Buckeye State Blog - Ted Strickland's demeaning Obama comments - Comments

GMAFB

Eric Vessels — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:36:02 -0700

Give me a fucking break already Modern Shillz. Point out the posts where you calmly and rationally advocate why to vote FOR Hillary and I won't call you a fucking hypocrite. I think Tim, Jerid, and I can point out posts we've written that qualify for advocacy. I'm not sure where yours are.

You've spent the better part of two weeks bashing Obama all the while claiming you are offering "balance" and claiming you are undecided. It's clear you're not. Couldn't be more clear.

Hell, you even spout McCain talking points now and are dangerously close in getting into general election territory with some of that. Maybe you're up for a job with Strickland/Hillary. Who knows. It would be different if you had previously written about how you support Hillary and why. Hiding behind "balance" and claiming you are undecided is just cowardice. I've got no problem with rumbling in a primary, but come out and pick a side before we do. This bobbing and weaving around balance is just nuts. I don't even have a problem with banging on your opponent (even in a primary), but you've not really let us know overtly who your opponent is? Do you support Hillary and if so why? Articulate it please.

(If I missed your post about why you are so fervent in your support of Hillary, I apologize. Do send me the link and I will consider it in full)

It's curious to me that when Obama becomes the frontrunner you go nuclear with the McCain stuff. Same slash and burn tactics Team Billary looks prepared to do with Michigan and Florida. THAT'S the politics of old right there my man. You are a good representative of it.

Burn the motherfucker down as long as we get what we want, eh?

These "talk is cheap" attacks are extremely petty - and desperate. I might add that they also won't work. They actually <a href="http://www.plunderbund.com/2008/02/15/obama-responds-to-hillary-talk-is-cheap-nonsense">might just boomerang</a>! (can't get a damn link to work, maybe jerid can fix. did i mention yet how much i hate drupal?)

Oh Timmy!

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:37:14 -0700

We know! We know!

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:25:15 -0700

of proclaiming Obama as the great uniter while vilifying Hillary and her supporters --not something Obama himself is necessarily doing, but some of his minions really need to put down the crack pipe, and tell us "why Obama" instead of "Hillary is the Antichrist."

Yeah, hopefully Dems will pull together after the primaries, but it's hard to see how when you have blue blog headlines screaming "Why I'll NEVER vote for Hillary." Words some might have to eat at a later date unless they want to go to work for McCain out of sheer spite.

They are great questions, aren't they?

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:16:31 -0700

That's why I gave you the link, I wanted to share the whole editorial with you.

Sure, we can read position statements on Hillary's site too, but that wasn't the point I was making. I wish we could hear substantive discussions on these issues from the candidates themselves--on TV, in debates-- but nobody's asking them these questions. It's a shame, considering the gravity of the position they're asking us to hire them for.

Since when

scott bakalar — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:13:06 -0700

were Partisan Primaries about uniting anybody?

Aren't Partisan Primaries about selecting the best candidate to carry the party's banner in the Fall?

Most unification occurs after the Primary. And if we have indeed selected the best candidate to go forward, they will have little trouble uniting us.

Only in Ohio though are Partisan Primaries "united" prior to the electorate actually getting a chance to vote. Remember the St. Valentine's Day Massacre?

Didn't Ted have a little something to do with that as well?

Russo, I love your spinning...

modernesquire — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:11:14 -0700

Here's what you write in your post:

Let's just ignore the very real possibility that Ted's comments might be, just may be, perhaps, yet another veiled attempt to remind the electorate that Obama is black.

Now buried in the comments you say:

i am assuming that Ted is genuine and not playing a race card.

Not every criticism of Obama is on race. It's shameful for you to suggest it in this instance. And it's shameless race-baiting on your part to assign racist motives to something, even though you hide behind the fact that you merely suggest it.

And you are about the worst Obama supporter in the world to attack Strickland because he's giving reasons to vote AGAINST someone instead of trying to inspire people to be FOR someone.

All we've had to read from you in the past week is your whining about Clinton's web banner for Ohio because it had the City of Cincinnati in it (supposedly because it's a Republican area despite the fact that the city and county are both controlled by Democrats), Hillary's messy former campaign office (how many posts have been wasted following up on that non-story), and Billary this and Billary that.

I can't recall the last time you wrote a post talking about why people should vote FOR Obama as opposed as voting AGAINST the Clintons. But then Obama gets caught buying off superdelegates, making misleading campaign statements on NAFTA, free trade, and health care, and caught in a trap of his own prior promises by McCain, and it's suddenly how dare the Governor argue against Obama as opposed for Clinton?

What Strickland said is pretty minor compared to what's come out about Obama this week, and yet you of all people want to attack him because he's giving people a reason NOT to vote for someone? After you've spent post after post telling people how horrible "Billary" is?

