that will really get people's attention and stick.

Stuff like the Pastor Wright thing might be a big deal to political junkies like us, but it's too "inside baseball" for most regular people with lives. I don't think that these things have an impact to anyone but the most enthusiastic people. I don't even think the Ferraro thing is on most people's minds any more, and that was just a couple of days ago.

People don't care about this shit. We do, but we're all crazy here.

[Mags]

46. I have to disagree with you. I think the normal everyday

people will think more about this issue then any other issue with the Obama campaign. I could be totally wrong, I live in the South, most people attend church and would be very frightened by Obama's religion. He has been attending this church for 20 years, he has known all along what this Minister was about and what he stood for. He gave generously to the Church. To most everyday folks this is way too much for them to take a chance with.

[Mooney]

50. You could be right.

But honestly, I don't see it. This has come up before, and Obama seemed to diffuse it pretty well. I thought in the last debate he dealt with the Farrakhan thing well, too. My general impression is that he pretty much handles these things well.

This is why he'll need to commit a felony or some vile public sex act in order to have a scandal that sticks to him. It has to be something he can't explain his way out of.

[SeaLyons]

49. I agree the crazies are on this board

but I respectfully disagree with your assumption this will go away.

[Mooney]

53. You could be right.

I certainly don't think my prognosis is guaranteed by any means, and I've certainly been wrong about these things many times before. But so far, I have to say that I've observed a great deal of "teflon" on Obama's part, and he seems to get through these things somehow. I don't know how he does it, but he does it. This is why I feel like a lot of the doomsday scenarios that have been proscribed here haven't really taken off.

I mentioned it somewhere else just moments ago, but he was able to deflect the Farrakhan association in the last debate very deftly, I thought, and that could have really knocked him off balance if he hadn't handled it as well as he did. They gave him a very loaded question and he was somehow able to turn it into a very gracious meditation on the role of Jews in the civil rights movement. I had to concede at that moment that he seems well-equipped to dodge thorny issues and smears that would be fatal to a lesser politician. I think that would be a big asset to him if he were to win the nomination.

[SeaLyons]

57. You could be right also,

but I don't think the debates he will have with McCain will be quite as civil. And I personally was not satisfied with his answer regarding Farrakhan.

[Mooney]

59. A lot of people weren't satisfied with it.

I guess I've just seen so many black politicians here in NYC get baited with questions about Farrakhan (or Al Sharpton, or whatever polarizing black figure you'd care to name) that are such loaded rhetorical minefields that the whole purpose of them is usually to trip up the candidate and get them flustered and defensive, which he didn't do. I was happy to see him not take the bait.

He could certainly have made a much stronger denunciation of Farrakhan, whose views should obviously be roundly repudiated by anyone who expects to be a mainstream American politician. But I was still impressed by the way he handled it. I know that's not a widespread consensus though.

As far as his debates with McCain, I have no idea how those will go down. I think he could crush McCain in these debates though; Hillary could too. McCain is, in my opinion, a really weak opponent that any challenger with half a brain could take apart pretty easily. The only reason he seems formidable now is because he's locked up the nomination and we still have a ways to go before that happens with us. But the opponents he was up against in the Republican primary were a fucking joke, and he still barely has any support in his own party.

He'll be very easy to beat, in my opinion. I have no idea why people are so terrified of him. All we have to do is just tie him to the war (which he's doing just fine all by himself), George W. Bush and all of W's many, many failures. They don't even have to be failures that McCain was involved in. A commercial airing in the Gulf states depicting New Orleans underwater, with a voiceover by President Stupid and a dissolve into that picture of the two of them eating cake on the same day should do nicely. McCain may loathe Bush, but there are too many pictures of them hugging each other and sound clips of McCain praising him for him to get out from under them. We just need to keep hammering away at that association every thirty seconds, like a fucking egg timer, and we should be able to beat him easily.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. why do you call Clinton supporters "Obama dislikers"?....he's likable enough

seems that you're the one who dislikes somebody

[Mooney]

39. Because not all Clinton supporters are Obama dislikers

Just like not all Obama supporters are Clinton dislikers. I think the majority of people supporting one candidate or another don't really have any major problems with the other candidate. The majority of people here are sane, unlike the frothing, venomous asshole variety of "true believers" on either side, who I think make up the minority.

[dchill]

54. What about the Obama Body Count list?

Oh, wait - that's the Clinton Body Count list. Never mind.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. I've been saying for a while there are 2 types of political activists.

There are the kind of people who make phone calls, knock on doors, register voters, and do all the other grunt work stuff that gets candidates elected. The other kind, the ones that don't like to do that stuff, are what I like to call "Hillary Clinton supporters".