Today on Blogcritics
Home » Bill Clinton Calling and Calling and Calling

Bill Clinton Calling and Calling and Calling

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Where there’s a Hill there’s a Bill. Clearly, Bill and Hill have way too much time on their hands. Hillary Clinton was trying to singlehandedly fix the economic meltdown or recession that may be around the corner with a 70 billion dollar bailout bill. Bill Clinton was trying to calm and call as many black talk show hosts he could to “fix” his mouth meltdown.

The Clintons are upsetting black voters wholesale. They are walking the racial tightrope with the wrong colored tights. Bill declared, or at least deeply implied, that Obama’s campaign was a “fairy tale” and later denied that was what he meant. Why didn’t you just say what all white people say when caught with their pants down: “I was only joking?”

Bill Clinton called Al Sharpton to defend these remarks on transcript: "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen…” Well, you said it Bill… “this whole thing.” Those are the three words that kill Bill. Logically, we can trace everything about Obama, according to Bill, as a fairy tale including candidate Obama. Bill Clinton had to get past the Sharpton racial clearinghouse. Some would see it as a kowtow to criticism. But Bill is too shrewd for that. Sharpton’s focus was race, no doubt. But Bill made a comment that was totally dismissive. Then he cleaned it up with, “He could win.” Yeah, we know he could win, that’s the point. Then there was the MLK comment Hill made that raised some eyebrows: From Political Punch here are the polemic remarks made by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.

Hill said a mouthful mentioning King, Kennedy, and Johnson all in the same sentence. She was creating superlatives whether she knew it or not. We know politicians by definition make policy. Kennedy and Johnson both made legislation happen that eventually brought Jim Crow to an end. Was Kennedy squeamish about passing or pushing civil rights laws? Damn right he was reticent about it. Why? Because he was the first president to walk on civil rights water. So Clinton mentioned this wholesome trilogy of Kennedy, King, and Johnson, well known bulwarks for black people. All true. They came into history together to work together. Clinton didn’t say anything wrong. But I thought that by juxtaposing their work, in a quick and dirty comment, she erred. It was an unnecessary comparison. And as I wrote on my Yahoo! group: Hillary you have a job. We need you in the Senate, New York state needs you, now do us all a favor: stay there — just kidding.

Will she make black people mad at her? I hope so. Will Bill Clinton provoke anger from blacks now and Hispanics later? I predict that this will be the labyrinth they will walk into blindfolded.

Surprisingly, there were lots of racial overtones on the Internet today. Perusing the blogosphere meant just too many blogs to count with race in the headline. One black guy called blacks reacting to New Hampshire “Negroes." Who you calling Negro? Then a white blogger suggested that blacks will riot in the streets if Obama has a failed campaign.

Will there be blood if Barack is not the top or the bottom of the Democratic ticket? I don't think so. But I have already gone on record to say that I won’t be voting Democratic if he isn’t. If that spells nuclear fallout or ghetto burning, then bring it on. The blogger who suggested that blacks will riot in the street forgets to whom he speaks: the black middle class. This was the group that first jumped on the Barack bandwagon. This was where Obama enjoyed his greatest support early on. This support crossed all ages and both genders. If there is any logic to such a loss, then there will be “blacklash” and not forgiveness next time.

Finally, are the Clintons steamed because John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama this week? This was a smart move by Kerry, who was the man behind Obama giving the Democratic keynote speech in 2004. And who wouldn’t want his Rolodex available to their campaign? It must have hurt John Edwards’ feeling and we can't have that. We might need his delegates later. Gary Hart and Arizona's governor also endorsed Obama.

I raised the question of key endorsements in a diary on Daily Kos, well before the Iowa Caucus asking Al Gore and Ted Kennedy to endorse Obama — silence from both. Responders said, "it was too early for endorsements." Wrong; later that day Robert Kennedy, Jr. endorsed Hillary Clinton to the dismay of the Netroots. But to raise the spectre of a Gore/Kennedy endorsement meant that once again, Heloise was ahead of the curve. John Kerry heard the call and answered… good for him, good for Barack.

