Poor Fred Hobbs from TN....Wonkette stabs him for his terrorist remarks about Obama.

[madfloridian]

Here's the sad part. When Southern Democrats act like this, they are giving the gossip sites and the right wing blogs fodder. They are loving it.

TN Democratic leader calling Obama a terrorist

One of the funniest, tragic outcomes of Obama’s takeover of the Democrats is how certain factions of the party — white, rural “yellow dogs” or “blue reds” or “purple assholes,” depending on the current lexicon — cannot, at all, give support to Obama, for fear of losing support in their red-leaning districts. This comprises 10-25 Democratic members of Congress and virtually all Southern branches of the party. Now, silence is one thing. But when they start literally calling him a terrorist — as some Democratic leaders in Tennessee are doing — to distance themselves, then that might be a modest form of overkill.

This comes from a story about Democratic Rep. Lincoln Davis, who wants to run for governor of Tennessee and therefore cannot show any support for a black man. At least not this early! He will endorse Obama at the convention in August, you see, by which time racism is expected to have vanished entirely, everywhere, and rainbows shall inhabit the Earth.

..."Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district, said he understands why Davis is not endorsing Obama and is “skeptical” of the Illinois senator himself.

“Maybe the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him,” Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. “He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be.”

Davis was not made available for comment.

His chief of staff, Beecher Frasier, said he doesn’t know for sure if Obama is “terrorist connected” but he assumes he’s not.

Politico having fun with it as well.

Obamas' image problem persists

See what I mean?

And this one:

And then I am reminded why we never win Tennessee

See what I mean?

Wait till they realize that Frasier might be close to Davis if he runs for governor

His (Davis') chief of staff, Beecher Frasier, said he doesn’t know for sure if Obama is "terrorist connected" but he assumes he’s not.

I think this is far worse than the Democrats who go on TV and have the nerve to say they don't know if he is Muslim, but they don't think so.

Lincoln Davis, Yoo Hoo...straighten these guys out.

[ingac70]

1. TN is a lost cause.

I know, I live here.

A good chunk of our Democrats pulls shit like introducing bills that evolution can only be taught as "theory" and have a serious hard-on to do away with any sort of reproductive rights for women.

[Clark2008]

15. I live here, too

And I'm not as pessimistic as you.

We've just got to get a voice. Our biggest problem is that there are only rightwing radio shills. There's few NPR stations, no liberal radio and lots of people driving from rural areas into the city to work with nothing else to listen to save the the BorRushannity Monster.

BTW, Tennessee also has the most liberal abortion laws in the country. Our courts just ruled that there can be NO restrictions, none. Of course, people are working to curb that, but we have the most liberal policy as of this moment in time.

[xxqqqzme]

19. When Gray Davis was Governor

of California, he signed a bill effectively protecting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions; that no legislation can ever be enacted to take that right away.

[frogcycle]

2. day-um

Fucking idjits. Need a good whuppin.

I don't think I'll go back.

If I want to visit the Smokies, I'll have to go through Ky/Va over to NC and come in that way.

[jobycom]

3. Could have long term implications, as with Clinton in 92.

Everyone wants our candidates to damn politics and just be liberals, but here's the danger in it. The majority we hold in Congress comprises conservative southern Dems like Davis as well as liberal and moderate Dems. In 92, Clinton ran as a liberal, though a third way liberal. We were just coming off the Reagan Error, and the whole nation was far to the right, but we held Congress and were gaining some strength there when Clinton took office. Bush Daddy had more vetoes overridden than any other president in history, for instance, because he was losing popularity and the Dems were gaining strength.

When Clinton first hit the White House, he enacted a very liberal agenda. He tried to appoint activists like Lani Guinier to cabinet positions, and he tried to overturn the ban on gays in the military, for instance. This caused a conservative backlash, and many of the conservative Dems from the South and Texas had a tough choice. They either had to back Clinton and lose their seats, or abandon him and strengthen the Republicans by siding with them and trashing their own president. Some chose one way, some the other--it didn't matter, both were bad. Two years later, the 94 elections swept the Dems from power, and Clinton had to battle the Gingrich-led Congress for most of the rest of his terms. Thus, we got a lot less than we wanted.

Obama's going to have to deal with that type of dynamic, too.

Just my thoughts. Hopefully wrong, as always.

[ingac70]

4. Once this election is over...

we need a house cleaning, a purge. Lump uber conservative Dems in with Republicans ('cause its true) through a unrelenting campaign. The nation cannot afford any more of this stupidity.

