« Nothing Like Fresh Squeezed (Orange) Juice From Flo Rida | Main | Back on Thursday »

09 May 2008



Ted Kennedy's comments are rich. His 1980 presidential run destroyed the Democratic Party for more than a decade.

Obama and his campaign are "confident" they can win the general election by alienating Clinton and her supporters. This is something that I want to see from a candidate who gets less than a third of the white vote and does poorly with the working class, women, seniors and Latinos.

There are only so many latte drinkers, college students and black voters.

Greg G

>>>If we had real leadership—as we do with Barack Obama—in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful.

Thanks Teddy! So much for the unity pony everyone promised from the Obama campaign. Of course Clinton will not be asked and will not accept the #2 spot. When Obama's campaign loses in November, they're going to blame it on her anyway. It's a good idea to be as far away as possible.


Hilary Clinton would be a nightmare choice as VP...Bill and Hill have shown time again that they are only concerned with what is best for them...Obama would not have a moment's peace if were to win in November---neither of the Clinton's are comfortable playing a supporting role to anyone and would most likely do undermine Obama if it were to their advantage. There are other choices for the VP slot that are consistent with Obama's call for change...game, set, match for the Clinton era.

Henry TW

This is all over the news in Boston. Kennedy says Clinton isn't sufficiently "noble", doesn't have "aspirations" or can't unite the party. The entire Obama wing of the Democratic Party have turned into walking advertisements for Rush Limbaugh.

Teddy, Kerry and Deval Patrick combined COULD NOT deliver MASSACHUSETTS for Obama on Super Tuesday. It was a freakin' landslide. And speaking as a Bostonian, you know what? They won't be able to in November.


Umnm, Michael, I think the post says that Obama doesn't need Clinton and she doesn't want to be VP. Obama doesn't need Clinton because "he can get her voters" and "she can't get his." I think the point here was about Ted Kennedy's rhetoric.

Did you have a comment on that? Or are just here to pour KoolAid? 'Cuz something tells me there are still very many Democrats who aren't drunk yet ...


Michael, I'm an Obama supporter and can clearly recognize Kennedy's talk is divisive.

I don't want her on the ticket either, but Kennedy's remarks are clearly over the line. That being said, Rod makes a very good point. I don't think many Obama supporters in Congress even care about winning, they want Obama's ATM and many would rather "nobly lose" with Obama than win with Clinton. That means they would actually have to do something about health care and Iraq.

Dan B

Gauge, you're wasting your time. The giddy and gloating tone of the ObamaNation on the internets does not understand how they are turning away Clinton's voters. Clinton will not be the nominee or vp nominee. Now is the time to let her end her campaign on a high note and welcome her voters. It's only half of the party. They'll get it later in the summer and in the fall.


Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, including Sen. Kennedy, myself and others who decide to post. I am not drunk on anything. I realize Obama is just a man, no different from myself. I also am def not drunk on Clintons (and never have been) nor do I like being pandered to or used. Unlike many in the black community, I am not sure what they (the Clintons) have done to earn the unquestioning support of the black community---opening an office in Harlem, playing the saxophone and showing up at black churches when convenient is not commitment (what about Sistah Souljah, Lani Guiner, "welfare reform", the arrogance of HRC's attempt at healthcare reform, the divisive statements made by both Clintons, including HRC's comments in the last few days...I could continue). The gas-tax holiday is yet another example of HRC's tendency to do whatever is politically expedient, irrespective of principle (see also her position on FL and MI despite having previously agreed to adheree to the rules established by the DNC w/ regard to delegates from those states). B.O. doesn't need HRC. If the people who support HRC who earn less than $50K and are not college educated decide to vote against their own interest and support McCain or do not vote at all(and, in either scenario, allow McCain in the White Hse), well guess what, then we as a country will get what we deserve, just like we are getting our just deserts for putting Bush in the White Hse, for 2 terms no less. In my opinion (to which again, I am entitled), its that simple.


