Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Obama Wins Virginia, D.C., and Maryland

1

*golf clap*

Posted by Jesse | February 12, 2008 4:28 PM
2

That TIME site is the ugliest thing I've ever seen. It makes Drudge look restrained.

According to the exit polls, Obama's victory in VA is devastating. He won among women, among men, among college-educated, among not college-educated. He won every region of the state except Western VA. He won all income brackets. He lost among white Democrats, but made up for it with white independents; he only lost among all whites 49% to 50%.

Clinton's in trouble.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 4:29 PM
3

White women: 55% Clinton, 45% Obama. This race is over.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 4:31 PM
4

People are starting to realize that a 6% policy difference will be insignificant on any bill that has to go through congress. It's time to pick someone who can rally the people behind his ideas and force the members of congress to vote correctly or lose their seats.

Posted by Jesse | February 12, 2008 4:32 PM
5

it also might be time for the clintons to drop the smoke and mirrors/fairy tale smear campaign. it doesn't help her case if an empty suit is kicking her ass.

Posted by brandon | February 12, 2008 4:35 PM
6

Isn't that split among white women consistent with Clinton's split among white women in general or am I missing something?

Posted by arduous | February 12, 2008 4:42 PM
7

@5, exactly. if an empty suit is kicking her ass, then how good a candidate is she?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 4:43 PM
8

Looks like we'll be waiting a bit longer. MD just extended their voting another 90 minutes to 6:30 PST.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 12, 2008 4:47 PM
9

Remember, even if they replaced the campaign advisor, the on-the-ground people are still operating under instructions from the prior campaign advisor.

That said, even the Beltway is having to admit their first choices of Guiliani and Clinton aren't going over well with people.

But it's still way close.

Texas will tell us more about the future, IMHO.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2008 4:48 PM
10

Oooh, looky what I found here.

The primaries in D.C. and Maryland are closed, while the Virginia primaries are open. (Citizens do not designate a political party affiliation when registering to vote in Virginia.)

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 12, 2008 4:57 PM
11

@9, seriously, Obama also is in the Beltway. He has lots and lots of merits, but to claim that he's outside the Beltway is either disingenuous or geographically challenged. Senators work in the Beltway. Obama was handpicked by the DLC to run for IL Senate in 2004. He was chosen by the DNC to give the keynote address in 2004. He has the establishment support of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and he picked Joe Lieberman the former VP candidate as his mentor when he entered the Senate. Yeah, Clinton is *more* establishment, but they're both establishment. If you want an anti-establishment candidate, vote for Gravel. At least he no longer works in the Beltway.

Posted by arduous | February 12, 2008 5:01 PM
12

yes, and reports are that heavy voting for Obama actually hurt McCain in VA as so many independents went for Obama.

Posted by gnossos | February 12, 2008 5:02 PM
13

Good point, @11. That was the only clanger he dropped in a recent speech, when he started talking about how bad "Washington" was.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 5:07 PM
14

Obama takes DC? How shocking!

Don't get me wrong. I loves me some Barack, but it ain't no surprise that he takes a district that's - what? - 90% African-American.

It's like Romney winning Utah for heaven's sake. They could have saved a lot of money just skipping the election and just done a show of hands.

Posted by Bauhaus | February 12, 2008 5:46 PM
15

There are some reports on the NYTimes live blog of the primaries that Hillary's deputy campaign manager has resigned.

Posted by Ziggity | February 12, 2008 5:47 PM
16

from the update link:

--
8:33 p.m. | More Turmoil in Camp Clinton: And in the midst of this bad news for the Clinton camp, there’s word that Mike Henry, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, has resigned, campaign aides say.
--

i suppose this one isn't a "reshuffle" either.

Posted by skye | February 12, 2008 5:49 PM
17
Posted by gnossos | February 12, 2008 5:50 PM
18

So, to recap, Hillary can't win in caucuses; open primaries; states with too many black people; states with too few black people; states that are too small; states that don't have enough hispanic voters; states that have too many educated voters; states named "Connecticut" or "Missouri."

Leaving her with: closed primaries in large states with many hispanic voters. Not a lot to hang a campaign on.

And I don't say this to rub it in anyone's face. It just looks like a dissolving coalition to me.

