American Moment

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

But, take a minute; did you see what just happened?  They found their ‘issue’ to bring Obama down.  They thought it was the Wright issue.  They threw that raw meat up there 24/7 for weeks.
 . . . . .

but the money kept coming in and there was a little 2% blip in the polls that tightened back up.

An American Moment

 

It’s time to take a minute to step back and think about what just happened.   We have observed over the years how the media can sabotage a candidate.  We have our hopes for a better direction, and then a smear comes along, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and that hope is torpedoed.  A classic example was the Howard Dean campaign.  He was starting to show us a new possibility and then the MSM pounced on that one victory speech.  There was something wrong with the sound system, he wasn’t really that loud but that one mic was right there to pick up the sound and make it seem insane.  Well, none of that mattered, not the circumstances, not the relevance to his candidacy, nothing.  It seemed to many they had been waiting for ‘something’ and this gave it to them, they played it hard and he was OUT.

I have been through this many times, the MSM and the ‘powers that be’ patiently play along until that one opportunity comes along and then get what they want. 

But, take a minute; did you see what just happened?  They found their ‘issue’ to bring Obama down.  They thought it was the Wright issue.  They threw that raw meat up there 24/7 for weeks.  They were probably popping the champagne bottles.   As usual, I felt like I was going to be pushed aside again.  But, the line held, no one blinked.  They waged an all out smear at Obama, they threw their bombs, their battery acid, their smirks and innuendoes but the money kept coming in and there was a little 2% blip in the polls that tightened back up.  We didn’t buckle to their standard attack.  He crushed in those last primaries.  It was like in the Star Spangled Banner, the bombs, the rockets, the great battle, but in the morning, in the dawn’s early light, there was that banner still flying, we had withstood the onslaught.  That’s an American Moment.   We are on the way to taking back our country. 

This is a tremendous opportunity for us.  We clearly showed the MSM that this is not going to be dissolved by those tactics.  I think we should also take advantage of this opportunity. 

When you see something on TV that offends you, email them.  Recently there was Paul Begala calling us all “Volvo driving”, “latte drinking”, etc.  I wrote CNN a strong email saying that I am educated and I did not appreciate being called names.  I asked them if they thought it was a good idea to be throwing mud and spitting at the biggest political movement in recent history, people who are obviously paying attention.  I suggested to them that if they thought so, maybe they should talk to their people in marketing.   I think we can start to stand up for ourselves.  I think they must be a bit nervous.  They have just seen their ‘machine’ as fallible.  Push the point home.  Remind them in your own way that we are here, we are historically large, we are determined, paying attention and they better stop pissing us off.  I think you will see that they have enough sense to start moving. 

Another indicator of the shift for me was when the ‘big donors’ came and gave Nancy Pelosi the letter demanding that she change her rhetoric about the super delegates not overturning the will of the people.   I saw somewhere that this group of people has raised $10 million in the last several years, or something like that.   I thought doesn’t Obama raise that much every month?  Shouldn’t that take some of the pressure off their minds when threatened by ‘the powerful elite”?  I think we can start bringing this to the attention of our politicians, that a few donors cannot match the strength that we can bring when we are motivated.   We can make the point that they have more power by paying attention to what we want than trying to please a few big donors.  Obama just proved that too. 

I think this “American Moment” provided us with an opportunity to stand up and sing a bit.

 

< Manchurian candidate McCain "loses his bearings" | What Happened to "Most Egregious Clip Of The Week" >
 Display:
Everybody duck! A certain Forum regular who shall remain unnamed is typing his response; it will contain smirking references to "rainbows and unicorns", and the grass shall wither in its wake.

by ashbul on 05/09/2008 08:06:42 PM EST

I'll respond in full later to this tripe - I havent finished throwing up my scotch and steak just yet...

Until then...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/10/2008 12:59:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We will need all of our energy, dedication and numbers to face the coming onslaught of negativity and anti-American spin.