Well said Michael. But, it is futile to argue with those who can only throw insults, instead of stating their positions in an intelligent and adult manner.

Ted Kennedy didn't have to issue any comments on this issue, but it is clear that Hillary's way of getting things done is in opposition to the platform that Obama has run on. And it's funny that some point out Obama's statement, but not Hillary's continued claim that Obama isn't electable because many blue collar White people won't vote for him. Not that that type of talk is divisive.


Ms. Kennedy really shouldn't talk much about nobility since his nephew raped that coed back in the 90's and Kennedy was seen walking all over the kennedy grounds barely naked, boasting about it...

So, nothing he says adds much to nobility or "grand and diplomatic intentions"

Hillary wont be on the ticket, but who is going to be strong enough to give obama the votes he needs to win in november...every presidential nominee needs a VP who can reel in the voters he..or she..cant get.

John Edwards would be the right choice, but something tells me he'd rather be president..and he and Obama clashed OFTEN...though Edwards could get the voters Clinton has..WHICH ARE MANY.

Bill Richardson: He's A JOKE AND TWO HALVES...he's a sore looser and he is an even weaker counterpart to ANY one running for president..plus, he didnt get many of the white voters hill has when he ran...

who's going to be Obama's VP? i hope it's someone strong...cause, he wont be getting the working class vote on his on...

Cadence: you know what, it's not even worth poking holes through your flawed Clinton Derangement Syndrome logic...Hillary hasn't been claiming obama is not electable--THE REPUBLICANS ARE! Think before you speak, REALLY...And you KNOW obama is going to have a hard time getting working class voters in blue states...period.

that was evident with OH and PA--two blue states basically...or, were you in a coma when those votes were tallied?

Rod Mc

MICHAEL: You're brand new to this board. I already said a joint ticket was a bad idea. You might want to try to limit your comments to Ted Kennedy's remarks. Those were rants.

ATL KID: Ted Kennedy's 1980 challenge against Jimmy Carter split the party in half. That's why the superdelegate system was created.

CADENCE 1: And it's funny that some point out Obama's statement ..." Nice try. Who are you talking about? What does that have to do with Kennedy's remarks?

CADENCE 2: In a previous thread, you said you were "an independent." Not sure why you're concerned about Democratic Party "unity." I'm concerned because I'm a Democrat.

Also, you were going to give me some information or a link proving the connection between Bill Clinton's "morality" and Georgia state house losses? In 2004?

Spirited debate is welcome from everyone. It's not a good idea to direct Republican talking points or sarcasm to me.

AL Kid

Well, let's see, Morris:

Saying anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist. Saying millions of Clinton supporters were racists. Hillary's "claws are coming out." "When she's feeling down, she does these things." The Annie Oakley snide comparison. "I can get her voters, she can't get mine." Pretending that some 16 million people didn't vote for HRC. Constantly comparing HRC to GWB. Praising Reagan and GBI as better presidents than WJC. Trying to force her out of the race before he has the delegates needed for the nomination. Brushing the "dirt" off his shoe and shoulder. Giving Hillary the finger. The turning the knife motion.

Oh gosh, that was just in the past two or three weeks.


Ted Kennedy has some nerve talking about Hillary Clinton, he made sure Jimmy Carter would not win in 1980 after all of his attacks and destroyed his own reputation in the process.

Michael: If Obama can't win working class voters, the elderly and latinos you cannot blame Hillary, you can only blame Obama and his campaign. The point is, if he can't win in November he will be just another John Kerry or Michael Dukakis.


Morris, it comes from what I hear and see the candidates and surrogates do. The blogs are nasty (read comments here or at ANY proObama blog), but they were not solely responsible for framing my impression of Obama. What I saw from him was flicking "dirt" of his shoulders when he talked about Clinton, calling her "desperate" and saying "she'll do anything to win", trashing Bill Clinton's legacy and outright ignoring the good he did for the party, lying about passing an energy bill he did not pass, bashing Walmart while taking royalties from his books being sold there (and forgetting, I suppose, that 84% of all American households shop at Walmart, which is political stupidity), saying that people like me on the pro-choice side do not realize that abortion is a "moral, wrenching decision," praising Bush's abstinence policy and talking about the "sacredness of sexuality," and, lastly, I think what I find truly offensive is the fact that he sat in a church while his preacher humped the pulpit to illustrate a sex act, all the while deriding both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, and I guess I should throw this in as well: as a woman, I have an intrinsic, gut reaction to a man stepping in and trying to take a job away from the more qualified, better prepared woman.

All of this came from a man who was seeking my vote for the nomination of the presidency of the United States.

And he won't get it. Ever.

You can have a million blogs and leave a million comments and they all can say the same thing. You can have a million Olbermanns and Chris Matthews to denigrate Clinton. You can have as many Democratic presidential has beens to attack Clinton. You can have as many people as you want to come in comments and say rude things to Rod or any other blogger who asks for fairness. It is not reaching out. It is driving me and many others away. You're winning and still cannot be gracious.

FWIW, this is one of the very few black blogs (and the only black gay one) that said years ago Obama would run for president, months ago Obama had problems with white voters, would have problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio, would have problems down the road with Rev. Wright, that everyone would blame "racism" for all of Obama's problems ... long before others did. At this point, if Rod 2.0 says Obama will have problems with Clinton supporters, umm, you might want to listen. Or, keep playing ostrich with your head in the sand.

Jorge B

Cadence, you and many Obama groupies have a silly double standard. You can scream from every blog or tv studio that Hillary is not "electable" but when someone says the same about Obama you become outraged. Obama (or any TV anchor) can say he performs very well with African Americans, youth and better educated. If Clinton says, I perform very well with women, seniors, Latinos or white working class voters, the difference is .... ?


Thank you Antonia and Jorge B. I sense a lot of anger, disappointment and frustration in the Hispanic community. Being that I am a halfer myself I am in the somewhat unique situation on being able to see both the black and latino perspectives. I must say all of my latino family members will vote for Obama but not one is "happy" about it. I get this sense from friends and coworkers as well. I think in the end most of us Clinton supporters will end up voting for Obama. I take this as a good thing because we will be doing what is good for the party in the Fall. I just don't believe if the situation were reversed and first viable black male candidate ALMOST made it, Obama's supporters would do the same...

Brooklyn Democrat

I think Senator Kennedy's comments are correct. Governor Sebelius of Kansas who's demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle in a bright red state certainly offers the sort of qualities that he's suggesting. Senator Obama doesn't need to go into the general election dragging along the Clintons and their baggage.

They have been race baiting since South Carolina. Her latest comments to USA Today on "hard working white people" represent a new low. She can stay in the race for as long as she wants but I hope that she and Bubba manage to control themselves and not destroy the Democratic Party's chances. I have held my nose and voted for these two four times. I will not vote for either one of them again. This campaign has led me to believe that removing them from American politics will be an act of public sanitation.


Brooklyn Democrat: Hillary and Bill are not going to destroy the Democratic Party. Like I have said in numerous posts before, if Obama cannot win on his own merits then he does not deserve to be president.

Jorge B

Brooklyn "Democrat", I'm a longtime reader and have never seen your comments. Are you brand new? NO ONE SAID OBAMA SHOULD OFFER CLINTON VP. The post was about Kennedy's comments. And it's hilarious how all the Obamaniacs always find wisdom in the words of the Democratic presidential losers. Kennedy ran twice for president and split the Democratic
Party. He and Obama are doing it again.

Kathleen Sebelius would be a ridiculous choice for VP. Not only does she have ZERO charisma, she has no constituency outside of Kansas. She probably couldn't even carry Kansas for Obama. Oh, and it's pandering at its worst. Justg nominate a woman, any woman, and 16 million Clinton voters would be happy? LOL If the shoe were on the other foot, should Clinton offer "any" black man the VP slot?