Posted by Andy James | February 12, 2008 5:52 PM
19

excuse list by state

iowa - caucus
south carolina - blacks

alabama - blacks
alaska - caucus
colorado - caucus

conneticut - neither caucus nor blacks
deleware - neither caucus nor blacks
georgia - blacks
idaho - caucus
kansas - caucus
minnesota - caucus
missouri - neither caucus nor blacks
north dakota - caucus
utah - neither caucus nor blacks
louisiana - blacks
nebraska - caucus
washington - caucus
maine - caucus
virginia - blacks
d.c. - blacks

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 6:13 PM
20

And as more results come in Obama's lead is increasing in VA. Now up 63 to 36%.

NPR reports that many of the later reporting areas are the large suburbs of No. VA, so the lead can be expected to grow. Obama is not just winning, he's slamming.

DC is no surprise, but it will be interesting to see what happens in MD when they start reporting -- especially in the areas around B'more.

Posted by gnossos | February 12, 2008 6:19 PM
21

So I'm watching Clinton speak on MSNBC and when she made the comment about "Lets be smart about our energy" A lot of faces went very, very, sour, especially from the crowd directly behind her.

Posted by Brian | February 12, 2008 6:22 PM
22

hillary only gains 3 delegates relative to obama if she wins all of march 4th at 55%-45%

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 6:29 PM
23

CNN is calling MD for Obama.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 6:33 PM
24

Hillary's camp is SCRAMBLING right now.

Posted by kerri harrop | February 12, 2008 6:43 PM
25

maryland - blacks

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 6:45 PM
26

Yeesh. I'm sorry, Clinton fans, but it's looking like it was just not meant to be.

Posted by tsm | February 12, 2008 6:50 PM
27

Too harried right now to make a separate post, but HRC is up by 17 points in Ohio, as of today. So, it isn't quite over.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 12, 2008 6:56 PM
28

Had she written off Maryland? I thought all those blue collar white voters were her strong point? Or is she going to get Bill to say something backhanded complimentary about those predictable negroes and "appreciating their support for Barack".

Posted by JJ | February 12, 2008 6:57 PM
29

the only way hillary can pull it off is by winning by big margins in the states she wins. she hasnt really done that except in arkansas. in fact, she hasnt broken 60% in any state but arkansas.

obama broke 60% in 9+ states;
alaska, colorado, georgia, idaho, illinois, kansas, minnesota, north dakota, nebraska, washington, virginia,

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:02 PM
30

Funny- the NYT page has called MD for Obama but the current results are Clinton-46%, Obama-45%.

Of course, it's less than 1% reporting, but it still looks odd.

Posted by grumpypants | February 12, 2008 7:03 PM
31

golob, as i stated, being up by 17 points makes it 58.5 to 42.5. she needs to win by bigger margains to make a dent. i'm pretty sure that these numbers will be smaller after today too. she simply needs to win bigger than this.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:03 PM
32

No she can't

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 7:04 PM
33

Check out the CNN page @

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080212

for something that won't kill your eyes.

Also note that the big O's wins are around 3-1 or 2-1. That is crazy.

Posted by Northern Joser-Poser | February 12, 2008 7:05 PM
34

All over but the shouting.

Bah humbug, motherfuckers!

XOXOXO,

-Sven

Posted by Big Sven | February 12, 2008 7:08 PM
35

My in-laws - highly-educated Chinese immigrants - told us last night that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama. Because they are catagorically afraid of black people. They were part of that western VA that caucused for Clinton.

Posted by L | February 12, 2008 7:08 PM
36

middle to upper class asians, in general are very anti black and latino. lazy or dirty is how they are described.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:10 PM
37

(not to take us back, but did anybody catch the news about the recount in WA state, in the ONE county clinton won? er--no she didnt. Obama took every county in Washington State last Saturday)

Posted by Andy Niable | February 12, 2008 7:11 PM
38

"I am not seeking the presidency because I feel I have been anointed to save the country" - McCain

McCain's speech in Virginia is directly addressing Obama in a lot of sound bites

Posted by Amy | February 12, 2008 7:13 PM
39

congrats @36 and 35 what a great piece of information that you felt you needed to share with the world. That is, if your goal was to be mildly offensive and come off as idiots.

Posted by workwithme | February 12, 2008 7:14 PM
40

I'm watching McCain speak right now - I can't imagine much that would be more painful than watching him and Hillary debate or give speeches next to each other. It would be sooooo boring.

On the other hand, McCain standing there, old, reading off of a teleprompter, compared to Obama, young, vibrant, speaking from memory - it would seriously be no contest. The imagery of that lone is enough to vote for Obama. It would be embarrassing for McCain - Nixon v. Kennedy x 10

Posted by Ed | February 12, 2008 7:15 PM
41

#35 and 36 so the Asians are racist. We get it.

Does anyone else watch McCain and expect him to have a massive heart attack?

Posted by Andrew | February 12, 2008 7:15 PM
42

I want Huckabee to pull for Obama now. that'd be some crazy shit.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:16 PM
43

I agree @40. I heard Clinton earlier, in El Paso, and I kept thinking "lame, lame,lame. That lady is unhip."

Then Obama came on and I was all "rah rah rah! Somebody elect this man!"

Posted by grumpypants | February 12, 2008 7:19 PM
44

dude, i grew up with half of my close friends and family upper middle class asians. i heard direct racial epithets every day from the parents. not all asians are racist, but i certainly havent met upper middle class ones that werent derogatory towards blacks or latinos, and that has been 250-500. I'm sorry if the idea of asians being racist towards non whites is hurtful to you but i've never seen anything that contradicted everything i've seen growing up

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:20 PM
45

Yes, racism begins in the home. It would take a lot of effort on your part if you wanted to overcome it as an adult.

Posted by elenchos | February 12, 2008 7:25 PM
46

even my asian friends will admit that their parents are racist. is saying an economic group within a race of being racist, racist in itself, if you've seen it for ~20 years?

so saying upper middle class asians are mostly racist based on your long experience with said group is racist in itself? nice.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:29 PM
47

I wonder who Obama's running mate will be... Gary Locke?

Posted by workwithme | February 12, 2008 7:30 PM
48

Are jews racist?

Posted by devils advocate | February 12, 2008 7:34 PM
49

Asian here. Will vote for Obama.
What 44 said is still true though.

Posted by VDD | February 12, 2008 7:34 PM
50

I heard Mexican Orthodox Jews hate all Greek-Austrian sheep farmers. Its just the way they were brought up, you know?

Posted by Iheard | February 12, 2008 7:37 PM
51

i don't know if jews are racist. i didnt grow up with a lot of jews who were candid about other races and the jews i know now arent racist, nor do they talk about how racist their jewish parents are.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:38 PM
52

BA, I don't think you're racist. I think your comments were misunderstood.

Posted by Tony | February 12, 2008 7:41 PM
53

For christ sakes - can't you guys IM or skype each other or something?

Posted by Ed | February 12, 2008 7:41 PM
54

Yes, let us agree:
Hillary and McCain - old and lame.
Obama - young and relevant.

What about Huckabee? That Chuck Norris ad was sheer brilliance.

Posted by grumpypants | February 12, 2008 7:46 PM
55

sorry ed, I get dog piled for being the resident "conservative" asshole who says some real shit every once and a while and says some mean spirited bullshit half the time.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 7:46 PM
56

BA. Holy crap! I didn't see the margins until I just got home. I'd have to do the math, but I think you're right... he's pretty tough to beat right now.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | February 12, 2008 7:47 PM
57

golob (again, I simply adore your last name), if you even look at march 4th states, he can lose all of those at 45% and only lose a 3 delegate margin. Hillary hasnt broken 60% except in arkansas.

at this point winning states outright isnt going to be enough. if you figure caucus states and high relative black population states favor obama you can pencil out as such, and he performs at least 45% in open primary states

obama can have huge victories in: hawaii, wyoming, guam, mississipi, north carolina.
obama can win (55%) or keep close (45%) in:
wisconsin, ohio, rhode island, vermont, pennsylvania, montana, puerto rico.
obama might lose by 15-20% in: kentucky, oregon, south dakota or west virginia.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 8:06 PM
58

Consider this also: there are unpledged regular delegates outstanding from a few states that have already voted. These are NOT superdelegates, but regular pledged delegates that haven't been alloted yet. These are mostly from Obama states. Colorado has 27 delegates to be assigned; they went 67-32 for Obama. Washington has 28 left to assign; we went 68-31 for Obama. There's a few other states with one or two, and 5 in California. Obama's going to pick up another 10 or so here.

Then there are several hundred superdelegates that are yet to be assigned. Every talks as if Clinton's big lead in superdelegates means that she's going to get all of them. She's not; in fact, I think Obama's going to get the great majority of them, because Clinton already has most of the ones she's likely to get, I think. She'll get some more, but, I think Obama's going to end up about even on superdelegates by the time they reach the convention.

If he does, then's he's through -- he's got more than her EVEN IF they seat the MI and FL delegations as is.

Clinton's only chance is to win big on March 4. If she's not back ahead in the running incomplete totals, she's finished.

Anybody hear how the Democrats Abroad polling is going? I know Obama took all three delegates from the Virgin Islands.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 8:11 PM
59

BA, you're cool in my book.

as for obama, this thing is going to hit critical mass. the general election in november is going to be a nuclear blast over the republican tent. now is our chance to make democrats out of all these young people who are inspired and motivated. rove talked about a permanent republican majority; getting young people into our tent now will make a firewall against rovian republicans that can last for decades.

this is our chance.

Posted by some dude | February 12, 2008 8:15 PM
60

Not only that! We could buy everyone a pony.

Posted by elenchos | February 12, 2008 8:30 PM
61

@58 I think you're right on, I've been fretting about super delegates siding with Clinton, but I'm beginning to feel that alot of these super delegates will go to Obama as he gains more momentum.

Most of the super delegates are elected officials, they would most likely side with the voters in their state rather than owe inside favors to the Clintons. As you said, the solid Clinton super delegates have probably already cast their vote.

Posted by Todd | February 12, 2008 8:33 PM
62

Well, it is promising that in Virgina's open primary Democrats got about twice the votes Republicans did, and Sen Obama got well over twice the votes McCain did. But the Republican turnout seems to have been pretty low every where today, perhaps they figure McCain is going to be the next president so why bother with the primary.


Just to play another devils advocate;
Who got 88% of the black vote in 2004?, who got 95% of the vote of the people who thought "Will Bring Change" was the candidates most important quality (though back in 2004 that was only 24% of the voters), 80% of those who thought the economy was the most important issue? 87% of those who disapproved of the decision to go to war in Iraq (and 94% of those who "strongly disapproved) and who got 77% of the "GLB" (I guess CNN doesn't like "T") vote? Who got 54% of the young voters and 53% of first time voters? Who got 44% of the white woman vote (WTF, how did the other guy get 55%?)
Oh, and for the other "Devils advocate" although it may not be relevant as he was white, the candidate who did not become president, did get 74% of the Jewish vote, also 74% of "other" Muslim? Mormon? Wiccan?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Posted by Epimetheus | February 12, 2008 8:39 PM
63

I grew up in Wharton NJ, and went to high school at Morris Hills. Also included in that high school was Rockaway, and White Meadow Lake NJ, a regional school.

Let me tell you from experience that of course Jews are racists, just like white boys are and black folks are. Jews are probably the worst of the three.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2008 8:57 PM
64

I ::heart:: me some Bellevue Ave

Posted by secret admirer on summit ave | February 12, 2008 8:59 PM
65

How can these two extraordinary people best serve their nation? Obama and his campaign can seal the deal for the nomination by reminding voters how potent an ally Hillary Clinton will be in the SENATE. There, she can legislate for health care reform, better energy policy, education, etc. and all her "negatives" can't really touch her there. I believe Clinton can become a "Liberal Lion" to succeed Ted Kennedy ... and, I hope, leave a stronger legacy on our history than her husband did in the White House. Painting this picture may give Clinton supporters a less bitter pill to swallow if she does not win the nomination. Also, Obama can show leadership in reunifying the party by assimilating Clinton into his vision of working for change in Washington. It goes without saying that Clinton will resist this picture, but it has great potential to stick. I don't think Clinton would accept the vice presidency or that Obama would even invite her to join the ticket; besides, I think the position would waste her considerable legislative skills. Hillary Clinton can best serve our country in her current capacity as junior senator from New York. As for Barack Obama, he is smart, informed, and judging from his campaign, he knows how to pick/lead a team of innovative and skilled problem solvers. He seems to encourage and listen to dissenting opinions, and is very willing to share credit where credit is due. (This last quality ought to serve him well when working with Congress.) But what really excites me about an Obama presidency is this: can you imagine how effectively this "gifted orator" would utilize the President's most potent weapon, the BULLY PULPIT? That man is fantastically convincing when he is at his best. Bitter Paul Krugman warns of a cult of personality like Dubya's, but Obama is the polar opposite of Dubya ideologically. Who knows? Obama may even convince American citizens to press lawmakers on progressive legislation, or to inspire American voters to vote in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Obama for President, Clinton for Senate.

Posted by Bub | February 12, 2008 9:04 PM
66

I'm an Obama supporter but I think people are getting too far ahead of the news, I'm starting to hear things like "He's got it in the bag" and "this race is over."

I still believe Clinton will win Texas and Ohio, probably Pennsylvania as well. And if we set expectations too high the media will play it as "What happened to Obama, he was on this great winning streak and now he's lost Texas and Ohio..."

Posted by obamarific | February 12, 2008 9:08 PM
67

#11 is just making things up. Obama wasn't chosen by the DLC to run for the Senate. He won a heavily contested democratic primary against a self financed multi-millionaire and another candidate selected by the Chicago Democratic establishment. The DLC was never involved in supporting or promoting his candidacy in the primary. Instead, people like Paul Simon's daughter, Michael Jordon, and George Soros all saw something special in him. And the DNC didn't pick him for the convention speech. He was a personal selection of Kerry who had had taken notice of him while running for the nomination and had observed his surprising to all win in the Dem. primary.
I don't get why people just want to make things up. And I know this is an anal post. But come on, get your facts straight if you are going to make allegedly factual assertions.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 12, 2008 9:17 PM
68

obamarific, he would have to lose horribly, greater than 60% for those states to matter that much. as is, hillary hasnt done that except in arkansas.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 9:17 PM
69

secret admirer on summit: thats because you'd be topping me.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 9:22 PM
70

The reason #11 irritated me so much is that there was a time when the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, tried to claim Obama as one of its own. He responded by demanding that they remove him from any list suggestion he was against all of their major policy initiatives. Here's a snippit from one of the stories at the time.

"In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card.

"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed."

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 12, 2008 9:28 PM
71

@66--amen, said the agnostic.

Cooler heads, people. I know everyone (in both parties) wants to start picking out the new state china and drapes, but...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 12, 2008 9:35 PM
72

Bub @65, great, great, incisive, refreshing post. Clinton is better suited for something like senate majority leader. I too am struck by the talent Obama has been able to surround himself with.

obamarific @66, so true. This sure isn't in the bag yet.

Posted by cressona | February 12, 2008 9:38 PM
73

@68

Is that a solid number? Cause I like it if it is:)

it's about fucking time.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2008 9:45 PM
74

i have to throw this into the mix concerning clinton/obama and the remaining primaries/caucuses:

cnn just ran the hypothetical scenario that if, given the present delegate count, obama won the remaining states 55 to 45, he would still be short of the number of delegates needed to seal the nomination.

conversely, if clinton won every last remaining state 55 to 45, she would also come up short.

superdelegates, it's up to you....

Posted by cineaste | February 12, 2008 9:56 PM
75

@74--does CNN figure into their arithmetic the 26 delegates that Edwards can still release? After all, he and Obama are still supposed to meet later in the week, and Edwards met with Hillary last Thursday...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 12, 2008 10:23 PM
76

@66 has it ... wait for Texas.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2008 10:32 PM
77

It's really Obama's to lose at this point. But, as others have noted, @66 has correctly raised the all-important expectations issue. The media will eat it up if he underperforms.

For better or worse, a lot of our national discourse is now amplified by the echo chamber of our 24-hr news cycle: the blogosphere well included. Obama has been the recent beneficiary of this effect, but a few missteps and the current feeling of inevitability could fade.

@65 - Right on. HRC is a tremendously smart woman and a great senator for NY. But what collective amnesia ever prompted Democrats to think she would be a good presidential candidate? Anyone recall the impeachment circus? All that bitterness is still out there. Let's more beyond it. Obama in 08.

Posted by Andy M | February 12, 2008 10:54 PM
78

andy --

i didn't hear any mention of edwards' pledged delegates.

it was john king presenting these two scenarios. what struck me was that, given the near-impossibility of either candidate winning all remaining 22 states by a fair margin (55%), neither could secure 2025 delegates.

but maybe we should all just go to bed and heave an obamagasm.

Posted by cineaste | February 12, 2008 10:58 PM
79

@78, do you really think the supers go against the person with the majority?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 12, 2008 11:00 PM
80

I'd like to go to bed with an Obamagasm right now. I might even get a good nights sleep.

Posted by Gabriel | February 12, 2008 11:07 PM
81

@74: there are still something like 500 superdelegates left to give away. If Obama is leading the pledged delegates by 250, which he would be, it will hard to keep a large number of those from endorsing Obama, which will easily put him over the top. Clinton is in a real bind.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 11:23 PM
82

does anyone know why obama has been referring to dick cheney as "my cousin, dick cheney"? i think i missed that one.


Posted by john | February 13, 2008 12:50 AM
83

a while back some outfit doing genealogical research discovered that Obama and Cheney were distant cousins.

Obama made an hysterical play of it at the time when he stated that "every family has its black sheep."

Posted by gnossos | February 13, 2008 1:05 AM
84

I like obama... but i've had some disturbing thoughts..here's what i wrote to the obama campagn website

my name is linus le anthony
. I've supported your presidency since that speach you made in 2004. my grandmother has supported your canadacy since reading "dreams of my father" I cacused for you in washington state and have belived that you are the one honest man in a den of snakes.
I recently did a google search for obama + grandparents to get comments on what your maternal grandmothers support of your campaghin for the sake of reinforceing my grandmothers will to campaghn for you in her age group as well as to sway my maternal grandmother,both of whom are very proud members of the "greatist generation". I found nothing, barely any information to speak of except from you paternal grandmother in kenya. I've also heard disturbing rumors from right wing blogs, that you are purposfuly ignoring and trying to hide away the woman who rased you. These do come from right wing blogs so initialy I'm not inclined to belive them. On the other hand your lack of aknoligment of your ansecters who raised you somewhat disturbes me.I'm not a right wing crank...I may be a paranoid left wing crank as shown by my blog www.myspace.com/whaleofashrimp but i've been a loyal supporter (even if I do harbor sympathys towards mike gravels message).

Both my parents were and are drug addicts, it was my grandparents who raised me, and i shall honer them for the rest of my life, why arent you honering the people who nurtured you? this is a dire important question to me, my grandmother and my grandmothers friends who helped raise me....why are you dissaccosiating from the people who raised you? speaking of them as if both of them were dead?

It's not politicly correct, it's controversial and therefore I wouldint expect an answer but it's giveing me doubts. I appreciate you honering your paternal lineage. but why are you ignoring your maternal side is this another cynical ploy of a typical politition? if it is... i can kind of understand, I dont think you'll lose votes either way...but for me, a man who owe's who he is today from the guidence of my grandparents it's a question that burns into my very soul

I'll vote for you weather you respond to this or not, just less enthusiasticly.

Posted by linus | February 13, 2008 1:53 AM
85

@65: In the inclusive spirit you've fostered, I've got a suggestion for Barack should he want to take it. With his great ability to motivate people, yet admittedly shallow interest in policy, he should really consider taking over Dean's role for the Democratic Party. Wouldn't that be great? He's definitely demonstrated his ability to reach out to people outside of the party and bring in the youth. Then he can let Hillary deal with the boring policy details of the chief executive office, hammering out deals with Congress, negotiating with adversaries to get things accomplished (her areas of expertise) while he's out there moving the crowds (his strength).


It's a win-win!

Posted by behelden | February 13, 2008 7:04 AM
86

stay in school, linus... stay in school.

Posted by yikes | February 13, 2008 8:13 AM
87

dont slog and drink without proofreading is more like it

Posted by linus | February 13, 2008 12:59 PM
88
Posted by pyagz | February 15, 2008 9:25 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).