[jobycom]

5. Then slice open our bellies and spill our guts on the floor as someone beheads us?

We clean house, we lose the majority, and Congress is controlled by the Republicans. Obama gets no legislation he wants introduced for a vote, and we wasted our chance. We can clean out the deadwood in districts where a Democrat will win anyway, but if we start throwing out conservative Dems, they are going to be replaced by Republicans. That's why the Dems in those districts are conservative--because that's what the voters want.

Politics is the art of compromise. In Parliamentary systems, there are many parties, and the winner is the one who can form a majority by allying with smaller parties. In our system, we do exactly the same thing, except we form the alliances in the primaries. We won't hold a majority if we rid the Dems of all ideological undesirables, and if we don't hold a majority, we can't even get our stuff brought up for a vote.

That's the art of the presidency. To get something out of that whole mess, through a combination of compromise, threats, surrender, and outright bribery. Flattery helps, too. Experience is usually critical, but we already made that decision.

[madfloridian]

6. Well, our "art of compromise" elected two anti-abortion Dems...

recently in special elections. It is good to be proud, but one is not supporting Obama and neither support a woman's right to choose.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/OPINION/806130351/1049

SO...we gain the majority with Democrats who are anti-choice, etc....and they keep pushing and financing more like them...and where do we go from there.

We are still in Iraq and will be staying. :shrug:

[jaybeat]

13. I disagree with your analysis

Respectfully, of course. I can tell your intentions are good. But it sounds a bit too much like the MSM post-mortem on the Clinton presidency:

Instead of being a "true" "new" Democrat, Bill (and especially that shrew, Hillary) was really a liberal all along. He showed his true colors early on with gays, raising taxes, proposing "government-run" health care and screwing up in Somalia. Since America HATES liberals, they kicked the bums out of Congress to put the brakes on Clinton and force him to be what he promised (a "new" kind of Democrat). NAFTA and welfare "reform" showed the voters he had learned his lesson, and so when all the Republicans could offer was Bob Dole, they reelected Bubba in '96, but kept the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to keep his latent liberalism in check. When Al Gore started talking about "class warfare," inventing the Internet, and generally showed himself to be an elitist liberal, it was clear he wouldn't have a chance against George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism and "down-home" mannerisms. Plus, wouldn't it be a relief to have the "grown ups" back in charge after Monica and everything? Then, after the attacks of 9/11 (which no one could have foreseen), weren't we all relieved to have strong, experienced hands on the wheel, like Dick Chenney and Don Rumsfled?

I think that analysis is a crock. I think what screwed Clinton's early years was a unwillingness to go to the mat on some of these issues. Clinton and his allies stood by while corporate Republican supporters flooded the airwares with lies about health care, and right-wing radio (newly created by repealing the fairness doctrine) got the nutcase minority to flood their reps with complaints about everything and anything. What happened was that Clinton blinked. Even though issue polls showed that a majority of Americans agreed with him, he caved. He wimped out on health care, gays in the military, in hopes he could compromise his way back into power. But the Repukes, as they always do, like Lucy and Charlie Brown's football, were just playing games. By the time of the '94 mid-terms, they were playing reruns of Reagan's lies, and enough people fell for it that Clinton lost Congress.

I believe that if Bill and Hillary had gone on TV and made the case for universal health care (remember, the President doesn't have to pay for air-time to speak with the American people), the right-wing would have been playing defense from the get-go. They could have gone on a bus tour, and visited the home district of every blue-, yellow- or purple-dog Democrat in Congress, and gotten on every local news show, talking with working people without health coverage, talking with small biz owners saying they could hire more workers if only health insurance didn't cost so much, etc., etc., etc. The turncoat Dems would be *begging* to co-sponsor his bill so they could brag about it at election time. Same for AmeriCorps, deficit reduction and a whole host of other issues.

Bottom line is I think Clinton tried to take advantage of the "liberals can't win" and "liberal policies are out of touch with America" myths to get elected as a "new" kind of Democrat. As a result, he ended up being bitten by those same myths and created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Barack Obama, I hope and pray, has the opportunity to truly re-write the conventional wisdom. "Conservatism" (really corporatism and neo-feudalist imperialism) has been proven to be such a complete failure, that I think Obama can scare these so-called "swing" Dems to join the movement or get paved over. If the choice is to agree with what Barack "stands for" vs. what Bush and McCain stand for, then I don't think politicians around the country are going to HAVE much choice, if they want to be reelected.

Obama will make the biggest change by standing tough. Compromise the details is for governing. Compromising the principles is for losing.

[bertman]

21. Let's hear it for jaybeat!!

"(remember the President doesn't have to pay for air-time to speak with the American people)". I like that.

But he does have to pay for it by the ass-pounding he's gonna get from the so-called "librul" media after he uses said air time.

[dionysus]

24. dayumn, great pwn!

:toast:

[Jefferson23]

23. I'm with you,purge away. What a disgusting thing to hear a Democrat say about Obama

Must be fun to be Democrat in TN..sheesh

[madfloridian]

7. Hobbs sort of apologizes...says Obama himself not a terrorist,,just his associates?

Hobbs doubles down

Story headline in the Saturday Tennessean: Tenn. Democrat believes Obama has terrorist ties. Note the present tense.

And it's not just any Democrat - it's a leader of the Tennessee Democrat Party. That's right - despite calls that he be ousted from the Tennessee Democrat Party's State Executive Committee and despite condemnations from such Democrat leaders as current U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon and former TDP Chairman Bob Tuke, Fred Hobbs* isn't backing down. He insists there is reason to believe that Obama has "associates" who "might have" ties to terrorism, although, he says, "I certainly don't think he's a terrorist."

Well, that's a relief.

[frogcycle]

8. whatever happened to slander laws?

yeah, yeah, I know, public figure, he said "might have" blah blah blah

sumbitch oughta have his tongue cut out.

[madfloridian]

9. Hobbs was speaking for Davis in effect.

So Davis needs to say something...anything at all.

[yardwork]

10. White Democrats can't win southern states without the Black vote.

Just saying.

[madfloridian]

11. Hobbs written apology to TN Democrats.

http://www.wgnsradio.com/hobbs-apologizes-for-obama-terrorist-comments/812/

"APOLOGY LETTER:

Dear State Executive Committee Member:
I am writing to apologize for my recent remarks about Senator Barack Obama. My statements to various Nashville media were wrong and offensive. I apologize if my remarks in any way hurt any of our great Democratic candidates, including Senator Obama. Also, I apologize if my comments embarrassed our state or my friends at the Tennessee Democratic Party.

I was not as well prepared as I should have been when speaking with reporters, and I should have taken more time to research Senator Obama’s positions. My comments did reflect questions I had after what I had seen reported on Fox News, but I should have taken some time to check the accuracy of what I saw on television before speaking publicly. My statement that Senator Obama "may be terrorist-connected" was incorrect, and I apologize for making it.

As a lifelong Democrat, I believe in the values and ideals of the Democratic Party. I am honored to represent the 13′~ Senatorial District, and I look forward to working with Senator Obarna, each of you, and every Democrat in the 1 3th District to elect Democrats this November.

Fred Hobbs,
Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committeeman
13th Senatorial District"

[RedLetterRev]

12. Oy

...My comments did reflect questions I had after what I had seen reported on Fox News, but I should have taken some time to check the accuracy of what I saw on television before speaking publicly...

Blaming Faux Spews for repeating one of their lies is like blaming the dog for farting when everyone heard you rip.

Fred, y'ain't he'pin' y'self.

[madfloridian]

16. Sad he depended on Fox News. Maybe he learned from it.

:shrug:

[jaybeat]

14. Sounds like the shithead figured out which way the hurricane is blowing (nt)

[ieoeja]

17. It always shocks me when I encounter a moron that actually believes FOX News.

We even have Democratic officials who take FOX seriously? That is just unbelievable.

It's why I have FNC blocked. When I stop having to remind the kid every six months that professional wrestling is fake, then he might be ready for FOX. Because apparently there are even adults too stupid to figure out FOX is fake.

[Elidor]

18. Link Davis is an empty suit

And a congenital idiot. I don't think I could vote for him for dogcatcher, let alone governor.

[iamahaingttta]

20. I'm "skeptical" of Barack Obama too...

"...Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member... is 'skeptical' of the Illinois senator himself."

...but that doesn't stop me from fully supporting his nomination, and working to get him elected.

Or, as another DUer has in her or his sig line:

"Proud to be 100% behind Dennis Kucinich ... um ... 90% behind John Edwards ... ok ... 80% behind Barack Obama."

(thanks to whomever I clipped that from!)

[jgraz]

22. We should all be skeptical -- no matter who our candidate is.

I think Obama is a great candidate, but the danger is that he's so convincing that we just sit back and watch him work. The reason I like Obama's message (and Edward's and Kucinich's) is that he insists on bottom-up politics. He's basically asking us to make our voices heard.

Obama is not a 100% perfect candidate, especially for strong progressives. But he's the best I've seen in... well, ever. If we stay in the process and take nothing for granted, it could be a pretty good year for progressive politics.

[mwb970]

25. I've never lived in the South.

But I must say, it sounds pretty awful. Is it as bad as it seems?