2008 Caucus for O
posted by on February 6 at 17:37 PM
We republished our Obama endorsement in this week’s news section along with a handy caucus How-To.
Here’s the endorsement:
The differences between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pretty arcane. The reality is that both candidates support the popular Democratic agenda that has emerged after eight years of George W. Bush’s catastrophic presidency.Can you believe the Democrats once seemed lost for an identity? Now, thanks to Bush, the Democratic Party is at the forefront of a focused agenda to: achieve universal health care, end the occupation of Iraq, combat global warming, reestablish the United States as a respected international leader, reverse the erosion of civil liberties at home, and make the economy work for the middle class instead of just the wealthiest.
The question: Which Democratic candidate—the brilliant but polarizing Hillary Clinton or the thoughtful and charismatic Barack Obama—is best suited to take on the conniving GOP? Just as important, which one will be best positioned to enact the Democratic agenda once he or she is in office? We believe the answer is Barack Obama.
If we were Republicans—which we’re not—we’d be terrified about taking on a stadium attraction like Obama. Buoyed by his inspirational life story—a mixed-race kid abandoned by his father who makes it to Harvard Law and the U.S. Senate (with a stint as a community organizer along the way)—Obama’s campaign will be powered by his goose-bumps oratory. “It is not about black versus white,” he said in South Carolina. “It’s about the past versus the future.”
There’s also the numbers. Obama appeals to the nearly 30 percent of voters who identify as independent. This is important given that “maverick” John McCain is the GOP frontrunner.
Scared that Obama’s appeal to the center means he’s going to sell out Democratic priorities? We were too. But all we had to do was look at Obama’s Senate record (nay on the pandering flag-burning amendment) and his proposals (his Social Security plan extends the payroll tax to capture fatter incomes) to realize he’s an SECB-approved liberal.
He has a 96 rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He’s earned a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and he voted against giving immunity to gun manufacturers, against the anti-labor Central American Free Trade Agreement, and for restoring habeas corpus. He’s also against giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies who have spied for the White House.
Most impressive: Obama has been openly opposed to the invasion of Iraq since 2002 when he correctly warned that an expensive off-topic adventure would undermine the war on terrorism.
Electing Barack Obama would be a jump cut in American history—one the up-and-coming generation is clamoring for. Bush’s ugly politics are a culmination of culture wars dating back to the 1960s. Hillary Clinton is a baby boomer. Obama, who grew up in the ’70s, represents a chance to move on.
Certainly, the SECB recognizes the mind-blowing possibility of a woman president, but Obama offers a truly seismic shift. And no, it’s not about race (although we don’t underestimate the symbolism—to the rest of the world—of electing a black man after eight years of John Wayne diplomacy). It’s about transcendence. Obama’s talent lies in transforming Democratic goals into mainstream no-brainers. The strategy is disarming, and it’s poised to make the Democratic voice the mainstream voice in America.
well said. now for the ECB response.
What is Hillary's rating?
You made the case for Obama...outside of her earlier war support, please list the other ways that Obama and Hillary differ.
@1 - if I understood Josh correctly earlier, ECB was actually responsible for some of that piece. She must've been so pissed.
Doing the caucus can take as little as 15 minutes if you know who you're voting for and its not Mike Gravel.
Just sign in, put down your vote, and get going.
A quote from the Democratic Party FAQ: "What if I have to leave my Caucus early? When you sign in at your Caucus, your vote will be counted toward the allocation of delegates."
You will not have to stay to have your vote counted.
BA, ECB is incapable of posting a substantive, positive opinion about her candidate without demeaning or throwing a jab at the opponent.
@3 she must be returning a favor then
I just hope Obama is capable of defending himself when pressed in the general election. He's brilliant with prepared speeches, but comes across as a bit whiny and excitable when he's under the gun. Hillary has beat him thoroughly in this regard, particularly during the debates.
And, the SECB seems a bit caught up in Obama's rock-star status. Yes, he draws the biggest crowds. They are the biggest crowds I've seen since ... drum roll please ... Nader in 2000.
I love how democrats say they want to stop the erosion of civil liberties, and at the same time want to get rid of gun rights...the one thing we have we can use to fight back.
i love how guns rights advocates never use their guns to ensure rights.
Damn, that cartoon really hurt. I'm on the younger side, and I'll probably still vote for Hillary.
