New York Times: A Blacklash?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character.

Hillary Clinton has questioned why he didn’t walk out on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.; why he “denounced” but didn’t “reject” Louis Farrakhan; and whether he is too chummy with the former radical Bill Ayers. She chastised his characterization of white working-class voters as being highfalutin and chided him for not agreeing to a street-fight-style debate.

Bill Clinton has called Obama’s stance on the war a fairy tale, dismissed an early primary win as mere Jesse Jackson redux and recently claimed that Obama was playing the race card against him. Some of this is valid, the result of Obama’s own missteps, but some of it is baffling.

The rhetoric appears to be trafficking in old fears and historic stereotypes. The unspoken (and confusing) characterization of Obama is that he’s militant yet cowardly; uppity yet too cool for school.

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She's definitely not the uniter.

[GaryC 7]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

I'm not sure about that... Of course, there will be some very bitter conservative republicans once this is over... Plus, I don't see us united right now. It can't get any worse... Well, except if Sen. then President McCain dies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

[GaryC 7]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree. The shoe will be on the other foot and the conservatives will be the pizzed off ones. But don't sit here and tell me Obama will unite anything but the liberals. And as for stubborn, Obama votes straight liberal in his short Senate life. I doubt if he will do anything but push liberal ideals. Go ahead and call names on Bush but I will call hypocrite on you.

Edited May 4, 2008 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Bush's approval ratings:

[Fandango 1,439]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Bush's approval ratings:

Methinks you missed his point completely...

[Scott & Lai 12]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Bush's approval ratings:

Methinks you missed his point completely...

Indeed...

[Dan J 277]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree. The shoe will be on the other foot and the conservatives will be the pizzed off ones. But don't sit here and tell me Obama will unite anything but the liberals. And as for stubborn, Obama votes straight liberal in his short Senate life. I doubt if he will do anything but push liberal ideals. Go ahead and call names on Bush but I will call hypocrite on you.

He is obviously not going to unite everyone. There are conservatives who wont stop until government is only made up of like minded people. These people who will also likely refuse to compromise on anything that goes against their core objectives.

But on the other hand, the country is moving more to the left. And will continue moreso as the next generation of politicians get into office. Even the Republican party will have to become more liberal or risk being pushed out of politics completely. I would argue that McCain is a sign of that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Methinks you missed his point completely...

I don't think I did. Regardless of what Gary thinks about GW, everything points to the fact that there hasn't been as stubborn and divisive a figure in the White House as GW in recent history. And - whichever way the election in November goes - there won't be come Jan 21, 2009.

[Scott & Lai 12]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Methinks you missed his point completely...

I don't think I did. Regardless of what Gary thinks about GW, everything points to the fact that there hasn't been as stubborn and divisive a figure in the White House as GW in recent history. And - whichever way the election in November goes - there won't be come Jan 21, 2009.

So, tell me, how will Obama unite anyone but fellow liberals?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

She's definitely not the uniter.

Thats true but neither is Obama. They will both divide us beyond where we are today.

Not a chance. Neither of them is nearly as divisive as Bush. Both Clinton and Obama are not closed off to reality ans stuck in their stubborn ways as GW. Honestly, GW is stubborn in an almost infantile way. So much so that it's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. Which is why Americans rate him the worst of any Presidents in recent history.

I highly disagree.

You may but the numbers tell the story.

Methinks you missed his point completely...

I don't think I did. Regardless of what Gary thinks about GW, everything points to the fact that there hasn't been as stubborn and divisive a figure in the White House as GW in recent history. And - whichever way the election in November goes - there won't be come Jan 21, 2009.

So, tell me, how will Obama unite anyone but fellow liberals?

He's already doing that. His support goes beyond that liberal crowd that some of you guys seem to fear so much. Chuck Hagel, when asked a few weeks ago who of the three candidates still in the race would be best able to reach out and bring people together, said that while all three have shown that they can do it, he'd give the edge to Barack Obama. Listen for yourself - minute 20 forward. But then I guess that Hagel is a liberal too. As must be William Ruckelshaus who backs him in Indiana because of "Senator Obama's ability to attract not only Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents, [which] makes him uniquely qualified to build the broad coalitions needed to address our nation's challenges". And then there's Licoln Chaffee. Former GOP Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorsed Barack Obama today, because he believes Obama to be "the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and just, and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability." Then, there's the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell who made this headline: Bush Spiritual Confidante Backs Obama. Just to name a couple of guys from the other side of the aisle that seem to agree with what I am saying here.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Scott & Lai 12]

Which policies has he proposed that are anything but solidly liberal?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which policies has he proposed that are anything but solidly liberal?

When are you guys gonna wake up and recognize that the old left - right schemata are increasingly useless? I thought I've shown in my previous post that Obama enjoys support from folks that would hardly be considered liberal.