How do you even manage to walk with balls that big?

oh susie.....

Tim Russo — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:40:13 -0700

you know i never shut up!

Okay, forget the midol

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:36:20 -0700

and just shut the fuck up. You're not uniting anybody with your inflammatory crap. You might as well be working for Karl Rove.

Sure, TAmber

Entrwriter — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:34:51 -0700

Despite the smears (notice I didn't say racist), although Bill certainly showed that he knows how to play that card, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I'll hold my breath, my nose and vote for her.

Then I suspect it will be Bush-lite, because if you guy into the notion that HRC and her minions are progressives, I've got a bridge on Cleveland's west side that I wanna sell you.

It is!

FindlayMarketGirl — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:29:45 -0700

And you gotta live with it. In 1972, Chisholm said her greatest obstacle to the white house was her gender, not her race.

It is less likely for feminist Hillary Clinton to be president the same way it was unlikely for civil rights activist Jesse Jackson to be president.

Right now, McCain is beating Hillary in every survey and would beat her by a landslide in November, because men don't want a woman named Clinton bossing them. That's a risk we cannot afford.

As a woman, trust me, I want a woman president. Give me Kathleen Sebelius, give me Nancy Pelosi give me Claire McCaskill, give me Barabara Boxer, give me Janet Napolitano, etc. Just not Hillary Clinton.

Re: Here's what we need to be talking about

tessellated — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:21:05 -0700

That's a great list of questions, Susan!

I'd like to hear answers from the candidates on those too. Obama's site does help with some of them. If you are like me, it's sometimes a bit annoying to be directed to a link elsewhere when answering a question. In my defense, I'll say that I'm answering a link with a link! :)

If you could maybe narrow it down to one or two questions, I'd be willing to explore them here with you.

midol not necessary

Tim Russo — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:07:02 -0700

i do like the "take a midol" comment - hilarious.

however, if you haven't figured out yet that the clinton campaign is being as arrogant, condescending, holeri-than-thou - you name it - as they can possibly be about Barack Obama, you aren't paying attention.

the clinton people are getting pissed off that this is slipping away, and it's starting to show. that's fine. but don't insult the voters for reaching for something higher than a "plan".

as mike tyson said, everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Here's what we need to be talking about

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:31:32 -0700

This link goes to today's lead editorial from the NYT:

http://tinyurl.com/2bxvc3

But the media wants it to be about personalities and drama and controversy, because that's what gets ratings and keeps the advertising dollars flowing, and we all get shortchanged because the national discussion devolves into a pie fight like we're seeing here.

Re: Well...

tessellated — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:25:11 -0700

I'm tired of the infighting too. I don't have much use for the racist/sexist divide.

If I could, I would wave a magic wand and all such petty, overblown squabbles would disappear. I think Obama is a powerful enough candidate in his own rights that he doesn't need this sort of climate to win. I'm more than happy to talk about positions or issues. :)

Gee, ya think?

Susan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:22:41 -0700

Okay, I apologize for playing tit for tat, my mean streak is showing, but it's time somebody pushed back against the crap coming from this site lately.

Ted Strickland's demeaning Obama comments

Tim Russo — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:17:34 -0700

One of the most devastating things for Democrats about Ronald Reagan was that he gave the GOP, for a generation, a perceived monopoly on optimism, hope, and pride in America. Reagan made it positively GOP to wave the flag, and believe in America - not that us Democrats didn't also hold the same beliefs. Reagan just made it his own, and through him, his party's. It still costs us, to this day, both as a party, and as a country, but for Republicans, it was magic.

Barack Obama is about to do for the Democratic Party precisely that, but more positively, and more constructively, than Reagan ever did. And it is incredibly disappointing to hear some Democratic leaders here in Ohio demean this accomplishment, and the instinct of voters to respond to it, as Ted Strickland did Friday.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton backer, says she'll win the Buckeye State. "I don't think Ohio is going to be taken in by the fluff," Strickland told The News in Cincinnati.

"I think it's a choice between a speech and a plan," he said.

Let's just ignore the very real possibility that Ted's comments might be, just may be, perhaps, yet another veiled attempt to remind the electorate that Obama is black. (smooth talker, ain't got no plan, just a bunch of fluff....you've heard it all before) Let's assume Ted is being sincere.

Stuff it in your ear, Ted. Americans want to feel good about who they vote for. They would rather vote FOR someone than AGAINST someone or something. If Barack Obama can do this for the Democratic nominee for president - i.e. get average independents, leaning Republicans, and every single Democrat, to vote FOR him, proudly, happily, with hope in their hearts and a spring in their step, then you're damn right I'll take the speech over the plan.

Everybody has a plan, Ted.