Again, too bad this nomination thing is so polarizing (skimming through the comments just on this post, they are pretty representative of most others). Can we start a thread without bashing anyone? Heck, I just got really mad at a Slogger myself. Maybe all Sloggers should agree to take zanax for a week, and then we could track how Slog changes. Could be fun.
Or mebbe we really *ALL* should get out to Moe. I guess that is what Moe Bar is for.
So where's the caucus cheat sheet?
Yay for cartoon! Obama only needs cool young people! No oldies, fatties, or baldies!
The cartoon is stupid. I'm also young...and voting for Clinton.
This seems to summarize the basic problem with much of the pro Obama analysis. You aren't Republicans and they may well be pumped to run against him. Can you see the Harold Ford type ads but with Obama handing a joint to a teen saying smoke this it helped me when I was your age. A fake newscast with the Iranians doing this or that and tape of O saying he sees no danger and will not support fighting back.
The where's the beef moment. The you're no JFK moment. The underground Osama/Obama emails. Half the people probably still think that Saddam had something to do with 911, they're not hard to fool.
Obama as President does give a level of change and upgraded world opinion that is exciting.
If I caucus for him it will not because I think he will have the best chance of winning but rather that he would bring the highest return.
Clinton/Obama would be the most likely winning ticket and would give a great shot at 16 years of Dem hegemony.
Yes, but, is posting this on SLOG expected to help or hurt Obama?
I was really impressed with Obama's win in MN, my home state. And the fact that so many people were so enthusiastic about him. I had a nice talk with my mom this afternoon (also a HRC supporter) about the fat that maybe there's something to this Obama Phenomenon.
Then I saw the the Stranger's Obama cartoon.
And I was reminded about how many of Obama's supporters are such grumpy, twitchy, self-satisfied tools. And how much his supporters play the generation card. They've basically said "fuck you, old people", which perfectly encapsulates this cartoon. And my brief flirt with Obamaism faded.
So thanks, SLOG!
ari
"Your mean supporters made me change my mind!" Will you ever give it up, Sven? You support Hillary, and you'd still support Hillary regardless of whether or not we call you names or not. And if you do change your vote because of that, you're a tool. I find your incessant whining on the matter annoying, but I assure you I don't hold it against Hillary.
(And BTW, the complement of that cartoon that offended you so can be found in that Robin Morgan piece ECB posted - a big "fuck you" to everyone who isn't a white middle-aged radical feminist.)
Boy, looking at that cartoon, you'd almost assume that The Stranger's news staff wasn't middle-aged and fusty.
tsm-
It's hilarious that 50% of Obama supporters on the SLOG are ruder than shit to anyone who doesn't want to give their candidate a big fucking sloppy blowjob, and then get even ruder when anyone has the temerity to call them on it. Fuck you.
Clinton/Obama 2008.
Nappy@19:
All the staffers I saw at Moe's last night were twenty-somethings. annie looked like she might not even be old enough to drink (but I'm old, so I'm no judge of age for anyone under about 30.) Dan's the old one you could potentially call "middle-aged."
Lots of middle aged SLOG commenters last night, though.
ps- Fusty is a great word.
The guy with the glasses looks quite a bit like Mr. Poe. One of the girls could maybe be a poor likeness of Amy Kate Horn. The other two just look like two versions of Daphne from Scooby Do.
Which I mean in a bad way. I have to say, that cartoon is offensive and counterproductive. It's one thing to say Obama brings in a lot of youth voters. It's not at all helpful to cast him as the youth candidate, standing firmly on one side of an unbridged generational chasm.
That cartoon is a variation of "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina." I suppose we need to get used to Obama getting pigeon holed. It something we have to do to brown people so we can deal with them.
@20 -
Well, for a brief few minutes I was considering switching to Hillary, but your rudeness has instantly moved me back to Obama, Sven. And it's going to stay there until mere minutes before the next Clinton supporter is rude to me, at which point I'll switch back to Obama yet again.
Phbbbbbbt.
@20
"They've basically said "fuck you, old people", which perfectly encapsulates this cartoon."
Go read the part about Obama's plan to expand the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent again. Obama himself has certainly never said "fuck you, old people", either in words or in policy. Are you voting for a man or a cartoon?
Quick question:
I'm registered to vote from my old UW address. Now I live on Capitol Hill. Am I going to catch any flak showing up at the Capitol Hill caucus? (I called KC to change my address but they'd already locked the voter rolls.) Can I bring a utility bill or something to prove my address?
(okay, edit to @24: make that voting for a PERSON or a cartoon.)
@25
You can and should caucus with the precinct where you currently live and vote. You need to update your voter registration address, which you can do through King County Elections or you can do on the morning of the caucuses by re-registering to vote.
gooj@24-
Like the candidate.
Hate, hate, hate the cartoon.
That's why I limited my comment to news staff (and an excepting Jonah).
Thanks, elenchos.
tsm@23-
Oh come on. You know you want the t-shirt.
I actually- honestly- think that Obama will probably win the nomination now. I expected Hillary to be up 100 *committed* delegates after yesterday. I think states like MN going for Obama, and the stupendous turnout we've seen in all states (MN saw 3x as much as 2004), probably does mean he could do very, very well in the general.
I also happen to think Hillary could do very well in the general, as evidenced by Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. And I still think she *should* be the nominee. But I'm feeling better and better about Obama.
I just hope that if he gets it, he doesn't turn the other cheek when the Republican attack dogs set in. Just because he's playing fairly doesn't mean they will.
I think Hillary would make a great Vice-President.
And her presence a heartbeat away from the Presidency would be a great hedge against the threat of assassination.
this cartoon is my nightmare about caucusing for Clinton on Saturday.
My nightmare is that there will a carnival ride-type sign at the door that reads: You must be this hip to caucus.
Eh, don't fret quite yet, @33. Old people are quieter but numerous, and grumpy, and have a history of deciding elections, those wrinkly silver-haired bastards.
HOW ARCANE IS THIS:
David Rees, the man behind the hilarious and trenchant Get Your War On, reminded me yesterday of another especially egregious - yet much less known - vote cast by Senator Hillary Clinton, which no one in the mainstream media is talking about:
But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility
On the one hand, I really like Obama and his vision
But on the other, I totally enjoy cluster-bombing civilians.
How is one to choose?
Hillary, the self-anointed protector of women and children, voted to let the military use cluster bombs on women and children.
But remember, according to the oracles of the media,there are no BIG differences between Obama and Clinton.
Except how and when to bomb civilian populations.
Why does the article refer to "registered Democrats"? We don't have party registration here. I already had one young potential first-time caucuser tell me "I don't think I can caucus because I'm not a registered Democrat." *sigh*
The Tyranny of Senators Kennedy and Obama
In the annals of history when one reads about the Democratic Race of 2008, they will not read about ideals and glory of the moment, but the back room deals and the fear that manipulated a party to abdicate all that it once stood for, and that is equality.
It is not equal that two legacy families run by an old man, Ted Kennedy, and the son of Richard Daley Sr chooses their pawn, a black junior senator from Illinois, in order to secure the White House, a White House that Kennedy has coveted since the 1960s. Ted Kennedy and Richard Daley have divided the democratic party in a manner that is more than despicable, but shameful to any man or woman of ideals and hope.
In the annals of history when one reads about the Democratic Race of 2008, one will read about the lack of equality by one race to many. Obama’s victories lie within the caucus framework, where congressmen/senators/political leaders are held captive by a plurality of African Americans who are at war with the freedom of the secret ballot. Without question, the only strength of the Obama/Kennedy Faction is the inner cities and political leadership who that machine supports. Historians will write how Sen. Obama used the speeches of great leaders (faith, hope, charity…Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Paul Douglas, Fulbright, etc) as his own, plagiarized those true and breathless words in order to perpetrate upon the public, and youth, that those words were original to his thoughts. Obama does not create his own speeches – he rewrites old speeches that historically reverberated around the world.
It is not equal that a candidate, due to race, claims victory in caucus states because of threats to Caucasian, Asian, Latino politicos. That is not integration: that is the creation of an oligarchy in the Democratic process, where the party is run by a few, not the many.
It is not equal that Obama and “his SS troops of African Americans” as one Caucasian legislator whispered in Idaho hold captive the majority and all other minorities by their cannon of votes. Historians will write how the Obama campaign used its black constituency to subtly and openly threaten democratic leadership of those of Caucasian, Asian, Middle Eastern descent – their black bullet, their refusal to support a sitting legislator or new candidate if they fail to vote Obama. Sen. Obama’s wife Michelle and Oprah Winfrey will be written as the worst offender of the deadly black bullet of coercion.
Historians will write how in the cold fields of Iowa and the river streets of St. Louis how thousands of Chicago precinct workers descended upon Iowa and Missouri and forced the nation’s first caucus/SuperTuesday primary to play by their rules, not the people’s rules. These advance troops did the unthinkable – they wrote down names of those who opposed Obama, and whispered that if they continued to oppose Obama, their careers as public servants was finished or limited. And historians will write how in the western part of the state, true patriots of equality refused to cavel to the black bullet and stated equivocally to the Chicago Machine, we are men and women of decent and moral fiber, and we will judge as to the issues, not as to false words, or veiled threats. The rest caved in to their fear of being unelectable.
It is not equal that this 2008 Democratic election will be written by historians as the ’08 Presidential Race engendered not by race, but by one race, African Americans manipulated by a dying legacy created by Ted Kennedy, a man whose thirst for power is well documented, and whose moral behavior is without question disreputable. Ted premise was not that of his brothers, Jack or Bobby. Ted’s solution to the impoverishment of heart and soul to the African American was to dress them, feed them, and provide them housing – all style and no substance. And thus in the inner cities, the African American languishes amidst poverty, resistant to education, carving a living from petty crime and drugs, sexually permissive, and when prosecuted, Ted Kennedy allowed the African American community to use “race” as a means to escape justice all paid by US taxdollars.
It will be written that under President Bill Clinton, who made tough choices, who provided the inner city with the resources to climb out of that hole - but put limits (3 years) on welfare, increased police within the inner city, prohibited the baby manufacturing by African American women – an industry that was manipulated by the African American male in order to produce higher returns on the welfare money – and provided education and the opportunity in order that a man or woman, irregardless of race, gender, etc would be enabled to leave a corrupt and immoral environment. At the same time, by doing the right thing, Clinton empowered the DEA to shut down and prosecute drug dealers in the cities, in the rurals, and in Central and South America. And it is that environment, the inner cities, who most strongly supports Sen. Obama and his promoters – Ted Kennedy and Richard Daley - and who most strongly resist the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton.
History will write about the manipulations of the ’08 elections, and how Sen. Ted Kennedy formed with Sen. Obama an agreement, and that come the Democratic Convention in ’08, Ted will be named the Vice Presidential candidate, and if not him, then Kerry, or Richard Daley. And in Massachusetts, the people voted loud and clear they did not want Ted Kennedy/Obama manipulations. Why? Because they know the Chicago Machine and the city patronage system. Who will control the White House? It won’t be anyone from Seattle, it will be filled with the Chicago patronage system.
Historians will write of the overt manipulations by the media to influence an election – CNN in favor of an independent candidate or Sen Obama, FOX in favor Romney, and of an assortment of BLOG authors that have no real understanding of history nor political consequence but full of soap box convictions and bully pulpit bragging rights.
History will write many things – not always favorable to Sen. Obama – but one thing is certain – historians will not write kindly of the election of 2008.
So, WP:
I take it from your writing style that you are either a Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche supporter?
Next time, use more bold, italics, and ALL CAPS.
Ha. I'm caucusing for Hilldawg, you fool!
No surprise you'd be hanging with teh Gnarly Old People, Poe.
@4: Keep in mind that if you are just signing in and leaving early, you have to stay at least until the Area Caucus Chair starts the welcome speech (and "convenes" the caucus). If you leave before the start of the caucus, volunteers have been instructed to cross out your name and not count your vote.
@39: You're right. However, when you sign in at a Democratic caucus, you are signing a statement that you consider yourself to be a Democrat.
@40: Historians will write a far shorter version of your screed and it will track better too.
@4 - we give the welcome speech at 1 pm - yes, you can leave then if you've already completed signing in at your precinct. Make sure your precinct chair has said you can go (so they don't cross you out).
You can be independent - you just can't vote Dem in the Caucus and then vote GOP in the Primary - we do know that detail and your vote is then void in the Caucus.
BUT ... you can vote for Obama in the Caucus and then vote for Dodd or Richardson or Kucinich in the Primary - that's no prob.
J.R. -- that doesn't address my comment.
The article says (roughly) "if you are a registered democrat, blah blah blah" which implies to people that they have to be "registered democrats" to participate. There is no such thing in this state. Yes, you sign in as a Demo at the caucus, but the text was misleading, and this caucus is confusing enough to people without providing more confusion for those who have never caucused before.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).