Also, Sebelius is as marginally qualified as Obama. We're in a recession and are fighting two wars, let's allow the interns to take over! And what is it with this silly post-partisan stick? The Republicans never say that. Never. That's a Obama and media invention.


Morris, just to add a few more: Samantha Power's "monster comment." Obama in New Hampshire: "You're likable enough." Oh, and let's not forget, totally distorting the Martin Luther King and fairy tale comments to start a race riot. The entire campaign has become racialized, the very fact that Clinton believes she is more qualified or electable has been turned into accusations of racism. If John Edwards or Bill Richardson would be in her place, THEY WOULD BE ACCUSED OF THE SAME THING. .

This was pathetic and you know what's really sad? The Republican Party is the racial party and since the Obama campaign played their race card against Clinton, they can't play it again in the general election. You won't be able to accuse the REAL RACISTS OF RACISM. Because the Republicans don't care. The Obama campaign has totally marginalized many white Democrats who have voted for and fought for civil rights..

Kerry, McCaskill and anyone white supporting Obama--even that racist quen Andrew Sullivan--can say Obama should be president because he is black and that will "inspire" the nation and the world. Anyone supporting Clinton mentions gender and "it's the gender card!" If they mention race, well, we're racists.

Brooklyn Democrat, sorry but you're wrong. You probably think Obama can capture "Kerry's base", right? No, he is starting from scratch. Rod was freakin' brilliant. There is a reason why all of the Democratic presidential losers have aligned themselves with Obama. McGovern, Dukakis, Hart, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Richardson, Bradley ... they all something in common. And all their advice should be taken for what it is, advice from losers.


Cadence, Michael and Brooklyn Democrat: Is it possible for any of you to talk about Obama without making the conversation about Clinton? I for one would love to hear how he plans to "reach out" and woo the one half of the party who supported Clinton. He and his supporters (read: bloggers, surrogates, prObama pundits) seem intent on demonizing Clinton and her 16 million supporters. You do want to "unite" the party and "win" in November, right?

That were nice and predictable talking points about Kathleen Sebelius, who, as VP nominee would have as much appeal as a potted cactus. Are women supposed to just show up and get excited about Sebelius?

Cleveland OH

Ryan and Duwayne, love your comments by the way, love them!

Morris Cadence, Michael, etc: Who was it who asked what has Obama personally done "that is dismissive of HRC and her supporters?" How about when Obama flipped the bird twice in Pennsylvania and flicked his shoulder? Classic. My mom WAS an Ohio activist for Obama. WAS. After she sat that, se called me in tears and couldn't believe it. "He is running for president, he should not act like teenager," she said. Why does everyone think what he did was "cool"? The entire Obama operation is thuggery, from thugs in caucuses to thugs online, and they all pretend they're being positive and Clinton is the negative one.

My mom and aunt want to take their Obama votes back. Obama never had my vote. If you want it, start reaching out. If you don't want it, that's fine, I'm perfectly okay with voting for the downticket races, which, according to most reports, most Obama voters have ignored in the primaries. This is the time you should be convincing people to jump on the O train. McCain and the Republicans are wasting no time, they are praising Clinton and her determination and sweeping into Kentucky and Ohio to get her voters.


Thanks Morris for responding. Since your reply was very cordial, let me do the same. I understand that you're an Obama partisan. I'm a Clinton partisan. Both of the campaign have waged hard, negative campaigns. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is Obama, his campaign and the media pretending it's only been one-sided. That is not true.

Re "Claws": Barack Obama said Hillary Clinton's "claws" were coming out. Do you still ask for an apology? ;)

Also, it was Barack Obama who said: "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her" support.

Last summer, the Obama started the whole negative and personal attacks by calling Clinton the "senator from Punjab" and claimed Bill was "making money off 9/11."

