Why is Obama supporting a right-wing white incumbent against a progressive black challenger?

[Ken Burch]

This is happening in a congressional primary in Georgia.

The right-wing "Democratic" incumbent , John Barrow, has frequently praised Bush, and STILL backs the war and the Bush tax cuts. He didn't even endorse Obama until AFTER the Georgia presidential primary.

Is there ANY good reason for Obama to be doing this?

I'm still backing Obama in the fall, but this bothers me. It doesn't gain him any votes anywhere. The people who back Barrow are all going to be Dems for Bush anyway. Why bother with them?

[NattPang]

1. Does this Black Challenger have a name?

Or is his skin color the only
thing needed to identify him?

[Ken Burch]

2. Her name is Regina Thomas.

Here's more on the story:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/19/obama-supports-blue-dog-barrow-over-progressive-in-georgia-primary-why/

Here's a link to her campaign, if you want to donate to the DEMOCRAT in the race:

http://reginathomas4congress.com/

[NattPang]

7. From what I read,

Barrow is a second term incumbent,
Who Endorsed Barack Obama in February.

Regina Thomas was an
unexpected primary challenger.

It seems that Obama didn't endorse
but does support Rep. Barrow,
who sits on Obama's 50 state
voter registration drive committee.

Perhaps, Barack Obama does not
support politicians based on
their skin color?

That's probably not a bad idea.

The article says:
Barrow beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 and had tough GOP opposition in 2006. But this April, Barrow picked up unexpected opposition from Regina Thomas, a well-known African-American state senator based in Savannah.

Barrow had endorsed Obama in late February, a few weeks after the Illinois senator won the Georgia primary.

[Ken Burch]

10. We can assume that, if reelected, Barrow will oppose almost everything Obama would propose.

Why settle for a "Democrat" like that?

[Catherina]

18. I wouldn't bet on it but take the more cynical explanation for that n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. Yep. He's basically another DINO, whereas Thomas is well liked and is a firm believer

in progressive politics. Again, while I understand that Barrow supported Obama in the primaries, I guess I cannot understand why Obama is rejecting progressive Democrats. It worries me a little.

[roseBudd]

75. When we ASS SUME we...

[Ken Burch]

11. Obama did a CAMPAIGN ad for the Barrow AGAINST Thomas.

Why couldn't he just stay out of it until after the primary?

[DFLforever]

16. Apparently Obama views him as a supporter not an opponent

Barrow endorsed him right after the GA primary and is also one of O's national co-chairs on voter registration.

So I see why he might endorse him.

[beachmom]

3. ?? You need to provide a link. I do know that Vernon Jordan photoshopped

a picture of Obama next to him to act like Obama wanted him as the Senate Dem candidate. The Obama campaign had to issue a denial that they are endorsing no one in the Senate Dem primary. I haven't heard anything about this one.

[Ken Burch]

5. Here's TWO links

http://www.macon.com/206/story/383587.html

http://savannahnow.com/node/519033

btw, the district is 70% African American, so it goes without saying that a white conservative can't deserve to represent it.

[beachmom]

8. ?? I thought it said that PRIMARY VOTERS are 70% according to my link I found.

Barrow beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 and had tough GOP opposition in 2006. But this April, Barrow picked up unexpected opposition from Regina Thomas, a well-known African-American state senator based in Savannah. Barrow is white, and In past primaries in the 12th District, black voters have cast nearly 70 percent of the ballots.

Barrow had endorsed Obama in late February, a few weeks after the Illinois senator won the Georgia primary.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/06/18/obama_cuts_an_ad_to_help_john.html

Seeing that a Republican held the district until 2004, it appears to be a swing district, and is most certainly not 70% AA.

[BlooInBloo]

22. The OP is just making shit up. No biggie.

[Ken Burch]

24. I've sourced everything, if you look through my posts in this thread.

You've got no call to accuse me of making this up.

It's a betrayal for Obama to back a right-winger against a progressive in a Democratic primary.

If Barrow's right-wing now, we can assume he'll always be right wing.

[beachmom]

61. And your sources show that the 70% AA figure is referring to Democratic primary voters.

The district itself is 50% White and 44% black. It is a Dem lean district, but only by a hair. I am not giving any opinion past that, but to pretend that it's in the bag for a Democrat is not the truth.

[onenote]

64. was it a betrayal for clinton to back lieberman in the primary against lamont?

Incumbents back incumbents. Its been that way for eons. And pretending that Obama is doing something unprecedented is,well, making shit up.

Leonard Boswell, an incumbent Democrat, faced a primary challenge from a more progressive candidate earlier this year. Al Gore endorsed Boswell. Betrayal by Gore?

John Kerry, in 2006, endorsed Jim Webb over his more progressive primary opponent. Betrayal by Kerry?

So,yes, I'd say you're making up shit.

[Ken Burch]

68. Er, Webb wasn't an incumbent. That was a nomination fight to take a GOP seat.

And Gore should have stayed neutral. That's what the presidential nominee is supposed to do in a Congressional primary fight. Got it?

This is as misguided as the campaign to stop Christine Cegelis from getting renominated in Illinois. And we all know how well stopping her turned out for the party, don't we? Now THAT seat is lost to us for decades more.

[onenote]

70. sorry. I missed what you had to say about Clinton supporting Lieberman in the primary

type larger...

[Ken Burch]

71. It's not the same thing when you're not the presidential nominee

HRC shouldn't have done it anyway.

See...you still didn't have me trapped...so there.

I support Obama...I just call him on it when he's wrong. OK?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. What does that comment mean? Blacks in the south tend to be more conservative

and we do have a history of voting for white candidates over black ones. Please don't make ignorant statements like that.

[bluestateguy]

4. Presidential candidates messing with congressional primaries

Getting involved in congressional primaries is not a good thing for presidents and presidential candidates to do. FDR got burned by doing that in 1938.

[beachmom]

6. Doing my own work, it appears this is not an easy district to win:

Oh, and this story is OLD from June 18th. Why post about it now?

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/06/18/obama_cuts_an_ad_to_help_john.html

Barrow beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 and had tough GOP opposition in 2006. But this April, Barrow picked up unexpected opposition from Regina Thomas, a well-known African-American state senator based in Savannah. Barrow is white, and In past primaries in the 12th District, black voters have cast nearly 70 percent of the ballots.

Barrow had endorsed Obama in late February, a few weeks after the Illinois senator won the Georgia primary.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's 70% African American! A REAL Democrat would win it easily.

The district probably only went conservative in the past because blacks were intimidated into not voting.

[beachmom]

12. You're wrong. It is 50% white, 44% black.

It is clearly a swing district, that slightly leans Dem. The Congressional district was re-drawn. It is not in the bag. You are confusing the primary demographics with the district demographics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia's_12th_congressional_district

Look, I don't know why Obama got involved; but it is not a race in the bag for Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

31. what's a "real Democrat?""

[Ken Burch]

42. Someone who doesn't STILL defend the Iraq War. Someone who supports real universal healthcare

Someone who's on the side of the little guy against the big guy. Which Blue Dogs aren't.

[wyldwolf]

96. says who?

Seriously, what's you avatar all about?

[JohnnyCougar]

13. It has been redistricted since then, and is now a safe Dem seat.

But Obama endorsed Barrow because he's going to need the support of Blue Dog Dems once he becomes president. The fastest way to becoming an ineffective president is to piss off the people that allow you to do your job (the Dem establishment).

It's not Obama's job to elect progressives to Congress. It's our job.

[beachmom]

14. Its rating is D+2 on the Cook Partisan Voting Index. That is a SLIGHT lean.

Nothing to get cocky about. I live in Georgia and have a high tolerance for conservative Dems because it is such a red state, with so many areas having no chance of getting any Dem elected.

[onenote]

60. wrong - the redestrictng made it less safe

Barrow won in 2004 by around 8000 votes. The GA legislature, controlled by repubs, then engaged in a mid-decade redistricting, targeting Barrow's district among others. Barrow ended up winning reelectin, but his margin,as an incumbent, was only 864 votes.

His primary opponent would have virtually no chance in the general election. Maybe that's sad. But its still true.

[beachmom]

62. Thank you, one note. For that info. This entire post, then, is misleading.

Do we want to keep the seat Dem or not?

[BlooInBloo]

15. Obviously he hates black people.

[BlooInBloo]

19. And golly, I wonder what people would be saying if Obama supported the black candiate....

Holy damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't Batman!

:rofl:

[AllHereTruth]

17. "Dems for Bush"

Are worse than republicans. At least repubs can be complete disregarded.

*EDIT* The above was my 100th post on DU :toast:

[OwnedByFerrets]

32. Welcome to DU!!

www.wearableartnow.com

[greguganus]

20. Guess it's hard for some people to think others can see beyond skin color. n/t

[Ken Burch]

26. That would only be what this is about if the two candidates agreed on the issues.

Barrow's record is not friendly to what Obama stands for.

[AZBlue]

21. How DARE he not support the black candidate!

Black people need to stick together!!
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

27. If she was the candidate that was closer to him on the issues, she DESERVED his support.

It was never just about race and you know it.

White right-wingers have no role to play in a Democratic administration.

You know Barrow won't do anything to help Obama in exchange for this support.

[onenote]

56. "it was never about race"

Well then, you should take it up with the OP that made race a major part of his post. It won't be hard to find him. Just look in the mirror.

[Danger Mouse]

23. How dare he back up one of his own supporters!!!

[Ken Burch]

25. You can't really call Barrow a supporter if he didn't endorse until AFTER the Georgia primary.

After that, it didn't really matter.

[ashrob123]

40. John Lewis didn't endorsement Obama until

the end of February. So, he's not an Obama supporter?

Fail.

[wyldwolf]

43. Ken Burch has a dusty old Democratic Party Rule Book the rest of us don't have

[Ken Burch]

47. No nominee has ever intervened in a Congressional primary before this.

n/t.

[wyldwolf]

50. what does that have to do with whether Barrow is a supporter?

[Ken Burch]

51. It doesn't matter whether Barrow is supposedly a supporter

Party neutrality in contested primaries is supposed to be sacred.

We can assume Barrow's loyalists wouldn't vote for a Democratic presidential nominee anyway. That kind doesn't.

[wyldwolf]

54. that is what you and I are discussing - Post #25

Party neutrality in contested primaries is supposed to be sacred.

According to who?

[Ken Burch]

66. According to party tradition.

Remember how badly it went over in the South when FDR intervened in several primaries in 1938?

[wyldwolf]

76. actually, no, I don't remember that. But what does that have to do with the subject?

[Ken Burch]

77. It pertains DIRECTLY to the subject. It the president(and future re-nominee)

Intervening in primaries, as our nominee was doing in this case.

I like Obama, I'll keep supporting him, but he should've keep neutral in this one, at a bare minimum.

[wyldwolf]

94. no, our subject is "You can't really call Barrow a supporter."

[Ken Burch]

105. Which I also demonstrated by reminding people that Barrow didn't back OBAMA in the primary

The Georgia PRESIDENTIAL primary.

It doesn't really matter that he came around later.

And it's not like HRC was gonna crank up the machine and get back into it if Obama HADN'T done the ad for this guy. It was all over by then.

[JeffR]

81. Just a guess

But I have a hunch Barrow will be voting for McCain. He's that much of a dickhead.

[endarkenment]

28. just a guess: he is the incumbent democratic rep.

I really cannot think of one good reason why the presidential nominee of the party would get involved in a primary battle to unseat an incumbent rep from his own party. The idea here, which seems to be having a hard to getting through to the faction-addicted poutraged left, is that we as a party all need to pull together in the same direction. We need to be unified. The immediate goal is the white house and congress. From that goal we can then rebalance the court. It is the tri-fecta. It is incredibly important. All other issues fail to measure up.

[blondeatlast]

39. Ruh-roh; sanity on DU...

No Scooby snack for you!

(But blondeatlast appreciates it! :thumbsup:)

[Fire_brand]

65. and because he's trying to compete in GA

may as well back the person that has done what you're trying to do

[wyldwolf]

29. because the district is a white, rightwing one.

