For me, it's about not wanting the young to be driven away.

[Ken Burch]

To hold new, young voters, we need an idealistic candidate with charisma.

Obama can be that candidate. HRC can't be.

HRC's campaign is clearly hostile to youth and to idealists, (with its contemptous references to the blogosphere.) Youth and idealists are the only real source of political energy in this country at the momment. And what the young and idealistic are fighting for is a progressive program that includes a better future for working people and a stronger labor movement.

I don't want to see this energy dissapated and driven away, as happened in '68. This is why I've been so adamant about HRC doing the right thing and getting out, rather than staying in and only getting nominated by defying popular feeling and crushing the hopes of a generation.

Nothing is worth crushing the hopes of the young.

[murielm99]

1. No one should be driven away.

Women who are being unfairly stereotyped, people who have given a lifetime of work for the Democratic party, the liberal Jewish community, the GLBT community.

Every one of these groups has a stake in the party. Too many Obama supporters are telling these people they no longer matter. We will need all of them in November, no matter who ends up as the nominee.

[Ken Burch]

2. What the hell did Obama ever do to "the liberal Jewish community"?

(Is this another way to work in the "his middle name is Hussein" meme, when we all know the middle name doesn't mean anything?)

And Obama never attacked women or intentionallay did anything to offend gays(the McClurkin thing was a mistake, not a deliberate appeal to gay-bashers, none of whom would vote for an African American anyway).

I agree that all those groups have a stake in the party. The difference is, Obama didn't do anything to campaign AGAINST the groups that haven't voted for him. HRC did campaign against African Americans in order to pick up working-class white votes(rather than leading those voters to an anti-racist position, as Bobby Kennedy tried to do.)

[murielm99]

3. There was a thread in here yesterday about

how many of the super delegates are Jewish, and they seem to be Clinton supporters. Did you see that thread? Did you see the implications of some of the posters, and the outright bashing of those super delegates? Some of the posters barely held back the anti-semitic remarks, probably out of fear of tombstoning.

BTW, I don't care what his middle name is.

The sexism in this campaign has been overwhelming. The sexism here at DU is surprising and disappointing. Don't tell me that the Obama campaign has not done this. And I find the McClurkin incident unforgivable. Why is the GLBT community always expected to put up with this kind of nonsense? It was a calculated move to court the AA community.

I don't like the way Obama's campaign and many of his supporters here have dismissed baby boomers. Many of them were eager to support him before his remarks and before the offensive behavior of his supporters became evident.

It is my firm belief that Obama allowed his surrogates to play the race card for at least a week before he he stopped them. The Clintons have never been racist. It is wrong to allow them to be portrayed as such. I believe that Obama has been the one using race, not Clinton. He did this because he knew that Clinton has always had a great deal of support in the AA community, and he wanted their votes. He got them by tearing her down by proxy.

Obama's entire campaign has been characterized by arrogance and passive/aggressive behavior.

I believe that his record is weak and that he is shallow. The people who support him treat him like a god, and he is an ordinary politician, with the emphasis on ordinary. They are going to be very disappointed IF he becomes President.

If Obama gets the nomination, I do not believe that he can win. I will vote for him. I will not support him financially, and I will not campaign for him, but he will get my vote. This final point is my biggest worry: I don't think he is electable.

Obama himself may be acceptable as a nominee in a few years and with more experience. I understand the political process, and that all politicians have big egos and imperfect pasts. But everything he has done in his campaign has been projected onto Clinton. And his supporters here and in real life are insufferable. I have tried to keep an open mind, since Clinton was not my first choice. But his supporters make me sick.

[zalinda]

4. And, I agree with everything you just said. n/t

[jillan]

6. Wow muriel - excellent post!!!

[Drachasor]

12. If you can honestly emphasize the "ordinary" after his Teusday speech...

...then I think you really need to work on your judgment on this matter. That showed a level of honesty and political courage we seldom see these days. To pretend he is perfectly "ordinary" after that is ludicrous, especially when he wrote that speech himself. He's not a god, and nobody thinks of him as such. Almost all of his supporters knows he is flawed, and he has said many, many times he isn't perfect. I think something is clouding your reason on this matter, because you seem to see a lot of things that just aren't really there, and when they are it is just a very small percentage of Obama supporters (and Hillary has plenty of hate-spewing jerks as well, and they should both be ignored).

Btw, Obama has a superior stance on GLBT issues than Hillary. He wants to repeal the ENTIRE DOMA, whereas Hillary just wants to get rid of section 3.

After some thinking, I really have to repeat that I find I am incredulous that you'd actually base your voting preferences on some small fraction of his supporters -- which seems to be the case based on your repeated references to them. You do realize that the vast, vast majority of his supporters are not like that? You do realize that Hillary has many atrocious supporters, some of whom are racists? Every candidate has some small fraction of supporters that do not reflect that candidate's message, vision, or campaign. Those people are best ignored or helped to straighten out. To reject a candidate because of the action of a few who happen to like him is extremely irrational. Please reconsider your position on this singular matter (I am not asking you to change your candidate preference here, just how you are exercising your judgment on this one issue). Thanks.

[murielm99]

16. You have no right to question my judgment.

His speech was political expediency. He knew that he was getting bad press over Wright, so he addressed the controversy. If he was going to make a major speech on race, he should have done it after the SC primary. That was when the issue of the race card first came up, and his surrogates began to make accusations against Bill Clinton. If he had wanted to avoid a racial divide in this primary, that was the time for it, instead of waiting until the race issue hurt HIM and HIS campaign.

I live in Illinois. I am well aware of Obama's record. I voted for him for Senate. I had never heard of Obama before the Senate primary. He did not bother to campaign outside of Chicago. Other areas of the state that have vital Democratic communities were not graced with his presence. He did not show up for a meet the candidates event in Rockford. He did not go the the Quad Cities. And while his record is that of a liberal Democrat, I saw nothing that indicated potential leadership.

My first major disappointment in Obama came when I watched the judiciary committee hearing on the Rice nomination. Of course Rice was going to be confirmed. But his whole approach was timid. He could have asked her some uncomfortable questions.

I see what is there. Don't you dare question my reasoning. I have not attacked you personally, and you have no right to attack me. As far as a small fraction of his supporters go, you are wrong about that. I have been to Obama rallies, and I have seen how his supporters act like they are at a tent revival.

My first taste of the anger of Obama supporters toward anyone who dares question his supremacy came nearly a year ago at the the Illinois Democratic Women's convention. Someone whom I suspect was not a member made a motion that we endorse Obama for President. This was against our bylaws, since it was before our primary. When I pointed this out, there was a huge fight, with shouting by people from the Obama campaign, legislative and senatorial aides and other people I am not free to name. I was taken aback by the vitriol. I stood my ground because I was right. We ended up not endorsing. Before the day was over, many people came up to me privately and thanked me. Some of them were elected officials at various levels. This was only the first of several similar experiences for me around the state.

Do you realize that there are many atrocious supporters of Obama who are also racists? Do you realize that many of the Obama supporters here simply reflect the nastiness of his campaign in real life? I have made repeated references to Obama supporters because of my repeated contact with them, here and face to face. I have made reference to them as well, because of the hatefulness of many of those who post on DU. I realize that some of them are not Democrats, but disrupters who show up every four years. But long time DUers who are not usually hateful have become unrecognizable as well. I address them because I am posting on DU. I know that this is happening on other Democratic sites as well.

I don't know everyone or everything. But I know committed Democrats in other states who have told me about questionable practices by Obama supporters in their state caucuses. They are family, friends, and Democrats I have worked with in the past. I do not consider Obama or his campaign to be honest. This is widespread, not confined to a few supporters. My reasoning, my judgment and my commitment to the Democratic Party are all sound and functioning well. And although your words sound polite, they contain insults. Examine your own words, not mine.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Hello? Obama IS a baby boomer.

Sociologists or whoever defined these terms use the "1946 - 1964" era, supposedly based on birthrates up to the time of the introduction of The Pill, to designate "baby boomer". Obama was born in 1961.

The problem is that time has marched on and sadly, many but certainly not all, older boomers have not made the transition to the new environment. Certainly, being the same age as Obama, I have not found it easy to keep up either.

The struggles of the '60s HAVE made a difference and now it is time to start from what is a changed playing field and use a different tactic to continue to move forward. THAT is what he is saying.

[murielm99]

20. Hello yourself.

I am well aware that Obama is a boomer. I have pointed that out myself to many of the posters here.

Obama has made comments in the past that have been negative toward that generation. He has done so, I believe, as a nod to his young supporters. This is nothing more than political expediency. If he had found out that he has strong support in some other demographic, such as Asian Americans living in cities over 5,000, he would have found a way to address them, too. Obama is a politician.

I dislike the stereotypes and the ageism that I see displayed on DU. And Obama and his supporters need to keep in mind that many older volunteers and office holders have kept the party together during these rough times. They have walked precincts, acted as election judges and phone banked for years. I am more involved in grassroots politics now than I was twenty years ago simply because I have fewer obligations at home now and more time. These older people may not keep up with all the current trends, but they keep up politically. My mother is still an election judge, and she is 79. She has been an election judge since the 1950's. She is very old fashioned, by our standards. But she is a Democratic election judge.

I think it is great that younger people are out in force this time. I hope they stay committed. I know that not all of them can keep up a high level of commitment, given the demands of school, work and families. But there are other ways to disagree. Pointing out the reasons one supports Obama over Clinton is a far better way than attacking someone based on their age. And don't deny that it happens. It is very common at DU and in real life.

[BumRushDaShow]

58. I don't think he is necessarily attacking "the people"

but rather the methods. My mother will be 78 this year and used to be politically active in the past and was a history/poltical science major in college. She is chuckling at the generational thing but I listen to her stories of past elections and she has told me often that it IS time for the "next generation" to take the reigns. If you look at the protest marches of the past and look at the marches today, there are new tactics that have now been deployed to counter the adaptations of those seeking to stop the protest, and thus the protest can continue because it adapted to the new reality.

Again, I think people are misinterpreting that whole aspect. It's time to use new tools and adapt to the now!

[DURHAM D]

77. Thanks for your effort. Well said.

You speak for me.

[SoCalDem]

26. Oh my.."...The Clintons have never been racist. ..."

:rofl:

[Umbram]

33. Hard to keep credibility

when accusing the Obama campaign itself of being: anti-semitic, homophobic, ageist, AND sexist - all while denying that the Clintons have a questionable record on race.

But, hey, we are all biased here. Some just can't seem to see their own.

[pecwae]

31. Actually, 3 great posts in this thread! nt

[Dawgs]

41. "I don't think he is electable."

He's beaten every other Democrat in states, popular vote, and electoral votes, yet you think he is not electable.

I stopped reading at this stupid remark. I should have stopped earlier.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. Wow, you hit all the talking points! Good job.

Would have been perfect if you worked "koolaid" or "cult" or "latte" or "Birkenstock" in there but otherwise, very well done. :thumbsup:

:sarcasm:

[QC]

24. "the McClurkin thing was a mistake"

Nope. People of good will, people who were no enemies of Obama, begged him to back off and he refused. This was a deliberate strategy to say to religious homophobes in South Carolina that Obama was one Democrat who was not taking orders from the fags.

I actually liked him up until then. Now I simply cannot trust him, because I know what will happen the next time--and the next, and the next--that he finds it politically advantageous to fuck me over.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Honestly

Here is yet another Obama supporter speaking the words the candidate refuses to say. Obama needs to say McClurkin will not be invited back ever. HE needs to say it was a mistake to host him, and HE needs to say outloud that it was not an appeal to gay bashers when he picked 5 seperate well known gay bashers and no one else.
You say "not a deliberate appeal to gay-bashers, none of whom would vote for an African American anyway)" which is a laught riot, and racist as hell. There are many gay bashing African Americans. McClurkin and Caldwell are African American gay bashers. They both have churches filled with African American people. The 'Fatith and Family' line up was indeed an appeal to African American bigory against gays, using African American bashers to bash live, and they did. That was something Obama did AGAINST my family. Hosting a bigot who attacks and acting as if that is legitimate politics is in fact against us. In the worst way. Especially against the gay African American community.
Are you saying all gay bashers are white? Are you saying black gay bashers won't vote for an African American? Are you saying that there are no African American gay bashers?
What are you saying?

[Maddy McCall]

5. We should kowtow to the helicopter kids....because they're used to getting their way.

God knows we don't want them to learn self-discipline like we had to.

[Ken Burch]

7. "The helicopter kids" What, are you assuming that all young Obama supporters are rich?

Jesus, that's as bad as the old '60s canard that antiwar protesters and left activists were "elitists" who only took the stances they took because they "hated Real Americans".

Many of them are not well-to-do. And you didn't learn "self-discipline". You just became a cynical "centrist"(I.E., conservative) who hates idealists.

We can build something good and positive if we include the young. We can do nothing if we tell them "not yet". We won't be able to ask them to stay with us if we say "wait your turn". Nobody ever actually does stay around after that kind of treatment.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I very much agree with you......but you will not win on appeal if

Hillary supporters get into the thread. There is no rationale conversation that you can have with them.

See my feelings here.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5230231

[ClericJohnPreston]

94. Right again as always Frenchie...

though usually not for the right reasons..."there are no rationale conversations"...quite right. It is no surprise to me the word RATIONAL, escapes YOU.

[QC]

25. It's a term for kids with hovering parents.

You know, the ones whose mommies and daddies call the school five times a day demanding that little Brytneigh and Dakota get higher grades and such.

It has nothing to do with affluence.

[jakem]

28. your description sounds like it has everything to do with affluence...

[QC]

29. Not necessarily. I have dealt with helicopter kids and parents

from all socioeconomic groups. More affluent parents are worse about it, of course, but entitlement issues are pretty universal now.

The whole helicopter parenting thing is a major topic of discussion in higher ed now. Parents sit in on advising sessions and make the kids' schedules now, call the housing office and complain about roommates, pester faculty about grades, etc. It's unreal, and it makes me wonder what will become of those kids when they graduate.

[Ken Burch]

42. So now we're assuming that Obama support comes from kids with clinging parents?

Sheeesh....

This is just as insulting as the 60's slur that boomers were only rebelling against the war and the system because Daddy wouldn't buy 'em a pony.

[QC]

47. I haven't suggested anything about where his support comes from,

although I do have my suspicions.

I was defining a term that another poster used.

[Ken Burch]

48. I was responding to the introduction of the term itself.

Obama's supporters are normal human beings from all racial, social, and regional areas. They're no more deserving of insults or derision than anyone else's supporters.

And it's just as legitimate for Obama to be leading the race as it would be for HRC to be leading it if she'd done as well as he has.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Do the rich folk you know

have helicopters? Wow!
Or is that just a way to avoid actual points made to you and deflect like mad?

Obama, to repeat, never said McClurkin as his surrogate was a mistake. You said that. He did not. You do not speak for him.
And what about your theory that no gay bashers are African American, and that no gay basher would ever vote for an African American?
Can you talk about the points being made?

[Ken Burch]

38. I didn't say that African Americans couldn't BE gaybashers.

It is extremely unlikely, though, that a gay basher wouldn't also be a racist(and most gaybashers, after all, are white).

What the hell did "helicopter youth" mean, then?

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Well you are wrong

There are huge gay bashing African American chruches and McClurkin himself is part of the Exodus Movement. As Obama himself has pointed out, the bigotry in many African American churches against gays is real and well known. This notion that only racists are gay haters is possible, as there are also racists in all chruches and no ethnic group is free of that scouage either. Your position on that is in the very least underinformed and lacking in direct experience. I recommend asking Rev Wright about the harm people like McClurkin and Caldwell bring into his community if you doubt my word. Jeremiah would tell you that the harm is great, and that the ingnorance is deadly, just as it is in white churches.
Helicopter youth? Hovering parents. Stage moms of the rank and file. Frankly, I do know people with planes and jet aircraft, but no one I've ever known owns a helicopter, so to me that is a huge leap of reasoning. And besides, you are focused on this silly term that most understand while not admitting that your candidate did intentionally hire a Republican gay basher to gain votes, he has never once called it a mistake or said he would not do it again.
I have to wonder why you insist McClurkin was not intentional and was a mistake, when your candidate has been asked many times to say those same things and refuses. Your statement is not the same as your candidate's. Deal with that. He will not apologize for the public slander because he did it with intent.
Donnie and Caldwell are both Bush backing gay bashers. And yes they are African American, like many gay bashers are. That actor from that hospital show felt free to call his co-worker a faggot for a reason, my frined. I heard that happen on a set once, and I am proud to say that person was called out by another black man and fired on the spot by a straight black woman. You want to try and tell me who gay bashes? Because brother, you do not know, and you are pushing a lie that is both anti-gay and racist at it's core. Read that last line again and chew on it like you did the helicopter reference. Your reasoning says 'take offense at all said about Obama backers, and defend all attacks against those who will not shut up and take it'. Helipcopter kids is offensive to you, but all gay people being called cursed and in need of deliverence by God as a part of a Democratic rally is somehow acceptable? How does that work exactly?

[Ken Burch]

53. I'm just as opposed to McClurkin's message as you are.

I've never said it was RIGHT that McClurkin ended up at that rally.

What I am beginning to find more disturbing is your implication that, somehow, gay people have it worse than African Americans. At least that is the implication I'm taking from the subtext in your posts. All bigotry is unacceptable. But, as a supporter of repealing DOMA, Obama's actual positions are clearly more gay-friendly than HRC's, who said not a word in protest when Bill sold out LGBT's on DOMA AND DODT and who said not a word in protest when Bill told John Kerry to "ditch the gays" in the 2004 campaign.

And you and I both know that, if HRC gets nominated by selling the "the country's not ready for a black president" meme, that she won't be capable of doing anything positive for African Americans once in office.

I wasn't an Obama supporter when the McClurkin incident happened, but I sincerely believe it was a mistake. I don't take talking points from the Obama campaign and I wish he would've made a more clear break on the issue. But it cannot be acceptable to respond to that mistake by imposing the nomination of the conservative establishment candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You can infer like the fool you are

But my implications are no such thing. I do not play the comparison game to begin with, and it seems pretty obvious to me that legally gay people are without more rights, but African American people got the shaft of all time and continue to. Perhaps you might note that I constantly talk about the gay African American people being the most harmed by McClurkin and all.
I undersant that YOU think McClurkin was a mistake, but putting those words into Obama's mouth is as dishonest as trying to paint me as a racist. Subtext? How about confronting your subtext? Which is whatever I say it is right?
You are talking to a pioneer of the minority AIDS battle, a person who has worked for decades against the ignorace that harms my brothers and my sisters. I've been working with African Amreican and Latino Chruch groups on that for 20+ years. I supported Obama early on entirely based on his choice of Trinity UCC, a righteous and inclusinve congregation.
The experience of a man like myself, no offense, is simply not subject to the judgemet of strangers on the internet.
Take the time to learn the difference between infer and imply. Let's start there.

[Ken Burch]

61. And I salute you for your efforts.

But those efforts can't be rewarded by having the party nominate the more conservative establishment candidate.

Neither of them is there on LGBT issues. or totally on any other.

And until this last post, I had no idea you were African American.

HRC is not on your side, though. The Nineties proved that.

Whoever is elected will have to be pushed from below.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. I'm not African American

But I have lived in worlds that cross over. I came out with as many black people showing me the way as white, and when the AIDS crisis took hold, I saw where I was losing the most frineds, and who was lacking in support, and the nature of my life and work made it easier for me to do more in the world of my friends than in the what, white gay world, or whatever. I'm not saying I was anything but a person making some phone calls and bringing worlds together and sending some money and some attention. Other heroic people did all the real work, but I was there, and I did my thing. I would never have gone to any church service in my adult life had gay African American people not taken me to thier inclusinve chruches, so I like those chruches to be acknowleged.

What really got to me about the McClurkin thing, me personally, was the whole idea that he was doing something new, starting a dialouge. Others started it, and have kept it going. To drag us back to the begining, for the sake of anyone, is to simply ignore some very difficult work done by many great people that should be in the spotlight, who should be speaking at Obama events, and at the same time it is to legitimize the very ignorance and intolerance that those forgotten heros continue to fight. It is not me who is harmed by this. It is almost entirley members of the African American Community that are harmed by this. Honestly, one does not need to be black to know these things, but it seems to be rare that others like myself know or care, even today. Fastest growing hiv infection group today, Black women in America. As it was 20 years ago. This is why I fully understand most of the wild language of Wright. I speak the same, on at least one mutual subject. Did the government make it? Doubt it. But they did nothing at all for years about it.

So the Gospel world and African American churches in my exerience, my own, have often been the very picture of a witness, of people doing the right thing, of pepople overcoming, not celebrating, the things that divide us. Like white counterparts, some are the homophobes. But I just don't know of all that many white counterparts for some of the stuff I saw in the old hard days in the black chruches that were good. I just don't. At the start, the mere act of giving moeney was sometimes seen as radical and maybe sinful, and people were dying alone. The few that were on time for that work, they should be highlighted, and the people who still stand as obsticles to the work of churches like Trinity really should be given no quarter.
I am not doing the candidates here, but the issues. I stand and speak for friends as they spoke for me. My family is not just people like me, that rainbow flag means something to many of us, and my personal debt to gay and black America will never be paid. People did great things for me, and so I try to be there in return.

Thanks for letting me say a few things. I'll give Obama this one, talking about race and religion is no picnic. And he did do it. I do it too. So that is why I call on him to see the street goes both ways. I am used to a world where these topics are far more easy to address, and I often fear to speak as myself this cycle, and in all flat out honesty, of the entire cast of this election, from on the boards to the candidtes and supporting players, the only person I'd be comfortable with really talking openly with would be Jeremiah Wright. Not in fire breathing mode, but I'm saying we'd do very well sympatico wise. Obama? I'd rather talk about all of it with Wright. Far more agreement and understanding.

Oh, and sort of along the lines of what I'm trying to say without being snarky or stepping on toes, minoritiy often means something other than just African American, and the groups I worked with and the people in my life are from many of those groups. Los Angeles in the 80's AIDS organizing realm, minoritiy was a very inclusive term, and at the very least meant black and latino. Just saying. I've gotten all off here, but having spent months asking for McClrukin truth, and then standing up for Trinity UCC, I had to let it roll. I like politics to be religion free because of this, and the fact is my first objection to McClurkin I sent to Obama's campaign mentioned keeping religon out of it, in part to protect Trinity when Wright's words got all twisted by confused and complacent people. I said, stand with me, and you stand with Trinity UCC, its gay members and straight. Stand with McClurkin, you stand only with the wrong people, you defend them now instead of taking a strong stand, it will be trouble down the line. It kind of has been.
Anyway am not the run of the mill anything, and so my experiences and views may not translate widely. And they may not really matter to politics at large either. Pleasing me may not please those demographically like me at all. I'm the guy who likes all the stuff that gets Michelle Obama in hot water, she's speaking to me, and I like what I hear! Most don't give a rip about McClurkin, but clearly many do care about the role of religious influence, and my bottom line on all of it is this: the thinking that allowed so many to dismiss McClurkin as 'a gay thing' in fact allowed for the dismisal of the real topic, religion's role in our campaigns, and dealing with the whole thing correctly way last fall. I think without McClurkin, Obama would now be the nominee. And without McClurkin, I'd be glad.

[Ken Burch]

90. Well, sorry for the confusion. It sounded like that was what you were saying.

I do admire your work. We disagree on candidates, and apparently that can't be helped.

And, whatever else you can say about me, I do NOT stand with McClurkin. In fact, I started a thread on DU, as an Obama supporter, calling on Obama to completely disassociate from McClurkin.

I just can't see, with all of that, that anyone is better off with HRC as the nominee. She's clearly more conservative and less popular, and I think she deeply dislikes idealists and activists. And I have a real problem with her decision to encourage white working-class racial fears, if not outright racism, in her campaign against Obama(she NEVER repudiated Ed Rendell's comment that the country wasn't ready for a black president).

I mean you no personal hostility. I support the liberation struggles of all groups in the U.S. and around the world. To me, Obama can be a supporter of liberation and HRC can't. Apparently, you disagree.

[murielm99]

87. Thank you for all that you do. n/t

[quakerboy]

9. Self Discipline?

Wow. I want to visit this place where the older generations are about self discipline. Excepting those from the great depression, thats the last thing I see from my elders. Even most of those have moved on to compensate or overcompensate for those times.

[Recursion]

72. Oh yeah, you boomers were models of selflessness, restraint, and discipline

:eyes:

[DURHAM D]

75. I refer to them as the "Baby on Board" generation.

Glad to have your phrase.

[rucky]

85. And get off my lawn, Dagnabbit!

Whipper-snappers.

[smalll]

10. Fuck "the young" -- what we've learned about them so far this campaign

is that their sexism may be stronger than their racism, but their ageism is strongest of all. But no, let's not "crush" the hopes of the young by (gasp) nominating a candidate that WASN'T THEIR FAVORITE!!!!

They'll lose interest in politics one way or another. Maybe Hillary beats Obama. Or maybe Obama wins, then they come out with a new Xbox after the summer, and the kids will totally forget the Barackstar, and be back at their normal pursuits, viz., drinking Red Bull, shaving off their body hair, drenching themselves in "body spray" (gasp! ack!) and giving each other causual blow jobs.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

13. Nobody has been against HRC because of her age or her gender

(Except the Freepers).

The rest of us were against her because of her conservatism, her inability to inspire passion and enthusiasm, her ties to corporate power, and her contempt for idealism and hope.

She's done nothing to earn Hispanic support or LGBT support. She's done nothing to earn labor or working-class support. And the Obama campaign will fight for those groups just as hard as she could, and in fact probably harder, since idealists are much more concerned with the needs of those groups than bitter cynical hacks are.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Don't forget her support for this God Awful War......4,000 & counting...

and don't get started with the "uncounted" Iraqi Deaths.

[Ken Burch]

46. Yeah, there's no way McClurking is WORSE than the IWR vote.

Obama's mistake didn't cost thousands of lives.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Obama's mistake didn't cost thousands of lives.

Yeah he missed that vote, and yet he has done his part to keep the war crime a rolling, funding by request like a human ATM. And voting for the Patriot Act extention, Cheney's energy bill, saying he'll keep Blackwater Mercs. Yeah, the point is your candidate is tainted by the war like the rest of the Seante. The IWR? This Party nominated Kerry and Edwards who voted for it, co-sponsored it and the works. To remain in this Party, I crossed that 'line in the sand' in 2004, to vote for Kerry and campaign for him, while McClurkin promoted Bush by the way. So that issue, to become relevant, would need a candidate who actually opposed the war with actual votes. I've opposed the war all along. The DNC already made me vote against that principle.
Now I'm being asked to either repeat that breaking of my own principle, or break a whole new one, and vote to approve of religious dogma being used to flame prejudice, in the Democratic Party. So do I keep just the old compromise, or add a whole new one to it as well? How many times can this be done before I will take my vote and my money and go elsewhere? Religious bigots dictating policy on both sides now. War funding Patriot Act voting centerists, who mock the idea of non profit health care. And one is supposed to be so good that we ignore and accept open hate speech as part of our Party's play list?

[AllentownJake]

18. Those Damn Kids

And their Red Bull....Get off my lawn...I said Get off my Lawn.

[Ken Burch]

43. "And when I was their age, I had go get up at 5 Am and plow the back forty

Then walk five miles uphill through the snow to get to the McCarthy rally."

[RoadRage]

30. What we've learned about the "Young" so far..

* We don't like to re-elect families to control our government. We paid attention in Civics class.. this is a democracy, not a monarchy.

* We don't like wars any more then you "old" 60's tree-huggers did. Especially when they're ill founded and seem to have no end. So, some of us choose not to endorse the candidate for president who helped vote to get us into said war.

* Many of us have seen the sexual indescresions of our parents, and others of their generation. We're sickend by it.. and want to elect a president who thus far comes out clean on that end. Not participating in it by doing it, or allowing a spouse to do it while standing by and gaining a career by it.

* Back in the 50's & 60's - many of the same "old" tree huggers on this board that shoot down Obama were the first to line up behind JFK, RFK & MLK because of the inspiration and change they thought they could bring. Not because of their experience. But, 40 years later those same people are happy to label us with the same titles that they were labled with (and dispised) all those years ago. Talk about the height of hypocricy.

* We realize that a 51% Majority means very little when getting work done politically. Working "across the aisle" although taboo is exactly what needs to be done to get anything done. Pissing off 49% of the population while charging forward with your own agenda is exactly what Mr. Bush has done for the past 8 years, and we dispise him for it. Mrs. Clinton seems to think that doing exactly the same thing on the democratic side is the answer. It is not, unless we want another 100 years of back & forth policy getting us no where. We are interested in a candidate that inspires voters from both parties, and who can get the public to endorse policy as it turns into law.

That's all I have for now. Flame away.. i'm just a kid who doesn't know nuthin.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

93. I wish I could recommend this post.

:thumbsup:

[QC]

32. "shaving off their body hair"

LOL! What's up with that? Why do young men suddenly want to look like eleven-year-old girls?

[redqueen]

39. Offtopic...

because lots of young women aren't as fond of hairiness as women in previous generations apparently are.

[QC]

52. Which leads us to another question:

Why do young women want young men to look like eleven-year-old girls?

I wonder if it's related to the larger trend of young people remaining children until they are well into their twenties.

[Ken Burch]

54. Or why do older men want younger women to look like that?

Which is even creepier, actually...

[QC]

57. Judging from the spam that ends up in my box,

it seems that an awful lot of guys want "BARELY LEGAL!!!!!" girls to look at. Ick.

There really is a trend toward infantilizing young people, though, and I can't help but wonder if current fashions are tied to it.

Totally off topic, of course, but interesting.

[Ken Burch]

59. This is going to end up as a "deleted sub-topic" in a bit, isn't it?

As for myself, I prefer women who look like they are, in fact, consenting adults.

Easier to stay out of police custody that way.

[redqueen]

Why do men want grown women to look like eleven-year-old girls?

It's related to the trend of hairy = bad, I think.

[QC]

67. I wonder the same thing.

Maybe women who seem like little, bitty girls are less threatening to insecure men.

As for the corresponding trend, it makes me think of Lisa Simpson's favorite magazine, Non-Threatening Boys. Maybe that's the key--guys who come across as too manly might be threatening. They might want to, you know, do things other than hold hands and pick flowers.

Or maybe I just need to get back to grading that stack of papers, lol.

[redqueen]

70. Hehehe

no idea! But this does remind me of a guy I knew who shaved nearly *all* his hair off from the scalp down, and insisted his g/f do the same.

:wow:

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

76. Yay, you're back!

:eyes:

[dana_b]

80. they are sexist? you seem to be an ageist here

I saw young kids painting "Yes We Can" on a wall here in San Francisco today. I thought that was pretty cool.

[Kurovski]

15. K&R.

I agree. We're royal fark-ups in many ways.

Give these young ones something new to build on.

[Ken Burch]

56. Thanks.

n/t.

[H2O Man]

19. Very good.

Thank you for this.

I did one presentation last week, and will be doing another this week, for students who are interested in politics. The energy and passion of the younger generation is essential for our democracy. Barack Obama offers us the opportunity to harness that energy and passion in a way that benefits our society, in a manner that the other two candidates simply do not.

Nominated.

[CTLawGuy]

21. Hillary Clinton would drive away young people? I had no idea

You'd think this would have tipped me off...

Sen. Clinton Apologizes To Chelsea
Daughter Complained After Senator Said Youth Don't Work Hard

NEW YORK, May 15, 2006

(AP) After telling an audience that young people today "think work is a four-letter word," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she apologized to her daughter.

"I said, 'I'm sorry, I didn't mean to convey the impression that you don't work hard,'" Clinton said Sunday in a commencement address at Long Island University. "I just want to set the bar high, because we are in a competition for the future."

...

(emphasis added)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/15/politics/main1618081.shtml

[Ken Burch]

55. The fact that she apologized to her daughter doesn't mean anything.

You don't see young idealists at Clinton rallies. You see the bitter and the cynical.

[cooolandrew]

22. Ultimeately it is their future. Their energy can change the country for the positive.

[Zookeeper]

92. Excuse me. I'm 50 and I still have a lot of future left. Plus...

I have three children. I'm certainly not comfortable leaving decisions that will affect my kids up to a bunch of 20 year olds that think they have been gifted with wisdom and insight greater than that of generations who have already been know-it-all 20-somethings and moved on.

One of the things I have found really alienating about Obama is his opportunistic attempt to divide us by age and gender. However, what is worse is his supporters and their "OLD: BAAAAAD. New: GOOOOD." meme. It's really very, very silly and shows a lack of perspective and historical knowledge.

(However, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Unless Richardson is on the ticket as VP.)

[roseBudd]

23. Lots of Obama sign and Change We Can Believe in signs in windows around this campus in SW OH

Nothing for Hillary & there was nothing for Kerry until right before the GE.

Signs in windows IMHO show a dedicated initiative. Yard signs are often placed by precinct captains.

[rug]

27. Why does this post remind me of the March of the Penguins?

[Orsino]

36. HRC isn't hostile to youth.

Not directly, anyway, no more than any other neoliberal who votes for neoconservative policies.

No, she's playing the experience card, and experience is the antithesis of youth.

[mirrera]

37. You said that beautifully... that was my entry point after Edwards.

When I was supporting Edwards, I noticed my college age son and his friends (on the young end of college), were for Obama. They are not very political, spending more time on FaceBook talking to each other. When Edwards dropped out, I noticed this youthful energy and hopeful rhetoric out there. I checked in, still pissed wanting to fight the fight outlined by Kucinich, and then by Edwards. Obama has completely won me over by his dignity, common sense, and worldly outlook. I read both his books and they say it all. He is the real deal. They don't come often in a lifetime, truly great people. Our young saw it first which doesn't surprise me. We have much to teach, but the day you forget that so do they, is the day you are in the way.

[JoFerret]

40. Respecting everyone as part of the "our time"

does not mean crushing the hopes of the young.

[bklyncowgirl]

45. Not to mention African-Americans--no Democrat can win without a big turnout from them

If Clinton beat Obama fair and square in the primaries, I think most African-Americans would probably be willing to support her, but if she is seen to be taking down the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the nomination via backroom deals and unstinting negative attacks, I don't know how she could possibly expect to have black people vote for her in November.

This is the nightmare scenario.

If black people and young people sit on their hands in November say hello to President McCain.

[OzarkDem]

49. Its about winning the GE

Hey, in our day, we all wanted to elect George McGovern. It didn't happen. We survived. We still got Carter and later Clinton elected - both did a good job.

Experience is everything. Ability to win the GE and still govern like a Dem is everything.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Yes, because without that all-important

and ever-reliable youth vote, we never would've had a President Jerry Brown, a President Gary Hart or a President Howard Dean.

Oh wait...

[PVnRT]

63. Yeah, you're right, screw 'em

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Nah

I'm saying that they're not MORE important than the boomer vote, the elderly vote, the hispanic vote, the glbt vote, etc. etc. The party has a lot of constituencies, many of whom are much more reliable than the youth vote.

[Ken Burch]

69. Obama would GET those votes in the fall.

None of those groups would prefer McCain, for God's sake.

The young do not need to be sacrificed for the greater good of the party.

And there has been no excuse for HRC to encourage working-class white voters to fear a black presidency. She can't campaign like that
and then do anything positive for African Americans if she gets power. If you run ugly, you have to govern ugly.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. For many

it's not a choice between voting for Obama or voting for McCain - it's a choice between voting and not voting.

[Ken Burch]

91. It's sad that you think anything is more important than stopping the Right

HRC has done nothing to earn your loyalty. I hope someday you can see that.

I would work for HRC in the fall if she somehow won. I think most Obama people would work loyally for the party. Can you say the same of most of your supporters?

McCain can't be trusted with power. And there is nothing Obama could possibly do as president that could ever, under any circumstances, be WORSE than letting McCain win and live out his dream of a Second Hundred Years' War.

[anonymous171]

64. The media killed Dean.

Don't insult the youth vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. Nope

I know Dean people like to believe that, but Dean did himself in.

[Ken Burch]

68. That would only be a valid statement if those guys had been nominated

And the young hadn't turned out in the fall.

In fact, the young DID turn out heavily for those candidates in the primaries.

What a pointlessly spiteful comment on your part.

We can't tell the young "wait your turn" and then have the right to ask for their votes later.

Without the young, we lose. And you know it. And you know HRC doesn't make young people want to vote.

Why are you still so mindlessly loyal to the unpopular conservative establishment candidate?

[Bluenorthwest]

73. My last comment is your own argument

We can't tell the young "wait your turn" and then have the right to ask for their votes later.

I agree, but that should not apply to just the 'youth'. It is in fact very common in America to be told to wait, that it is not the time as yet. Perhaps the thing to do is to stop telling that to anyone ever, rather than to jump to make an exception for an age demographic? So it is ok to tell one group to wait it out, settle for crumbs, for years, and still expect those votes and mad giant cross all ethnic lines dollars and volunteer hours? It should be expected that some people should be subject to trash talking and should accept that, and others should be given their way so they will keep playing?
Forget about wooing the youth, woo the American people as a whole. We all have the same concerns, all of us.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. Why are you so mindlessly loyal

to your just-slightly-more-popular conservative establishment candidate?

[Beacool]

74. Well, driving away the millions of Hillary supporters

is also not a bright idea.

If the Obama supporters think that he can win without our votes, then they are delusional.......

[powergirl]

84. Obama supporter here - I agree

We need all votes for the Democratic presidency. No one can be ignored or discounted. It will take the Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and yes, get ready for it, disgruntled Republicans. We can't win without them all and we need to think about that when our primary is one of the biggest crap storms of the last 40 years.

[Beacool]

86. He lost me a while ago, and you would be surprised

to know how many of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. I've even heard from some who wouldn't vote for him EVEN if Hillary were on the ticket too. That's how strongly they feel about the guy.

[powergirl]

88. I'm not surprised at all

I find this the most disturbing of the Clinton supporters. To risk the balance of the Supreme Court is shocking to me. But other than Obama moving out of the way, and "take his place behind Clinton," I don't know what can be done to appease Clinton supporters. There is no middle ground. The Clinton supporters will jeopardize the future of the country over their dislike for Obama. The Clinton supporters will vote for McCain. The polls have shown that Obama supporters are much more willing to vote for Clinton - which in my opinion - shows their greater moral character and decency as human beings. Unfortunately, this does not translate to younger voters. They won't vote at all if Obama is not in the GE. And this is the tragedy.

[Beacool]

89. Yep, even my very blue state of NJ might go Repug. if Obama is the nominee.

If Hillary is the nominee she would win 50% to 39%, if Obama is the nominee it would be a toss up. The internal poll and a couple of other polls had similar results and they were done BEFORE the Wright controversy. It would be interesting to know the results of a new poll in the state.

Also, 25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain, plus the ones who would either vote for Nader or not vote at all.

:shrug:

[powergirl]

78. President Clinton ran successful campaigns courting youth votes and talking about the 21st century

I think Axelrod worked for him and came up with the "Bridge to the 21st Century" metaphor. Clinton always said looking forward and courting younger voters is the way to campaign. I don't have links for this. It' just what I remember about the Clinton years. I was in college at the time and we all loved Bill Clinton. He was the first president on MTV, etc.

Obama has captured the youth/future momentum and it is a winning strategy and it will make a stark contrast to McCain in the GE. I don't want to lose the younger voters again. We need them. The party needs them.

[DemVet]

79. Statistics hold...

...that "most" of these young voters won't take the time to vote in the GE anyway. They're just another useless demographic.

[powergirl]

81. That is what Hannity said about the primary election

He said the younger voters wouldn't show up for Obama - but they did. I was young when Bill Clinton ran for president. I was in college and me and my friends all voted for him. We should never discount any potential voters who want a democratic candidate to win. We need every vote to fight John McCain.