Powered by

About Heloise

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com baritone

    Anyone running against Obama, be it Clinton or Edwards, McCain or Romney, or whoever will be walking a tight rope. They will be living in a world wherein virtually everything they say, or write, everything coming out of their respective campaigns will be scrutinized for any racial innuendo or slur.

    The two incidents you cite above are cases in point. Bill’s comes closest to being improper, but that being said, it hardly reaches any real standard of a racial comment. Had he made the same comment as regards Edwards or anyone else, little or nothing would have been thought about it. It’s just politics.

    As to Hillary’s comment regarding the Civil Rights act, I don’t see it as at all improper. Her point, if I understand the context, was simply that it took a president with determination to get the measure through Congress and into law.

    Kennedy’s tenure was obviously cut short. It is fruitless and moot to speculate whether he would have gotten behind the civil rights movement. Dr. King was most instrumental in raising the national conscience and awareness of the plight of African Americans, but he could never have been a strong enough influence over Congress or any administration to get the Civil Rights Act approved.

    Johnson, love him or hate him, did what was necessary to get the job done. At that time in history, there was no other single figure or group that could have engineered it.

    What Hillary was implying, I believe, is that only a president (of the U.S. at any rate) can effectively bring about (what else) change, and that she is, in her humble opinion the best equipped candidate to bring about substantive change in the direction of government. Whether that’s true or not only time and voter response will tell.

    I had never given the first thought to a possible violent response from the black community should Obama not achieve the nomination, or if he does but is defeated in November. I really don’t believe that would happen. Just suggesting it is racist at its very core.

    Your distaste for Hillary veritably oozes from every word. I don’t share your feelings. However, I will be pleased if either she or Obama get the nomination.

    While I lean toward Clinton at this juncture, I actually think that Obama has a better chance of winning in November owing to the number of folks out there having much the same opinion of Hillary that you do. She drags along a great deal of baggage that Obama is largely free of. There are few negatives tugging at Obama. It’s pretty much all good. No doubt political operatives from all opposing camps will dig deeply to produce anything that might reflect badly on Obama – as witness the report of his connection with influence peddler Tony Rezko regarding Obama’s purchase of his south Chicago home. (Does one take classes or otherwise train to become an influence peddler? Can one earn a degree? Where does one come up with an adequate supply of “influence” to be able to “peddle” it?)

    As Hillary has often stated, there are no two people living today who have suffered more scrutiny than she and Bill. That road for Obama is just beginning.

    Baritone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baritone, I feel much the same way as you. Dr King was far too polite for Congress. It took a complete asshole like Johnson to bludgeon them into passing civil rights legislation!

    Major props to Heloise, though, for what may be the best line ever written in BC Politics: “They are walking the racial tightrope with the wrong colored tights.”

    Priceless.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Yeah, that was pretty good. Way to go Hel!

    B-tone

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    It may be a fun sport to pretend that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been making deliberately racist remarks. But Bill Clinton, the nation’s honorary “first black president,” is not likely to do so, and neither is his wife. If you look at the full transcript and context of the “fairy tale” remark, it was indeed about, and only about, Obama’s claims regarding his record on the Iraq war.

    HRC’s remarks on Dr. King and LBJ took a little more spin and dancing around to set straight. Her ultimate justification: “I’m running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change.” Translation: “It is really hard to run against this guy without looking like an asshole!”

    It can be really fun to watch politicians squirm. But I don’t really believe HRC is either a racist or an asshole.

    What a great campaign for political nerds/junkies like me! Even when my own candidate is doing the squirming.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    In all the comments about Kerry endorsing Obama, I’ve seen little or no mention of the equivalent gesture in 2004:
    Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean.

  • Lee

    OK, these are the comments made by Bill Clinton:

    “It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004 and there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since?’ Give me a break.

    “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” …

    Read with an unbiased mind, and you’ll see clearly that he was talking about Obama’s position on Iraq… not his candidacy. For years, the Clintons have spoke of a day that an African American would take the White House by storm, so to even spin this as racist is ludicrous.

  • http://www.WellesleyInTheWhiteHouse.com Marc

    Politics and context… It’s sad that media and others have to blow things into a huge issue. Most intelligent Americans know that Bill Clinton was not implying a racial judgment when he stated “fairy tale”… However, it’s makes a great headline that people can use to stir up the pot and make people use a statement out of true context.

    Reality is Hillary is not “attacking” or “being feisty” when she “calls” other candidates such as Obama or Edwards out for their “mis-statements” or “half-truths”. This is important for the public to know so that we can make an informed decision.

    Although I think the race for the democratic nomination will be close, I believe in the end Hillary Clinton will prevail.

    Obama is a smart politician and has the “right” message. However, his policy statements / sentences are a bit short on substance. His campaign managers and advisers have been doing a great job of providing him the “right messages” and his ability to motivate Americans will help him. In the long run, democrats will be able to tell the difference of “Real Change” compared to speaking about “Change”.

    While it may seem great to think we can elect a president who will be the “change” agent that we all want… Reality is a “change agent” is someone who can work within the system and not against the system…. The DC system may seem terrible, but it’s process and balance will not change with just an election of a president.

    The problem with this quick nomination process is that Hillary has already begun speaking about policies while most other candidates have not… So with only a few weeks left before “Super Tuesday” most Americans will vote with “inspiration” and “motivation” without substance, which I believe hurts America in the long run.

    We need to think beyond a good motivational speech, we need to think about what the person can get done not just say they want to do.

    Can Hillary beat a Republican??? YES! Let’s face it, for democrats, it’s between Hillary and Obama. After Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, democrats will get behind her.

    It’s time for Hillary supporters to SHOW their support for Hillary and to our communities!

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Taking statements out of context, especially in political discussions is apparently a time honored practice, albeit a maddening one. All pols do it. Currently, the supposed racial statements by the Clintons are a prime example. Politics is perhaps the only arena wherein a simple “Hello” can be “spun” in any number of directions. The problem with it is that if one side does it, the other side usually succumbs to the pressure to respond in kind. Tit for tat.

    I think there is an assumption by those who run political campaigns that the majority of the voting public is not particularly intelligent. That’s pretty cynical. It may be true to some extent, but the issue is not, IMO,intelligence, but interest. Most people just aren’t interested in politics. Many people just don’t pay much attention to it. It is very easy to manipulate available information distorting whatever is out there to debase the other side and aggrandize the home team.

    Another case in point was during the Kerry campaign wherein photos supposedly of Kerry sitting in bleachers avidly listening to Jane Fonda give a speech were spread about the media. Of course, the photo had been altered placing the image of Kerry’s face on another person’s body. The fakery was quickly established, but much damage was nevertheless done. That effort alone swayed many votes.

    Such actions have essentially the same effect as newspapers splashing big print headlines on page one and then printing retractions on page 35. How many people ever get to page 35?

    Likewise, most people, if they hear anything, they will take the lead story and run with it, but pay little attention to what happens next.

    I agree that issues should be the focus of any campaign. It only rarely is. Most elections are won and lost more as popularity or beauty contests. Few people would admit to that, but it’s all too often true. My wife has a friend who said she couldn’t vote for Clinton because she hates her voice and doesn’t want to hear it over the coming 4 to 8 years.

    I also would like to see candidates move toward specifics – the whats and hows. I think Clinton has done that more than most of the others.

    I will support whichever Dem candidate gains the nomination. I actually think that Obama has a better chance of beating whoever the Reps nominate, but I currently favor Clinton because I think she has a superior understanding of the issues and how to get things done in D.C. The general election will likely be tougher for her owing to the baggage she has to drag behind her. A lot of people just hate her. Some just hate her voice or her eyes, or her hair, or her pant suits. Silly as that may be, those people represent lost votes.

    My hope is that the Reps will go into the fall campaign fractured between the evangelicals and the moderates – perhaps with one or more splits with Paul or Huckabee or Bloomberg running independent campaigns. Or, if no independent campaign materializes, but with say McCain or Guiliani gaining the nomination, that the evangelicals would feel disaffected and opt not to support the Rep nominee and just not vote. If, say, Huckabee or Paul gets the Rep nod, perhaps some moderate Reps and a significant number of indpendents might gravitate to the Dem side. That scenario would be more likely if Obama is the Dem candidate, but it still could of some help Clinton. All of that may be wishful thinking. And perhaps Clinton can beat the Reps straight up.