Morris, however, you are absolutely right about Clinton's string of losses in February. That month killed her, her campaign was unprepared. Rod has said that many times. But, I must add, your belief in Obama attracting "Republicans and independents" is outdated. You're thinking about back in February, when Obama was at the height of his popularity. The only primary he has win since March 2 was North Carolina and that was with 93% of the black vote and 30% (?) of the white vote. His numbers in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and I could be wrong, were with about the same of the white vote, 85% (?) of the black vote and very few Republicans and independents. Since Ohio and Texas, Obama has received LARGER black turnout and a FEWER white voters. You are automatically assuming Obama will get all of Clinton's voters. Why? The youth oriented "hope" and "change" concerts do not appeal to older voters and blue collars. He offers no specifics on the economy, and, people with pensions and mortgages are concerned about the recession. In addition, his campaign has continually tried to humiliate Clinton. No, I think many women and older voters are feeling especially raw from this race. Many people are turned off by the threatened black boycott of the ticket if Clinton were the nominee. That talk began months ago. Why do you assume he will "get her voters." Because they usually vote Democratic? Or because he did not court the base, but only courted Republicans and independents? They will have no choice in the fall?

As far as Republicans and independents, sorry, you're still thinking about February. Clinton pulled more in OH, TX and PA. To explain that, the Obama campaign has pushed that ridiculous "Rush Limbaugh" meme, that Republicans "want" to vote against Clinton because she is "easier." That's ridiculous and a silly double standard, and, Rush and Hannity could'nt even elect their candidate MITT ROMNEY. Maybe they like her tough talk on defense, or her specifics on the economy, or, her plan on NCLB or uni health care. Obama encouraged Republicans to be "Democrats for a Day" and vote for him in Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. Rod has also talked about "Democrats for a Day." Hopefully, Obama wants them to show up in November.

Two other thngs. One, the "progressive" meme has to go, Clinton and Obama are centrist Democrats and he arguably is running to her right. Praising Reagan and Bush I is not progressive. Using Republican talking points to attack Clinton's health care plan is not progressive. Going on Fox News and praising Republicans as having "better ideas" and criticizing DailyKos is not "progressive." Dick Cheney's energy plan was not "progressive." Suggesting more nuclear power plants is not "progressive." Obama is many things to many people, but, really, this "progressive" meme has become hilarious.

Secondly, Morris, why do you and other Obama supporters quote him word for word? "Reagan" and "transformational"? Do you have any personal opinions on this? Obama has praised Reagan many times and also praised Reagan and Bush I's foreign policy. Ronald Reagan was very transformational. His administration cut millions of people of students loans and welfare, created the homeless crisis, set our country back on race relations and entered a huge arms buildup. The whole praising Reagan thing and "what Obama really meant" is ridiculous. And Clinton is the one who is not supposed to be a good "Democrat." C'mon, man, lol.

You sound like a very agreeable person. I like that. I've seen some of our comments on here and you (and others, lol) seem to take offense to the fact that Rod doesn't agree with the conventional wisdom on the internets or repeat the popular talking points. He has bene roven correct about many things (Wright, PA, white voters, working class, etc) and many of us enjoy that quality. But if you're gong to insist that Obama or his campaign have not personally attacked Clinton, used sexism, used misogny or distorted the Clinton record, or deliberately played race Chicago style, we will have to agree to disagree. And I'm sorry, I grew up poor and on food stamps in the 1980s, I have no patience for "Democrats" (especially anyone black) who want to praise Reagan and attack the Clintons as not being "Democrats."

I understand the "transformational" argument that was the original rationale for Obama's candidacy. Sadly, that was long ago. Since March he has lost every contest except for one and is merely harvesting his share of delegates and in the next few weeks will lose in WV, KY and PR, and will limp across the finish line, with help from Donna Brazile and the Nancy Pelosi. The only contest he has won since then, North Carolina, was with racially lopsided results. Hopefully he can do better in the fall.


Sorry for the super long post!


Obama will win the nomination with a small to moderate lead, and the super delagates pulling him across the finish. He is being counseled very carefully about a running mate. That will help determine whether or not he wins the presidency. This is how this will play out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad