Obama's sad victory-a MUST read

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/01/obamas-sad-vict.html

"After Iowa, I felt good about Barack Obama and his campaign, even though my candidate lost. I loved his speech that night, and believed he was good for the progressive side of American politics. But after the last week, Obama's victory in South Carolina tastes like thin, salt-less gruel to this hopeful Democrat. It nourishes no one except the hard-core partisans, and its audacity - to use the favorite word du jour - was evident only in its cynical partnership with the rabidly anti-Clinton, race-baiting media.

It was a great political victory with a terribly sour after-taste, as Craig Crawford notes this morning:

The Obama camp was smart to gin up any plausible rationale for sidelining or ridiculing the former president. For the most part, he is an asset for his wife, the New York senator.

It was certainly brilliant for Obama’s team to enlist the aid of the news media in stirring up racial resentment against the Clintons – going back to New Hampshire when reporters and pundits promoted the bogus notion that Obama lost the state because of racism. That still unproven charge had to help Obama’s forces get the attention of African-American voters in South Carolina.

But it was sad to see so many in the news media become tools for one campaign’s agenda.

When you watch the likes of conservatives Joe Scarborough, Bill Bennett, Byron York, Andy Sullivan, George Will and Peggy Noonan "worry" about how the racial divide will split the Democratic Party, a slow burning rise of bile burns the throat. Digby:

So, this ugly race is over and it looks like all the racial talk was overblown and overplayed. The voters, once again, made their voices heard and the politicians will have to heed them.

I would hope that the media will take a little breather as well. Watching the concern trolling about Democratic racial divisiveness among people like Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough and Bill Bennett is enough to make me sick and should give progressives pause. As I wrote last night, I don't think this helps Senator Obama any more than it helps Clinton.

Twice now, the Obama camp has been too smug and too clever by half - early on, they enjoyed the vicious and openly sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton, until the "likeable enough" backlash cost them in New Hampshire and forced an on-air apology from Chris Matthews. In South Carolina, they cleverly played the race card - and I mean cleverly with all the sincerity of a reporter who once covered the mean streets of Bronx politics. They demonized Bill Clinton (who did a pretty good job of helping out, it must be said) and assisted in making the Clinton campaign seem racist - even though not a single racist statement has ever been attributed to either the Clintons themselves or to any of their bungling surrogates. They allowed the media to claim that the use of the word "fairytale" and any mention of Obama's youthful drug use was racially-tinged, even if the words came from black men who'd fought all their lives for civil rights. Why? Because they know the villagers (as Digby calls them) hate the Clintons, and always have. Lance Mannion:

The story is arising out of the same old prejudice against the Clintons. The bullshit about Hillary being so goddamn ambitious, as if no other politician in American history ever actually wanted to an election, is a legacy. It was Bill who was originally the ambitious one, the one who would do anything to win, like read polls and find out what voters wanted and then give it to them, the snake!

If they'd thought of it they'd have begun calling her Slick Hilly a long time ago.

They, of course, are the insiders' insiders of the Washington Insider establishment, the royalists and their journalist toadies, who have always been appalled by the Clintons' presumption.

For me (and I suspect for many other Democrats who feel silenced by the sexist anti-Clinton media onslaught), Barack Obama wasn't knocked off his pedestal by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He climbed down himself, with David Axelrod holding his hand. And he'll never reclaim that lofty position again.

Sadly, many normally sane observers bought into the national media lines. Hell, even Al Giordano - who claims he's pretty "hardboiled about politics" but fairly melts under the chosen one's gaze - actually says, "Obama became inoculated against the most powerful plays in the Clinton playbook." What plays, Al? What playbook? You actually think the Clintons took billionaire Bob Johnson aside and said "hey Bob, can you slyly inject race into this contest by appearing to clumsily refer to Obama's drug use?" It's patently absurd, and guys like Giordano and Bob Herbert at the Times - who used a single anonymous comment from an unattributed blog to cry racism this week in a shockingly juvenile column - ought to know better. So should the Josh Marshalls of the world, who actually have the temerity to claim that President Clinton's comparision of Obama and Jesse Jackson as pioneers to African-Americans was a racist ploy. Hey Josh, my second presidential vote went to Jesse Jackson, pal. The man was a pioneer. Inoculated? As if the Republicans won't dig up the very dirt the Obama campaign itself sent out regarding a racial divide that didn't actually exist?