So be inspired. Be optimistic. Be angry. Indignant. Idealistic. Be whatever you need to in order to gather the energy you will need in order to keep up a full six months of phone calls, letter writing, e-mails, arguments in your school, workplace, home etc. We are going to have to pour on the pressure on mainstream media to cover McCain's hypocrisies and lobbyist ties. We are going to have to bombard them when they address ridiculous rumors (like the madrassa thing) as if they are legitimate. We will see web sites, tv ads and news stories that will make our blood boil. And we are going to see these things 24/7 for months. The right-wingers and corporate apologists are disheartened and disjointed yet they will still put up one hell of a fight, one filled with repugnant talking points. This may be our only opportunity to get them to give voice to our message and our concerns, but they won't do it on their own. We need to force them to cover law-breaking, corporat e handouts and the general disregard for everything American.

Being happy about what's happened so far isn't enough. You're gonna need to do something. We all are. So if you're inspired by Obama's surviving the Wright controversy, or if you're inspired by the sheer number of people who turned out in a primary to support one of two liberal candidates, then be inspired.

Just as long as you use it to fight back.

by Weapon X on 05/10/2008 12:54:31 AM EST

Wright was the warm up. But make no mistake Barack has built a massive movement. The new silent majority. We don't have representatives on tv, we don't have them among the party elite and the DLC, but there's a rumbling sound all across the internet. We will be heard on election day. Wait til you see Bill Kristol's smug elitist face on nov 5th AM. Wait til you see the petite vanilla scone crumble into Sean Hannity's martini glass as his face turns red with incomprehension. He may not even show up to work.

But to make that happen we're going to have to work for it. 

by hazmat on 05/10/2008 10:23:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you for real? Let me educate you 

They found their issue? The MSM has know about this issue since Obama announced his nomination.

You liken the last 6 weeks to the revolutionary war, I guess that means Clinton (who has been hammered for over the last year) should be likened to WWII? how about Iraq (its lasted longer).

Obama crushed those primaries? Let's see he lost OH, PA and lost the popular vote in TX. He did win big in NC (I wonder why Wright wasn't an issue in NC). Oh I forgot 1 he lost Ind. a state where the voters are familiar with him and a state he once held the lead. Forgot to mention Obama outspent Clinton by susbstancial amounts in all those states. Wins like those really put Clinton away didn't they. Wow what a moment!


Yup we have really showed the MSM


You are so well educated that you didn't realize that Obama lost Indiana? You are so educated that you can't figure out why "Wright" didn't matter in NC? You were offended by Begala? Must have hit a nerve because he is right. You should have been offended by Brazile. She stated that this is a new dem party and the the new party didn't need white voters or hispanics. this is the same "lady" that drove Gore's campaign into the ground. She is also the same lady that is directly responsible for the fiasco that is Fla & MI.

Superdelegates not overturning the "will of the people" O.K. supergenius what is the purpose of the super delegates? Why were they created. is it a) to rubber stamp the delegate leader or b) pick the best candidate for November.

If you clicked B we have a winner, tell him what he has won Johnny. A smart guy like you should realize that there is no reason to have SDs at all if the delegate leader automatically gets the nod.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret, Obama is the MSMs hand selected  DEM candidate.

by LORD FOUL on 05/10/2008 12:40:20 PM EST

At this point, let's say the process plays out, and meteor from the sky never comes and Obama wins. Even if everything you say above is true, even if Obama is the love-child of CNN and the Washington Post and that 90% of the whites in the south and great plains states won't vote for him. Once he is the nominee what are you going to do?

Vote McCain? Really?

Nader?

There is no point for Obama supporters in countering the arguments presented by Lord Foul anymore. This is practically over, and soon it will be completely over. If the superdelegates do not decide Hillary is a better nominee, do you abandon the entire argument of our side? Do you prefer the destruction of the rule of law, concentration of power into the unitary executive, corporate-favored economic policies, socially conservative laws & judges & more wars? Do you want us to continue to alienate our allies and increase the numbers of our enemies through INSANE foreign policy?

I would just like you to consider what you will do if and when Hillary concedes, Lord Foul (and other Hillary supporters)?

by Weapon X on 05/10/2008 02:08:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

There is as much point in arguing against Lord Foul's Hillary arguments as thier is in arguing against Dodd, Biden, Richardson or Edwards supporters. (I was an Edwards supporter, he lost, he is a better General Election candidate than Hillary and Barak, I let it go).

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 12:31:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't liken Obama's NC victory to an "American Moment"

I didn't refer to crushing primary victories that Obama didn't win.

You are right Obama will probably be the nominee

It doesn't change much though, Why?

If liberals continue to act like 16 year old school girls with a crush, it will hurt Obama. for example Clinton won nearly 50% of Dem votes, rubbing your so-called crushing victory in thier face is not wise. Calling them racists is not wise. Telling them they are not part of the new party and to get out is unwise. pretending his past is irrelevent is unwise.

AND UNDERESTIMATING THE REPUBLICANS IS SUICIDAL.

My personal opinion is that the SD should do their job and pick the best candidate to beat McCain. That is Clinton.

If they choose Obama fine. I will support him but many won't.

Have you considered the consequences of running the wrong candidate? What happens if McCain wins? What happens if Obama loses because of all of those racist white swing voters?


I remember 4 short years ago, liberal bitching and moaning about how their candidate wouldn't fight back. How he quit to soon.


4 years later and the Liberals ridicule the candidate who won't quit, they demonize the candidate who will fight back. They support the new type of politics, the same politics that cost them the election just 4 short years ago.

We never seem to learn.

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 10:36:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't mean u or even Hillary supporters, Lord Foul. I mean God damn the idea that we should always take care to support only those issues or nominate only those candidates who are "ok" by the misinformed, underinformed, brain-dead or just plain prejudiced. And Democrats have been painfully bad at judging who will be ok by those folks, anyway. We should really not factor "electability" into our voting decisions because we suck at it. Just vote for whoever the fuck you want to.

By the way, one of your arguments above was "Clinton won nearly 50% of Dem votes, rubbing your so-called crushing victory in thier face is not wise. Calling them racists is not wise. Telling them they are not part of the new party and to get out is unwise. pretending his past is irrelevent is unwise."

Of course, Obama won more than 50% of Dem voters, but rubbing Hillary's "victories" in their faces apparently is wise? Calling them elitists, sexist and "16 year old school girls with a crush" is wise?


Whatever, I will let all of you terrified little children remain terrified of the big bad Republican attack machine. Go and cower in the corner hoping we go along with what they want instead of what we want.

How about voting for what you believe in and for whomever you believe would do the best job?

At any rate, you had a very long answer and only one sentence was relevant to the questions I had posed above.

"If they choose Obama fine. I will support him but many won't."

Okay. That's really all that's relevant now. If you want to make your pitch to superdelegates to ignore the will of the people as well as the established rules, that is fine.  The rest of us aren't superdelegates and we should focus on McCain and the Republicans running for Congress. I've already wasted too much time on arguments I just said we should ignore until and unless they become relevant.

by Weapon X on 05/11/2008 04:54:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Electability: is really important. Do you like losing? How did you feel about Nadar supporters in 2000? I like Gravel (I think he's hysterical) I would not vote for him as President.

What did you call GWB when he claimed a mandate with 51% of the vote? What happens when you brag about "crushing" victories that you lost? What was factually acurate about that article? If Obama is the nominee he will need the other half of the Dem party. You can't seem to read and comprehend, the article claims crushing victories that never happened and correcting the facts is BAD? Did I call any one an elitist in this article? or sexist?

Yes I compared the article to a crush (read the article, consider the true facts, you will find that I was actually being polite)


You need to read the rules. The superdelegates were created for the express purpose of over-ruling the delegate count (in the event that the magic number was not reached). Also remember the delegate count is not necessarliy the "will of the people", Caucuses only represent a small (far left) minority of a states voters. Weighted districts (rewarding certain districts with extradelegates) is also not representative of the people.

I wonder how opposed you would be to MI & FLA, if the were NC & SC instead.

by LORD FOUL on 05/13/2008 04:55:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Count 'em. Won't make a shits bit of difference.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 06:23:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"...the same lady that is directly responsible for the fiasco that is Fla & MI."

I don't really have any concern over Brazile one way or another. I DO have concern over this entire primary season and the tendency to throw blame where it doesn't belong. She is not to blame for Florida and Michigan moving up their primary dates - that's on the citizens of those states.

Every time I hear Hillary or a Hillary-bot say "Bill didn't nail the nomination down until June," I want to reach through the screen and slap the person they're spouting this crap to for not saying, "Yeah, but the primary season is a heckuva lot different than it was then. Apples and tangerines."

If you want to get on my bandwagon to get the season down to a reasonable time frame by outlawing any elections prior to March 1st, the more the merrier! This spread out insanity is too damn long. No reason for it to start 8 months before the convention/11 months before the general election.


by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 02:33:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are familiar with her role in the fiasco don't you. It was she who pushed for the so-called "death penalty" for MI & FL (when the rules called for cutting their delegates in half.)

I didn't mention Bill and I am not a Hillbot (I supported Edwards, he would be my choice over both of them)

I agree we need to fix our primary system so that it is more reflective of the actual voters. (no caucuses and no SDs)

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 10:44:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why? Because you support Hillary and we so no logical reason to do so at this point. It is the same reason why Hillary supporters say we are all "Obama-bots." It doesn't matter if we supported, as I did, Edwards at first and even if we then were leaning towards Hillary when Edwards first dropped out. At any rate, that is just something to say to piss people off on both sides ;)

As far as the process goes, I agree that they have to do something to shorten the amount of time between the first and last primaries. I don't think it's necessary to do away with caucuses, they are just as democratic if not more so because the results of caucuses are more open and less subject to mechanical issues. But that's a smaller issue, you say we should do away with super-delegates (admirable view, considering they are the only way your candidate could win). I think they just need to restructure things a bit.

How about making it so elected delegates HAVE to vote for the person they were selected for, and can only switch if the candidate releases them? As for superdelegates, the idea is sound. What if some disastrous thing were to happen to the candidate, or some absolutely shocking revelation about them were to come out? We may not still want to run that candidate even though we voted for him/her (though the judgment of party leaders on what constitutes "shocking" I don't have much faith in). But... it should be that the "magic" number of delegates should be determined only by elected delegates. A candidate who wins the majority of elected delegates is the nominee. The only role for superdelegates would be if they want to disqualify the nominee at the convention. It should be worded that way too. To actually come out in the convention and disqualify the nominee of the party would take one hell of a revelation, imo.

by Weapon X on 05/11/2008 05:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It seems there is a lot of stuff here.  A lot totally unrelated, but interesting.  The main point was that we've been accustomed to how that game is played and by all accounts, they threw everything at him and that should have done him in.  But it DIDN'T.  He was still standing and the numbers didn't waver.  And now, we should take heart in that and push the media to stop dismissing us.  We have proven that we are NOT dismissable.  That's what happened. 

Now, you can bitch and moan about 'the process', whine about the 'unfairness', or whatever.  They are all distractions.  And I wouldn't worry about the 'electability' of the guy who's raised more money than God, and has done it from "we, the people"  instead of corporate puppet masters.  I'm not a wide eyed school girl, but I KNOW the best candidate when he emerges.   That's simple reality looking you in the face.  

It is hard for people to change.  The switching of the old guard is a difficult transition, but that old machine is done, time to get with it and move on.

 

 

by pdsimdars on 05/11/2008 05:44:55 PM EST

I am proud that he didn't give in to the whole "populist" gas-tax thing that wouldn't have saved low-income people like myself much, if anything. And of the fact that the whole Rev. Wright thing went all-out full bore and Obama was able to weather that storm and that "regular" folk mostly decided it was not relevant.

But most of all, I'm proud of people not giving in to a retarded "electability" argument from elites who have no friggin idea who is actually electable. You're absolutely correct, we can not be simply dismissed. We decide electability. You know, we the people?

Vote for the person you think best represents your favored policies, the one you think will make the best president.

by Weapon X on 05/12/2008 02:19:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: