“If you want to kid yourself into believing Obama is something that he’s not, don’t take exception to people like me calling you out on your bluff.”
That’s Jerome Armstrong, the original Big Boy Blogger, trying to talk a little sense into the other Big Boy Bloggers. He says:
Obama does have phenomenal fundraising numbers among upper income boomer liberals and their offspring, no doubt. Except that, when you listen to the Obama campaign talk about its victories lately, I have this inclination to see right through it– that they are not talking about support of the people, but instead having gamed the process. “The Math” as one of their talking point leaders, Jonathan Alter, likes to call it. But, as riverdaughter calls it, “people are just now starting to notice that he gets more delegates by suppressing Clinton voters than by actually, you know, winning.”
The latest being that Obama “won” Texas (you know, like Bush “won” Florida). Clinton won the state 51-47, by over 100,000 votes, and yet, Obama, his campaign, and all his supporters now say they won Texas. Why? Because of the undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates, such as an urban areas that voted Obama being worth more delegates than a Latino stronghold for Clinton in another part of the state, because of a previous election. That’s not a Democratic system– its a relic of machine-age politics. And to claim a “win” based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.
The deeper problem here is that the Obamabots are only interested in one kind of “people-powered” politics, and that’s the kind that doesn’t include women, Latinos/Latinas, blue-collar workers, and the older generation — the people who vote for Hillary. It’s weird, since two of those groups (women and older people) are not only a huge proportion of the electorate but also the most likely to vote, year after year. The Big Boy Bloggers have been talking for ages about building a winning coalition to elect Democrats, but for some reason this particular coalition is strangely uninteresting to them. It’s almost as if there’s some kind of psychological problem going on.
Gee, what could it be?
16 Responses to ““If you want to kid yourself into believing Obama is something that he’s not, don’t take exception to people like me calling you out on your bluff.””
-
donna darko says:
El-oh-el.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm EST -
julia says:
Brilliant.
I went to hear David Cobb introduce Cynthia Mckinney last night at the University of Oregon, and someone from the audience yelled out ‘Obama!’.Fabulous post, Violet; thanks for your great sleuthing and for always making me feel welcome
on this blog. -
julia says:
Happy Women’s Day, everyone!
Last night David Cobb spoke about Democracy in Action, a group that fights corporate power in Humboldt County, CA . He said they always hire women to be campaign managers, and the men in the group identify as feminist and are willing to follow women leaders.
I was ready to move there when he said that!
Guess how much applause it got? -
Bruce says:
Why are the Democrats having such a hard time figuring out who wins delegates? If Clinton won 51-47 then she should get 51% of the delegates and Obama should get 47%. Why even have delegates? Just keep track of the total number of votes for each state and add them all up after all states have voted and the one with the most votes wins. How hard is that?
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
We should do that in the general as well. Actually I think we ought to scrap the whole effed up system and go to a parliamentary democracy.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
“We should do that in the general as well. Actually I think we ought to scrap the whole effed up system and go to a parliamentary democracy.”
Urgh. After the recent election in my province, I’m not sold on that being the best idea unless you go with proportional representation or something similar. The ruling conservatives just crushed the competition (despite having done nothing to earn it except being in charge when all the oil was found), but the numbers of seats they won are a lie compared to the popular vote. They would have still won handily under a more decent system, but the opposition would have a louder voice. But you know how conservatives feel about opposition.
Damn, I’m depressed. By the time the next provincial election rolls around, the same party will have run Alberta for over four decades. It’s a nightmare, and one I wish I could afford to move away from. -
Illogical Planner says:
GoVS –
Finally someone who agrees with me on going to a parliamentary system!
I knew there was a reason I read this blog…
If we don’t do that, how about giving cities/MSA’s larger than the smallest state direct representation in the House & Senate (and Electoral College votes, if it comes to that)?
-
Max says:
TX Primary Result
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785TX Caucus Result
Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus)
Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814
Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785(link)
-
gob says:
I don’t feel hostile to Obama, or even VERY much to most of his supporters. I feel the magic myself. But it’s a bit shocking to witness some of the self-delusion among his fans. For example, my stepmother has persuaded herself that he’s committed to pushing for single-payer health insurance, and I can’t seem to make any impression on her delusion no matter what facts I bring up.
Perhaps it’s healthy to be reminded that even intelligent, like-minded people insist on voting with their guts instead of their heads, but it’s painful.
-
Max says:
You should read tbis post from Huffington Post.
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
It’s a ridiculous hit piece on Hillary. Spare us.
Virtually the entire liberal blogosphere has been taken over by Obamabots. This is a pro-Hillary blog, and I don’t feel the need to play host to the same kind of anti-Hillary nonsense you can find just about anywhere you look.
-
Max says:
I’ve read the same logic on blogs supporting the National Socialist Movement. This isn’t to draw comparisons of Hillary Clinton to NSM (she’s not a white supremacist), but the logic of the bloggers in question is the same: dogmatic support of something that most people have learned isn’t all that great.
I mean, really, has the fact that GOP voters are coming out in droves to vote for her so the Dems will lose in November stood out at all?
-
The Ghost of Violet says:
has the fact that GOP voters are coming out in droves to vote for her so the Dems will lose in November stood out at all?
That’s not a fact, it’s misinformation.
Fuck off, troll.
-
julia says:
I don’t know if this fits in, but I am going to write it anyway.
I think it would be interesting to talk about why men are so terrified of following a woman leader.The University of Oregon had their big environmental law conference this past weekend, and I mentioned earlier that David Cobb, of the Green Party, said men in his non-profit were willing to follow women leaders. This was an auditorium filled with men and women who care about the planet, who care about life, and maybe twenty of us out of 500 applauded.
I keep thinking about Brazil, where it looked like a woman would be president before Lula got in, and men would often say ‘let the women take over, men have ruined this government; give the women a chance to straighten it out’.
I can not ever imagine hearing that here. -
Joan says:
Hey, Max-
You can’t add caucus totals to primary totals because caucus voters are already included in primary totals ie. not allowed to participate in caucus unless voted earlier in primary. The Texas two-step. -
thearcher says:
Max…”has the fact that GOP voters are coming out in droves to vote for her so the Dems will lose in November stood out at all?”
Republicans are also voting for Obama in droves. Have you thought about that maybe he is the best one to defeat during the general election.