The morning after Iowa, I felt pretty good about the future of the Democratic Party. This morning, I need a shower to wash away the slime of Obama's not-very-subtle partnership with the sickening race-baiting media.

Sour grapes, you suggest? Hell yeah. Not at the primary win, but at the sheer dishonesty openly employed by the Obama campaign and its media enablers. And there are millions and millions like me - Democrats who once thought they could happily vote for Barack Obama as a decent second choice. If it comes to it, I'll still pull the lever against any Republican, but I'll know what I'm getting now".

Or something. Anyway, expect the flames to come for this heresy.

When you read the same things on DU that you read on freerepublic..that is just sad..
victory at any cost indeed...

and I have read enough of them on DU in the last month...

I am a life-long Democrat who once would have been very proud to vote for Obama, now, if he gets the nomination, I'll just have to - because I'm a Democrat. but this will be the last time I will ever force myself to do something like that. Not just sour grapes - but a bitter harvest.

Obama got twice the turnout ever recorded in South Carolina, so I think it's fundamentally dishonest to have summed it all up with the old "blacks will vote for the black guy/Jesse Jackson" comments.

Of course people are pissed at Bubba for this. He's never challenged Bush with anywhere near the same vitriol that he is going after Obama with. And it pisses people off. A lot.

even Jessie jackson didn't see racism in that comment.
Was it untruthful?
Did Jackson run?
Did he win SC?
Did he lose the nomination?

I do think it is dishonest to try and shrug off Obama's performance in South Carolina by comparing it to JJ, and it's no big surprise that JJ doesn't mind the comparison.

This article is precisely about how tired we are about your f*ing MSM talking points.
People I hadn't talked to in years called/wrote me after SC - expressing similar feelings - along with the determination to vote for Hillary. My very own decision was made next day, in great part spurred by this.
It's real, it's rumbling amongst voters and all the endorsements in the world aren't going to tamper this reaction.

That took alot of gall. Especially since its so false.

into the campaign. Many here believe that Bill did nothing of the sort. Fine everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is not just one "correct" perception of Bill's campaign tactics.

If you want to ignore all of the Democrats who have complained about Bill's strategy, that is your right. We all tend to ignore, or criticize, those with whom we do not agree and praise those whom we agree with. No one believes that either Clinton is a racist, but no one believes that Bill does not know what he is doing on the campaign trail, either. If he saw political advantage for Hillary in promoting a public perception of Obama as a BLACK candidate, he would not go around sounding like David Duke. He would be much more subtle. He knows how to get his point across without sounding like Duke.

If many African Americans in South Carolina perceive a racial subtext to Bill's comments, are you saying they have no right to perceive this? If that is your contention, remember it when some Republican sticks his foot in his mouth and makes some racially insensitive remark and we have to accept his protestation that he meant no harm by it.

Since SC, it seems that Bill's campaign profile has been lowered. Who knows if that will continue, but I think she is a very good candidate and does very well campaigning for herself. She still has big leads in the big states and will benefit from running a more positive campaign now.

"
The morning after Iowa, I felt pretty good about the future of the Democratic Party. This morning, I need a shower to wash away the slime of Obama's not-very-subtle partnership with the sickening race-baiting media."

Exactly my own feelings!

:wtf:

hyperbole much?

you may treat him as King Solomon as much as you wish, to me is just another Obama surrogate.

very moving piece..true and sad. thanks.:dem:
:kick:

I mean "class," of course.

but if it were used, I would fully expect some women Obama supporters to say that the use of that word was perfectly fine as long as it was used against Hillalry.

It must be really really super duper true then.

Crawford has gone nuts on this whole thing, saying people just hate Clinton and getting all atwitter when someone says Clinton injected race into the campaign and saying they're calling him a racist, not hearing anyone's explanation.

To say someone would use race isn't saying they are racist, it's saying they are using it as a political tool. Hardly anyone denies that.

Od course the Jesse statement was injecting race. It wasn't a conversation about political history. Obviously you don't have to go back 20 years to draw a comparison. 20 years ago the nomination race was over, it was a caucus, the vote was symbolic.
4 years ago Edwards won and then didn't win the nomination, If it wasn't about race he'd use that

The only similarity to 20 years ago is that they were both black and won big...one in a vote that couldn't make a difference...this in one that did.

Of course his point was black candidate gets black votes just like earlier he said pf course they'd want to vote for someone like them so that's why people told him Hillary couldn't win there.

Really?

Dis they know Obama was black 2 months ago?
These were the polls



It was no sure thing for any candidate of any color to beat the Clintons in a state where they were so popular
That doesn't make Bill racist, it makes it looks like Bill wants to explain away a loss as meaningless.

And the media saying "Oh Obama has a white voter problem. he only got 25% here and only 1/3rd in the other states, oh my, he can't win"

Journalists have reported things like this for weeks
on PBS Newshour


Now I agree that the media in general is the worst here. Every other statement on primary seemed to be black vote, white vote. They played every clip of an angry Clinton over and over or the statements he'd make with race related comments.

But you guys blame Obama? He has nothing to gain from it, from being "the black candidate". I know the Clintons say he's feeding the media. Someone should tell the media that

Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press


Sound like a big spinner?

Yes he does get some over the top coverage

But the coverage he doesn't get helps so many people spin falsely


So they all have their issues.

You demean a man who is running a decent race, who has put service first the last 20 years and has not used race to divide. Yes they did have a sheet with what they felt was race being used but give me some quotes where Obama has made accusations about race or used race to divide or insulted the Clintons on the issue of race.

:yourock:

Twice now, the Obama camp has been too smug and too clever by half - early on, they enjoyed the vicious and openly sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton, until the "likeable enough" backlash cost them in New Hampshire and forced an on-air apology from Chris Matthews.

So are we supposed to believe that Barack Obama's campaign asked Chris Matthews to say crazy (and way out-of-line) stuff about Hillary live on air? :eyes:

Hm???

:)

:thumbsup:
:kick:

I am getting tired of having any schlub from Bayonne, NJ shoved in my face as if he were William Faulkner or something. I don't know who Tom Watson is, and he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but his is no better than mine or Schleppy Sue's from Poctaello, Idaho.

Obama was never this guy's first choice ... it seems he was happy with him as a second choice until he started looking like he might be able to win. I guess that is the definition of sour grapes.

This explains some of the distrust I have in Obama.

DemEx

Last I checked, he wasn't employed by any media company, nor does he own shares in any media company, plus he rarely ever speaks to the media. So the only proof that Obama has any sort of "partnership" with the media is the heavily-biased opinion of some nobody blogger who probably hasn't taken a political science or journalism class in his entire life. Shame on you for posting messages attacking your fellow democrats. That's the kind of stuff republicans love, dems tearing each other apart, so they don't have to.

with the media that is already poised against the last name "Clinton." But of course, you won't acknowledge that, but it is true on its face.

I was enthusiastic about Obama, and that has waned for two distinct reasons. The first, I choose not to rehash as someone will jump on the comment, and I don't feel like fighting the battle, but the second is articulated so well in the opinion piece. Maybe it was being a shrewd politician on his part, but Obama fanned the already negative flames of the MSM. The MSM is always willing, has always been willing, to shove a microphone in anyone's face that will trash the Clintons or other dems.

"This morning, I need a shower to wash away the slime of Obama's not-very-subtle partnership with the sickening race-baiting media."

Above statement heavily implies that the author believes that Obama has high level control over the media.

or Obama's peril.

This puts into words the bad gut feelings I've been having about this primary race for some time now... better than I could describe it myself.

thank goodness for John Edwards, who is going to be there to pick up the pieces.

Hail John the King Maker!

Edwards can have the vp now and have the presidency in 8 years!!!

but if BHO & HRC aren't careful, they could both implode - especially if their delegate counts are very close. IMO, that's why Edwards is, and should be, still in the race. NONE of us should try to wish him away. We could ALL end up needing him. Hell, we already do.

that Obama's campaign has been using the Rovian technique of attacking his opponents on their strengths, but the more I see of Obama himself, the more I see him in his supporters and vice versa: rude, petty, arrogant, and vindictive. Just like that other guy who calls himself a "uniter, not a divider."


K & R



:kick:

:kick:

In the Iowa debate and all the other debates accept the South Carolina debate Clinton did all the attacking and Obama did all of the responding. What Clinton was doing was applying Rovian tactics. So was Bill. You may need to Youtube the last four or five debates because you're way off the mark on this one.

Keith Olbermann.

Second, I'm getting fed up with low post count concern trolls who infest this site solely to post right wing and/or Obama campaign talking points against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and then point to the MSM's trumpeting of these same memes as if they'd suddenly become progressives and really had the best interests of the Democratic party at heart.

How naive can you be?

rude, petty, arrogant, and vindictive, and those are his good points.

"Barack Obama wasn't knocked off his pedestal by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He climbed down himself, with David Axelrod holding his hand. And he'll never reclaim that lofty position again."

I liked Barack until I got to know him and his style this campaign season. I'll still vote for him instead of a Republican but he definitely bothers me in some ways now.

You're bashing someone who espouses to our highest calling? And you think Obama actually could control the media. He didn't want race as the issue in this campaign. I'm not sayin' Obama was perfect but the Clinton's were the first to inject race into the campaign. As a matter fact it was the Democrats favorite president who did this. Your's truly, Bill. And Hill was along for the ride. It's the only kind of politics they know and they play it very well. Let's all admit it, this is a new day and the 90s are gone. We've had seven years of Bush and we say we want change. How is voting another Clinton whose been around for 35 years going to achieve the kind of change we want?

It's hard to understand how an overwhelming majority want change in the country from politics as usual, dirty politics and the dirty laundry that goes along with it and yet I see people embracing those same things they don't want. Hillary Clinton is not a change candidate. Obama and Edwards are. Clinton is a great politician who has had 35 years to make change. And she was successful with a few things and very unsuccessful other parts of her agenda. My belief is that we may get the same kind of politics we've seen from her and her husband and do people want that? I don't. She hasn't changed much if she is using the same kind of divisive politics that she used in the 90's. Don't get me wrong she didn't cause the fault line between the Ds and the Rs but she sure didn't do enough to stop the Washington gridlock. If Obama represents anything it is a change from what we've had already. Holding onto so much of the past will get you more of the past. Do we want that? In conclusion, Obama really hasn't done anything that rises to the level of outrage. That's what you want in a candidate. I like Bill but he is too divisive for my taste and he reminds of a kind of Bush within his own party. That can't be good for this country.

He went along with the too predictable Clinton bashing that the MSM is guilty of - has been guilty of since 1993.

So, maybe he's just being a good politician by doing this - Win at any cost, right? But what you're ignoring is that this type of behavior turned many good people off to Obama. They, like me, will still pull the lever for him should he be our nominee, but it won't be because we're fired up about the man.

Seeing the SOTU last night reminded me of who our real enemy is. I just wish I could feel better if Obama becomes our nominee, but I can't fake it if I don't. I don't have this issue with Clinton or Edwards, and I didn't used to have it with Obama. You can find posts from me where I praised all three of them, but I don't tend to post that way any more.

At this point, I don't give a fuck who wins as long as it puts an end to this masturbatory primary pimping circle jerk. Tom Watson makes me wish I could shoot myself in the head more times than Gary Webb. He's not part of the solution to MSM by damn sight.

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHO WINS?

Fuck Obama, Fuck Clinton, Fuck Kennedy, Fuck Edwards and Fuck Anyone who thinks this primary pissing match is helping this country.

Oh yeah, and Fuck America too.

:)

JFK and about trying to repair the rift in the Democratic Party that the corporate media under the guidance of people like old CREEP master Pat Buchanan and Bush adviser Karl Rove have created.

Hillary never said that she was LBJ and Obama was MLK Jr. If you look at the real transcripts, she said she was LBJ and Obama was JFK---and that the more experienced LBJ got civil rights legislation passed. The NYTs, which has since endorsed her, tried to cover for her by misquoting her three times, giving the appearance that they were trying to paint her as making a racial remark. Presumably, the editors of the NYT were less afraid of minorities than they were of the vanity of the Kennedy clan, which had always protect the memory of JFK the way that the Coca-Cola company protects the formula for Coke--and which has always suspected that LBJ had something to do with killing their saintly big brother.

The more altruistic motive for what Ted Kennedy did was to heal the rift in the Democratic Party which CREEPy Pat Buchanan tried to make along racial lines. He did this by anointed Obama as the new JFK. With this done, there can be no question that Obama has been "ghettoized" to quote Buchanan. Obama is part of the Democratic mainstream. Just look at all the Democratic old timers who are endorsing him. Look at the newspaper endorsements he is getting. The Buchanan/Rove plot to set up Chicago 1968 around the issue of Obama's race has fizzled, thanks to the Kennedy clan.

Yes, the Obama camp cynically used the MSM in their quest to get votes in South Carolina. Yes, they almost ran into a trap. Buchanan and Co. were not trying to help Obama. They were trying to make him seem divisive and scary and like the modern equivalent of Malcolm X---a man extreme even for his own party. That shows how politically naive Obama and Co. are. However, being politically naive is something that can be corrected. I expect the Kennedys will teach him a lot.

That is so true. I had two phone conversations just this morning with old friends in Super Tuesday states that are pissed off at Obama and his media.

But honestly, if a viable third party candidate showed up I would be greatly tempted to vote for him or her - that's just how disgusted I am with Obama and Axelrod.

This speaks volumes - "Sour grapes, you suggest? Hell yeah. Not at the primary win, but at the sheer dishonesty openly employed by the Obama campaign and its media enablers. And there are millions and millions like me - Democrats who once thought they could happily vote for Barack Obama as a decent second choice. If it comes to it, I'll still pull the lever against any Republican, but I'll know what I'm getting now"."

that's REALLY getting the RAW DEAL is Edwards!! The MACHINES of Clinton AND Obama are almost one and the same to THIS OUTSIDER!! Their "games" have made me feel like I'm back in school and it's the Football Jock, and the Prom Queen! That's how it got done back then. Seems to me Americans are still doing the same thing, even when they call themselves GROWN-UPS! That's a REAL laugh, but for me... Oh, so True!!!

JMHO!!

Speaks for me.Point for point.Throw in what he said about RayGUN and the disparaging remarks against The Democratic Party and THERE is your reason why I dis like and have no faith in Obama.

I don't know if I can forgive him for what he's doing...it's just so low and beneath the Party itself.I fear if I continue to pay attention to the primaries that if Obama wins I will hate him,that I won't be able to vote for him.And that is something I never thought I'd say much less feel.

I am a Democrat - I feel strongly about my values and this Party and all it represents.I'll have to remind myself if Obama gets the nomination that he is just one part of the Party,a BIG part but still.The Democratic Party comes first and if he gets the nom I will have to remind myself of this often and just do the right thing and vote for him come Novermber.But it won't be easy.