    However this all plays out, I find all of it to be fascinating. The stakes are high.

    Baritone

  • Kate

    I do not tend to believe the masses take a comment out of context, though this may be the exception. I believe people will see Bill Clinton’s tantrum for what it was. An agitated and desperate man upset about someone in the way of his and his wife’s imperial march to power.

  • Heloise

    Hey great comments.

    Heloise was not being rude this weekend, just sick as a dog. What people don’t know but I do and I wrote about it, is that our past life illnesses recur with the body. I have so many rare and weird sicknesses to deal with of late. So, when I am not here writing, I am probably out cold, prostrate or puking my guts out.

    Anyway, what I really wanted to say to Hillary is that who’s pictures do you see on folks wall? Huh? I mean people have pics of JFK right next to Jesus and MLK. They have pics of MLK right next to Jesus. These men are world class luminaries. LBJ, I can distill his greatness in a line too: He was a politician’s politician. Great man on the trail and in the office.

    But he was no MLK. She would have actually fared better if she had compared MLK to JFK, both dreamers really, but led movements and people into action.

    Loved that line about the tights hey? I say the clearest picture when I wrote that.

    Heloise

  • Heloise

    Did anybody catch John Kerry on George’s show this am? He was on fire. I have never seen Kerry like that before. And he told George he was not going to comment on that story…good for him. What about the other fine endorsements this week? You Clintonistas must be jealous.

    I hope I am wrong about TIME endorsing her though.

    I also wrote a diary called “I Keep Hearing Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton” way before the Iowa caucuses.

    Is John Edwards the spoiler here and not the sleeper? I like him but maybe he won’t be on the ticket after all. Anyway I do hear and we are hearing Obama/Clinton. DOn’t worry they will makeup eventually.

    Heloise

  • Heloise

    Finally, the black pundits agreed, yes agreed with old Heloise on the remarks made by the Clintons–it’s code stuff. The kind of stuff that middle class blacks who find themselves around lots of liberal and NOT racists whites have to deal with…simply this: We need to remind you buddy that you’re black. Yeah, you might be here, and the only black one in a sea of whites, but just need to remind you that you are black. Usually women do this, but men do it also.

    I can’t tell you how much that subtle shit makes me hot. But I can’t go and act black on them. I have to be polite. But you know I have a way with words and usually I make my point.

    I usually hand them their head on a silver platter. But philosophically, I don’t give a huck.

    Heloise

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Kate,

    You don’t believe that people take things out of context? Do you believe that the majority of people upon hearing, say some quote, or short news clip of someone saying or doing something that others claim is wrong, or racist, or stupid, are going to reserve judgement and go to the media and “get to the bottom” of the issue? Do you imagine that the majority of our fine citizens are going to read through long stories in newspapers or periodicals to really see who said what?

    I’m a fairly engaged guy when it comes to the political scene, yet I only pursue such things on a hit and miss basis. It depends on what piques my interest. It is my experience that most people are not nearly so involved in the process. They may vote, but they may not know much about who they are voting for.

    My wife’s friend, who stated that her hatred of Hillary’s voice was the chief reason that she would never vote for her, was dismayed upon discovering that GW can’t run again. She had no idea about term limits. I guess she slept through that particular class. I overheard part of a conversation at Mickey Ds a few days ago with one of the fellows involved asked “Barack who? – A black guy — really? Well, who’da thought?” I’m not sure where that guy has been.

    Let’s see. Any time Bill defends Hillary against errant comments it qualifies as a rant. If Michelle Obama defends Barack in a similar fashion, she’s just supporting her husband’s campaign, right?

    As I’ve stated, I will be about equally happy with either Hillary or Barack as the Dem nominee. All this hate and vitriol aimed at the Clintons is just a bunch of divisive crap, which, if it continues, will likely wind up putting another Rep in the White House. Another 4 to 8 years of evangelical bullshit. That would be just great.

    B-tone

  • Heloise

    Here’s a comment from Robert Johnson, founder of BET, he no longer owns it.

    He is backing Clinton but stabbing Obama in the Back!!

    From the New York Times:
    “He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

    Now, that’s a Negro for ya. I can say that, cause I’m black.

    The heat on this comment is that: he is subtly implying that Barack was doing drugs while the Hill was doing good things for little girls in the neighborhood, per his own book or words. What a cheap shot. I always hated BET.

    Heloise

  • Heloise

    “Barack Who?” was one of my titles for an article. Now you see why I used that title. Black people who are not on the Internet, and they don’t watch the damn news don’t know who’s running and who ain’t. THe digital divide strikes again.

    Heloise

  • Heloise

    “Barack Who?” was one of my titles for an article. Now you see why I used that title. Black people who are not on the Internet, and they don’t watch the damn news don’t know who’s running and who ain’t. THe digital divide strikes again.

    Heloise

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Baritone, people who really hate the Clintons rarely see any room for interpretation when Bill & Hillary say or do anything. They see them as Bad, Evil, Opportunistic, Terrible People. It’s boring and it’s not particularly logical, but it seems to be a visceral thing.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    That only shows that there is divison amongst the Black community as well, as it should be. Cheap shot? Perhaps. There will be more to come. Do you imagine that the Clintons have not endured cheap shots in bundles? Anyone in public life must accept that or get out of the limelight.

    While it’s becoming more difficult, if you listen to Hillary and Barack – not their lackeys – they are doing everything within their ability to avoid personal attacks. I believe that they both like and respect each other. I would expect whoever looses the nomination – including Edwards (remember him?) – to get behind the ultimate nominee.

    I don’t see either Obama or Clinton accepting a VP nod. For Hillary it would be too humiliating given her position. Should she loose this nomination, in my view her presidential aspirations are done. I think it would be politically imprudent for Obama to take up residence in the “Admiral’s House.” He has the likelihood of a long political career even if he looses the presidential nod this time around. He’s young. It would not serve him in the long run to be identified with someone else’s administration, especially a failed administration.

    Should he not win the Dem nomination, I think he’d be best served to step back, bide his time and make a charge down the road in a few years. He should be able to maintain his Senate seat. He should stay visible. Do the political media circus, er I mean circuit. If he can distinguish himself there, it would help him get beyond any of those “experience” issues. [I expect a call from Obama’s people any day now to confer with me on this very issue.{;-)-<]

    But, who knows, he’s still very much in the mix now. He may well carry the day before or at the latest, coming out of the August Convention in Denver. Then the race will be off and running to November. May the best Democrat win!

    B-tone

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Handy,

    My comment above was directed to Hel’s comment.

    I agree with you about what I characterize as vitriol against the Clintons. Are they opportunistic? Yes. Are they determined? Yes. Have dastardly things been done on their behalf? Probably so. While it doesn’t paint a particularly flattering picture of our political reality, I think anyone would be hardpressed to find the same NOT true of most anyone who has achieved any level of success in the political arena. It’s a harnknock business, not for the faint of heart or the weak of will. I can’t say that I like it, but that is, sadly I guess, the way it is.

    B-tone

  • Stephanie

    Bill Clinton’s comments were never racial in any way of course. I will honestly state here that Obama doesn’t have a policy or a platform, and instead he goes on with rhetoric regarding change, hope, Moses, Joshua, blah, blah, blah, while Hillary Clinton has detailed policy 90 minute question and answer sessions, and my comment hasn’t got anything to do with colour because I would say it about anybody that has nothing to say. Obama doesn’t have any policy or platform. Obama doesn’t have any substance. Obama has words without any reason to believe them. I’m actually sick of the rubbish between the candidates, and I want the process to be about issues, ideas and the ability of the candidates. Common sense will then lead to a Hillary Clinton nomination.

  • Robin

    I hope Al Gore endorses Hillary Clinton. He won’t endorse the same candidate that John Kerry has endorsed so that rules Barack Obama out. He won’t endorse John Edwards because he isn’t going to win the nomination, so that leaves Clinton, who just happens to have the closes environmental policy and Senate voting record to match Gore. If Al Gore is serious about the environment, then he will endorse Hillary Clinton now!

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I don’t know that Gore will endorse anyone. I doubt seriously that he will throw his hat in the ring, but if he were to publicly get behind any one candidate, it would make it difficult for him to then go against that endorsement and campaign on his own behalf.

    The only way I could see Gore gaining any traction, though, is if there were a stalemate at the August convention with him stepping in to break it. I doubt that it will come to that, though. I hope not. Gore has been the punch line for too many jokes over the last several years for enough voters to take him seriously.

    It looks more likely that the Reps might wind up with a brokered convention if no clear candidate comes out of the primaries.

    While I lean toward Clinton at this point, I have no objections to an Obama nomination. I don’t think he lacks substance. He is an intelligent man whose greatest ability may be in placing the right people around him. We’ll see.

    Baritone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What I’m wondering about is how many votes the Kerry endorsement is going to cost Obama.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “He is an intelligent man whose greatest ability may be in placing the right people around him. We’ll see.”

    He IS intelligent; and, if he can pick his people well, that would be most of what he’d need.

    I think he stands head and shoulders above Hillary. Literally and figuratively.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    While I think Hillary is far better than many will give her credit, I won’t argue the point with you. Obama has a stature, an elegance, and certainly an eloquence that none of the other candidates can muster – somewhat reminiscent of Kennedy, actually. I know all that does not a president make.

    However, I think the more successful presidents in the past were so largely because of the people they brought into their administrations to actually carry out the business of running the government. In some respects, a president is a figurehead, but of course he (or she) must be a decision maker (or as GW would say – a “decider.”) In the end a successful president will surround him or her self with people who can do their jobs effectively, properly representing and advising the president to give him or her the best possible information from which to make decisions. I know that sounds nearly hyperbolic, but I believe it to be true. Sadly, and all too often the people chosen by presidents have proven to be wanting in their ability to carry out their respective duties, and consequently many presidents have made bad decisions, often based on erroneous information, say like Saddam’s WMDs. It’s all of a piece.

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    B,

    I completely agree with you. As I’m sure you know, what you describe in your comment is the very essence of a superior manager. And what is a good president, if not a superior manager?

    The one thing we don’t yet know about Obama is his ability to pick people well, surround himself with them, and most important, let them do the job he hired them for with minimal interference (but lots of coordination) on his part.

    I spent 30 years in administration, and like to think I was very good at it (at least I was told so many times by my own bosses). From that experience I learned that the above formula works, and works well.

    If he’s elected, and if he can do all that, his actual political leanings will count less (because of checks and balances), and we will have gained something we sorely need right now: a real leader.

    Speaking as a man who has never in his life voted Democratic at presidential level, I see Obama as the most impressive candidate from either party this election, despite his lack of experience.

    Many people have correctly observed that at this juncture in our national life, we need a “uniter,” not a “divider.” Obama looks like he can do that.

    I haven’t completely made up my mind yet (I never do until I pull the lever or touch the screen), but I may well vote for him next November.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    I think that’s great. Not whether you vote for Obama, but that you are open and thoughtful enough to give it serious consideration. I have pretty much always voted democratic, but I have always voted for Richard Lugar in the Senate. I don’t necessarily agree with his politics, but I believe him to be an intelligent and honest man. I may well have voted for him as president a few years back when he toyed with the idea of running. Unfortunately, Lugar isn’t particularly charismatic, and he’s not known well enough nationally to garner a serious following.

    You certainly are correct about the president/manager comparison. A good manager picks his people, makes sure they know their jobs and then gets out of the way as much as possible. Among other short comings, Nixon was not a good manager. I think Kennedy was, and so too was my favorite guy, Ron Reagan. Clinton wasn’t bad at managing others, he just couldn’t control himself.

    Obama seems to have put together a pretty well organized, loyal and well managed campaign team.

    I also agree with you that his particular political leanings may not coincide with some, but, if he proves to be a truly good manager, that shouldn’t matter a great deal. Actually, I think Obama is only a bit left of center on most significant issues. That shouldn’t be too objectionable to most, except for extremists on both sides.

    If nothing else, Obama should be able to articulate his ideas to both his staff and the public at large.

    This is the first election in a long time that I have actually been excited about. The last two I was more worried than excited.

    B-tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #20:

    Obama doesn’t have any policy or platform.

    Oh, for goodness’ sake. Stephanie, do try and get a synapse to fire inside your skull every so often. Just think about the idiocy of your statement. Why in heck would anyone make a serious run for political office without having a platform?

    I am certain that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker all the anti-Obama bullshit. I am equally certain that you have not been here, pointed your mouse over the ‘Issues’ button and spent a few minutes learning everything you need to know about Obama’s platform.

    Enjoy.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I find the juxtaposition of Dave’s [snarky] question about Kerry costing Obama votes, and [vehemently anti-Kerry Republican] Clavos’s revelation that he might consider voting for Obama…interesting, to say the least.

    Endorsements come and go and don’t always mean much, but still.

  • Clavos

    Don’t take it too far, handy.

    Most (but not all) of my contempt for Kerry has to do with various aspects of his service in Vietnam, not so much with his political views, though I’m pretty far from him politically. His endorsement, whether for Obama or anyone else, means virtually nothing to me.

    Most of my consideration of Obama is based on what I perceive to be a fine mind (though still largely unproven and unfocused) and especially his seeming ability to reach out and appeal to a wide variety of voters. As I said before, he appears to be a “uniter.” I like that. We need it.

    Also, I’m literally a RINO. In Florida, you MUST declare a party in order to be able to vote in the primaries, so I registered as a republican, and usually (though not always) have voted republican at presidential level, while often voting democratic or other at state and local level.

    If anything, I consider myself an indie with a conservative libertarian weltanschauung.

  • Clavos

    Correction to my #30:

    Should have read:

    “..and always have voted republican at presidential level, while often (though not always) voting democratic or other at state and local level.”

    [Mumbles]

    Got to sharpen those editing skills…

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Doc is correct about Obama’s site. If you scroll down his laundry list of issues to “Health Care” and click on the PDF, it brings up a fifteen page detailed outline of his health care plan. It’s the same for most of the other issues on which he has a position.

    B-tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    To be fair, fifteen pages of Obama’s or anyone else’s health care proposals is probably enough to make even the most discerning voter’s eyes glaze over. In which case, I again highly recommend this handy clickable guide from the BBC which gives an excellent overview of the leading candidates’ positions on key issues.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Caveat to the above: the Mitt Romney section may not have been updated within the last 20 minutes.

    Ba-DOOM-boom-TSSSHH!!!

  • Clavos

    You’re not supposed to rim-shot your own quips, Doc.

    You’ll have the drummers union on your ass, you keep that up…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Er, no, Clav, you’re the one the drummers’ union will be after. That little noise (which, for the benefit of anyone over whose head those last couple of comments may have gone, was meant to represent the drum riff traditionally used by bad comics to reinforce their punchlines) is technically known in the biz as a sting. A rimshot is actually the sound produced by striking the rim and the skin of the drum simultaneously.

    I discovered this the other day, while trying to find a .wav file of such a sound with which to illustrate a similarly smart-assed comment of mine. I was not successful.

  • Clavos

    “I discovered this the other day, while trying to find a .wav file of such a sound with which to illustrate a similarly smart-assed comment of mine. I was not successful.”

    With the comment, or…?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Doc,

    Oh, I know that any 15 page document on a political web site will go largely unread. I didn’t get past page 2. But the point was to allay the notion that Obama has not addressed issues. Actually, I’m sure all of the candidates’ respective web sites go into some detail with the campaign issues. I’m sure they all enlist an adequate # of policy wonks to produce at least the semblance of position papers.

    But people like Stephanie above (#20) who claim that, in this case, Obama has no platform just illustrates how lazy some people are. Had she taken a couple of minutes as you suggest, she hopefully would not have made such a claim. Unfortunately, there are those who would accept it as gospel.

    B-tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Oh, absolutely, B-Tone.

    But even for people without the dedication and/or Nerd Factor to plough through hundreds of pages of policy statements, a few minutes with that BBC guide will still demonstrate quite adequately that Obama is far from being an ‘empty suit’ as certain commenters on BC persistently claim.