comment #1

JHRussell says ...

Ask Gary Hart about the super delegates. He got screwed by them. Not sure how this will all turn out, but for all of their bullshit about being the "party of the people," the Dems run a filthy, sleazy, smoke-filled backroom nomination process, and all of you Dem voters are suckers for putting up with it.

comment #2

Dave says ...

"The Cult of Obama"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

Sounds familiar. . .

comment #3

Edward says ...

This hamburger-and-burrito-eating-white collar wine drinker is voting for Obama.

comment #4

mutinyco says ...

Actually, the dirty little secret isn't the super delegates. The real wild card is in trying to legitimize the votes of Florida and Michigan -- which, although boycotted, were won by Clinton. You're going to see this pop up at some point.

comment #5

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Blue collar folks drink wine too -- they just buy it by the box!

comment #6

christian says ...

If you hadn't put up that link Dave...
Let somebody else take up the weight.

comment #7

Breedlove says ...

Watch out for a recount in Missouri as well...

comment #8

AJW says ...

...white-wine drinking, better-educated, African-American, under-40...

You are none of those.

(There, I took the bait.)

comment #9

le corbeau says ...

Good piece by Joe Klein at Time, with a great photo of Obama when he was in the Jackson 5:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1710721,00.html

(Although he does seem to be under orders from the Demintern to call both of them "moderates"...)

comment #10

dre says ...

I guess when having die-hard support for the first candidate many have believed in in 30 years means you're cultish. Please...

comment #11

Monument says ...

Seriously dre, I mean God forbid we actually have a candidate to be excited about, that we actually want to vote for as opposed to the lesser of two evils dilemma we're usually presented with.

And LYT, the blue collar down home sophisticates have moved on from wine in a box, it's Two Buck Chuck my friend, Two Buck Chuck, with a real fake cork and everything.

comment #12

christian says ...

And Mitt Romney drops out, leaving the exploding heads of conservative elites like Limbaugh, Hewitt, Hannity, Ingraham, THE NATIONAL REVIEW etc...

comment #13

mutinyco says ...

Support is one thing. And there are a lot of legit, rational supporters. But there is also an element of bizarre fanaticism going on. His speeches are more self-help empowerment than anything to do with politics -- and that's bringing in a certain mindset. The things some supporters are babbling about has nothing to do with the Presidency. They're going on about how Obama has now taught them that any change is possible in the world if you believe hard enough. Nonsense like that. Real Oprah angel-believer types.

comment #14

DarthCorleone says ...

Florida is one thing, but it's difficult to legitimize the Michigan votes when Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

I really get frustrated with this crap. I realize there is no perfect primary process, but it seems to me some very basic, common-sense election reform that would prevent cases like this one would not be that difficult to achieve.

comment #15

christian says ...

"Real Oprah angel-believer types."

I'm all for inspiration, but the fervor smacks too much of ELMER GANTRY for me. See, worked in a movie reference there I did!

comment #16

dre says ...

You can find crazy things people say about any candidate. And I'm not sure what you're referring to when calling his speeches "more self-help empowerment". Damn right they're about empowerment. But what does he say that other candidates aren't saying that should be considered self-help? Not being a dick, I really want to know what you mean. They are meant to inspire, yeah. If people get self-help from that, okay I guess.

comment #17

mutinyco says ...

I don't want to be inspired. I want details. What are the candidate's policies and how does he intend to implement them? What's his experience? Does he know anything about the military, as we are at war?

The speeches are vague nonsense. He should just write a book like The Secret and sell it on Oprah.

comment #18

dre says ...

Dude, that is so tired and the only thing I keep hearing. Here, let me help you out:

You can go back and watch the debates between him and the other dem candidates where they get into more specifics. Or just go here: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

Come on, man. In this day and age - unless the candidate is always flip-flopping - there is no excuse to not know where they stand on the issues.

And you don't want to be inspired? Really? To each his own I guess.

comment #19

mutinyco says ...

The point is, the swelling enthusiasm around him is not the result of rational voters. It's because he's brought in another element of fanaticism that transcends the political office he's running for.

It's kind of like this: Clinton is offering the nation science, Obama is offering religion. And a lot of people prefer religion.

comment #20

dre says ...

Well if you say it it must be true! How am I supposed to argue that? Here, let me make a blanket statement I have no proof or any real support of:

Obama is offering the nation science. Clinton is offering religion. And a lot of people prefer religion.

comment #21

mutinyco says ...

Watch them.

People love Obama's speeches because he inspires belief (religion).

Clinton's are boring because they're about policy specifics (science).

comment #22

dre says ...

To a certain degree I will agree with what you're saying on the speeches themselves. But I would just argue that Obama is better at giving speeches than Clinton is (who's pretty damn good at inspiring her base as well I would add).

Look, if you want to say Clinton's strength is experience, I won't argue with you. I would argue Obama's is integrity and judgment. But you can't tell me he doesn't get into specifics, have his own policies, his own record. That's just a lazy argument. You don't like his policies? Fine. You think he's inexperienced? Fine. Obviously those are valid arguments an Obama and Clinton supporter can disagree with.

comment #23

Monument says ...

A leader, and even more so, a president should be more than just a stack of policies. People are responding to Obama because he represents a leader that can inspire and that can be trusted.

comment #24

mutinyco says ...

I'm not saying Obama doesn't offer policies, etc. -- I just don't think that's what he's making a point of, or what his supporters are interested in. He's being promoted based on his "hope," "change" and "belief" sloganeering. I would suggest that most of his supporters have no real idea what his policies are -- they're inspired by his message.

And that's why he's brought in another non-political element under his support umbrella. And that's what's weirding some people out. And I think Obama's rational political supporters are either in denial about this, or they don't mind because it helps their cause one way or another.

comment #25

dre says ...

Most people that vote I believe are uninformed in general. I do not believe informed voters got Bush in office twice. I can't believe that. I won't let myself. But it is clear Obama is getting a large chunk of the educated vote. If the "uneducated" get on board, obviously as an Obama supporter, the more the merrier

comment #26

mutinyco says ...

Now you understand my religion analogy. Bush was elected because of the fundamentalist base that Rove shored up.

comment #27

LucyBell says ...

Actually the religion/science comparison is apt because Obama is pulling college educated voters and Hillary is pulling the people who do what they're told.

Obama has a ton of substance, he just doesn't have to resort to brass knuckle politics like Hillary. To each their own I suppose.

comment #28

christian says ...

"Obama is pulling college educated voters"

All of whom love fiery anti-gay sermons from homophobic preachers.

comment #29

LucyBell says ...

No, actually you're confusing "Obama" with "Huckabee." It's an odd mistake, but one which your namesake clearly lends itself to.

comment #30

mutinyco says ...

That pretty dumb to suggest Obama's supporters are educated while Clinton's are not.

If you're suggesting that he has more of the current college students, that's fine. But those college students are also the same kids who made phenoms out of Barney and Britney Spears. Their track record is questionable.

comment #31

mutinyco says ...

That's...

comment #32

christian says ...

LucyBell, you have some 'splainin' to do:

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. The Grammy winning black gospel singer's last effort on the political scene was his song and shill for Bush's reelection at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Obama has hitched his string to McClurkin's high flying gay bash kite in part out of religious belief (he purports to be somewhat of an evangelical), in bigger part because he's falling further and further behind Hillary Clinton with the black vote in South Carolina and everywhere else, and in the biggest part of all because he hopes that what worked for Bush's reelection will work for him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudiate-an_b_69244.html

comment #33

mrbill says ...

A common flaw in the game of politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/obama-and-mcclurkin-don_b_69556.html