[Thrill]

30. Damn if you do. Damn if you don't. Ever think that this Barrow could be Obama's friend?

Lets stop this black/white bullshit

[Ken Burch]

48. If he was Obama's friend, he wouldn't have waited until AFTER the presidential primary in Georgia

to support Obama.

This guy can't be anything but another Bilbo. That's what all Southern conservative dems are.

[TexasObserver]

33. Another "I hate Obama" post by you. I'm shocked.

Don't you grow weary from trashing Obama?

And, of course, I believe you when you say you're voting for Obama in the fall.

[Ken Burch]

44. It's not "I hate Obama". It's "I support Obama but everyone knows he's wrong on this one"

And Paul Wellstone would be with me on this, btw.

If nothing else, our nominee is never supposed to take sides in a contested Democratic primary. Is that so hard to understand?

And back off on the personal smears.

You've got no call to question my loyalty.

Loyalty does NOT mean never disagreeing with the nominee's choices.

[onenote]

57. "Paul Wellstone would be with me on this"? Nifty Ouija board you got there

Let us know when you have your next seance. I've got some questions for Paul myself.

[TexasObserver]

59. Yes, it's another "I hate Obama" thread.

Is this your very first presidential ever, because you act as if it is?

It is ROUTINE for the nominee of the party to support incumbent Democrats. Routine, not unusual.

Your reaction reveals that you do not know this, which implies you have very limited experience in presidential elections, as in you don't have any experience.

You find something new to bitch about Obama every day. That's all you do. You spend each day here attacking him, as if your game is fooling anyone.

[Ken Burch]

67. I don't have a game. I'm a loyal progressive Democrat.

Don't start in with McCarthyite bullshit. I won't be supporting any other party in the fall and you know it.

[rox63]

34. Maybe because the primary challenger has very little chance of winning in the GE?

And if she lost in the GE, that seat would go to the Repukes. Keeping the seat Dem is better than having it go Repuke.

[greguganus]

35. Your post title would have been just as good without using the word "black" in it. n/t

[Ken Burch]

46. OK. I'll agree on that.

N/t.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. It really bothers me. I think you're referring to the primary race in Savannah?

I hope Barrow loses. There's a healthy African American population in Savannah but there's also a military base there. I'm not sure what's going to happen.

And I cannot understand why Obama is doing this.

[blondeatlast]

41. "Why is Obama supporting a(n) incumbent against a challenger?"

Take emotional triggers out of the subject line and the answer is clear enough that DU wouldn't need to be bothered with it.

[Ken Burch]

45. What part of "It's NEVER acceptable for the nominee to interfere in a congressional primary"

Do you not understand?

You know nothing positive or progressive would come of Barrow defeating Thomas.

[KingFlorez]

49. Most of the time politicians will support the incumbent

And Barrow supported him in the primary, he couldn't very well turn around and endorse someone else for Barrow's seat, plus Barrow can win the seat easier. Obama shouldn't base who he supports on race, that would be ridiculous. It's politics, it's worked this way for all time, it is not that serious.

[Ken Burch]

52. It was as much issues as race.

Thomas is much closer to Obama on the issues. Barrow will vote against him 70% or more of the time. We don't need THAT kind of Dem anymore. And these days, the South isn't permanently right wing.

Besides, there's the principle that presidential nominees are NEVER supposed to intervene in a contested primary.

[onenote]

86. Barrow will vote against him 70% or more of the time. You do love pulling numbers from your butt

don't you. GOt a source for that? While Barrow has the worst record of any Democrat in terms of voting with the party, he still votes with the party over 82 percent of the time. That's a verifiable statistic. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/

Looking forward to the verification for your statistical assertion.

[hfojvt]

53. Not that serious?

Probably not, but it makes him one of the enemy, IMO. If we are gonna change anything, we have to get rid of some of these worthless incumbents, even if it is easier for them to win. Once again, two thumbs down for Obama.

Then again, he probably still needs the superdelegate vote from Barrow, so his position, thanks to Hillary, is not that strong.

[Ken Burch]

72. For the record, as OTHER posters have mentioned, Barrow did NOT support him in the primary.

And when Obama made the ad, he already had the nom sewed up.

[Occam Bandage]

101. Sure he did, after his state voted. Pretty common practice. You don't backstab your endorsers.

[snooper2]

55. That is just HORRIBLE Ken Burch..

WOW Ken, amazing find...

I am concerned about Obama now :rofl:









not really



GOBAMA!

[Ken Burch]

69. I'm an Obama supporter who sees things as they are and challenges things that are wrong.

There's nothing ridiculous in that.

Barrow will not cast any progressive votes in Congress if reelected. The fact that he never has proves this. Southern conservatives never change for the better.

[sniffa]

58. I'm gonna go with FAIL on this one

There was this exact same thread maybe a week or so ago, and the responses are going to be the same as then.

[ecstatic]

73. LOL nt

[seasat]

63. Barrow is national co-chair of Obama's voter registration drive

Here's the link. He probably did it also because he wanted support from conservative Democrats in the election and didn't want some of them campaigning against him because of his position on the Iraq war. By throwing support behind someone like Barrow, he sends a message to them that he'll work with them if they work with him.

[scarletwoman]

74. I'm really getting tired of hearing about all the things that "bother" you about Obama.

Why don't you just give it a rest?

It's like trying to go into battle with someone who keeps insisting that the whole friggin' convoy needs to pull over so you can do one more inventory of the supplies.

I mean, we have a done deal here; Obama is the Dem candidate. We have a Repuglican to defeat. Are we going to go Forward, HO! into November or not?

sw

[Ken Burch]

78. I'm going forward. I'm not obligated to spend the next four months in silence.

And you are not the official judge of what is and isn't loyalty.

[scarletwoman]

79. Oh get a fucking grip. What's this "official judge" crap?

I just told you what I personally think of all your damn "concern" posts. I think they suck and I'm fucking sick of them.

Do whatever the hell you want. You obviously think that constantly sniping at the Dem presidential candidate is somehow a worthwhile enterprise, although I can't imagine how it helps defeat John McCain.

Just know this: if McCain wins this election, I'll blame pissants like YOU for making it possible.

sw

[Ken Burch]

84. It's not sniping. And if it should slip away, blame the Beltway types

Who said "move to the center". It'll be THEIR fault.

Progressive Dems will be working hard for the ticket regardless.

We don't harm the party by defending our principles. Our ideas generally have majority support.

You've got to let go of your defeatism. Now is the time for optimism and strength. Now is the time to be the best of ourselves.

We ain't pariahs anymore.

[onenote]

87. our ideas generally have majority support.

Want to back that one up? How about the polls (go to pollingreport.com) showing 2/3 of the public agree that the second amendment creates an individual right to bear arms, not just the right for a militia. Or that 2/3 believe the detainees at Guantanamo should not be given the right to a trial in a civilian court. Most progressives would take the opposite view on both of those issues, which is a good thing. But it doesn't mean that the progressive position has majority support.

[Ken Burch]

93. I said "generally", not universally.

On getting out of the war, health care(even single-payer), restoring the power and strength of unions, the progressive positions on those issues DO have widespread, even overwhelming support.

Yes, people are nutty on the gun thing. And 9/11 is going to skew people's views on the prisoners at Gitmo for a long time to come.

[onenote]

95. on getting out of the war, there is more support for getting out over the next year

than for getting out immediately, which is generally the position of the more progressive wing of the party. And 2/3 of those polled say that they could still vote for a presidential candidate with a different view of iraq policy than their own. (see pollingreport.com)

As for health care, a significant majority agree its a problem and should be dealt with (although the number believing holding down taxes, even if means leaving some people without health care has increased over the past five years. Moreover, when you start asking people about specific health care proposals, there is a wide range of views. (again, check pollingreport.com)

And as for labor unions, a majority of Americans continue to view unions favorably, but when asked whether they'd like for unions to have more influence, the same, or less, the division is about even. A pluarity, but less than 40 percent, think unions should have more influence. Not exactly the majority view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/12751/Labor-Unions.aspx

I wish a majority in this country held progressive views on these issues. But wishing it -- or saying it -- doesn't make it true.

[scarletwoman]

88. "We ain't pariahs anymore." Dream on. You think the Ruling Class gives a shit?

Gawd, the delusionary thinking here just kills me...

You wanna demonstrate your "power"? Fight to win the election. YOU and your PRINCIPLES are not running, Obama is.

Quit bitching about him and fight to win.

[Ken Burch]

103. I am fighting to win the election

And the ruling class can be MADE to "give a shit", or made to stop being the ruling class.

You don't beat the ruling class by doing the same things they'd do.

[JeffR]

82. Hate to butt into an argument, sw

But this is personal for me, as Barrow is my rep. This is a poor move by Obama. Very poor. He deserves whatever criticism he gets for this.

I'm a humble leftist who helped put Barrow into his seat, knowing full well how centrist he was. The Georgia 12th has been ill-served ever since, as he's redefined centrism to mean selling out. He's that bad.

[scarletwoman]

83. You can butt in anytime, you know I love you to bits.

I'm sure Barrow is every bit the total asshole as the OP states. That's NOT the point I'm arguing.

It's the sniping at our nominee that I'm totally fed up with. He's not perfect. I didn't want him in the first place. I only got behind Obama because it came down to either him or HRC -- and I was absolutely dead set against another Clinton in the White House.

I never bought into Obama as some kind of "progressive" -- to me he was always clearly a mainstream, centrist Dem. The best that could be said about him, in my book, was that he too new to have been thoroughly absorbed into the Beltway machine.

For me, the "change" that he represented was mainly the change from the DC machine to the Chicago machine. One mafia family against another. Still mafioso, but at least new blood. When you've had one corrupt faction in control for so long, it's worth gambling on something new -- just for variety's sake, if nothing else.

I'm a cynical old leftie, who thinks the whole Political System is a sham solely designed to shakedown and oppress the masses. I don't think for a moment that ANYONE who rises through the ranks of the Ruling Class is truly on MY side.

That being said, the best I hope for under the current system is some small mitigation of the People's suffering, which is more likely to happen with a Democrat than with a Repuglican. So, in the quadrennial farce that is the U.S. presidential election, I have always voted for the Dem.

I am under no illusion that the State has any interest in my welfare beyond my contribution to the GDP. And I am under no illusion that Obama is anything other than merely another agent of the Statist/capitalist status quo.

But McCain is worse. And while we still retain some semblance of democracy, I feel it is my moral duty to do all I can to forestall another Repuglican presidency.

I don't care what it takes for Obama to win this election. He's not my fucking hero, he's just a somewhat less evil agent of State power. So, as far as I'm concerned, all this pissing and moaning about his FISA vote and his support of some asshole Congressman is totally irrelevant.

It's a choice between Obama and McCain. Everything else is superfluous.

sw

[JeffR]

90. I agree to a point.

Starting from complete agreement about what you so rightly describe as the quadrennial farce of presidential elections.

I don't like the sniping, the parsing, the concern trolling, the told-ya-so posts. But I've seldom seen Ken post anything here that I take issue with, and I'm glad to see the humble and obscure Georgia 12th make a GDP thread. Hell, nobody even talks about it in the Georgia forum. But it was a fascinating nailbiter last time and, for a change, I felt like my vote made a difference - and it's been a sorry spectacle ever since.

As to Citizen Obama, my hard-earned cynicism entreats me to be wary, but there's something very special about this guy. Took me a long time to twig to it, but I really believe it. He's no leftist messiah, certainly, and doesn't pretend to be. But if we get this guy in office, there will indeed be a change from what we've all been conditioned to over the last 8 years. It's time the country actually moved into the 21st Century. I used to laugh at Clinton's constant references to that bridge to the 21st Century, but he was right. Much of the rest of the world is already there, while the GOP-controlled White House, Congress and Supreme Court have been busy for years moving America back to the 19th Century.

Having said that, Barrow is still about as useful as a third nipple and Obama's endorsement of him is tantamount to endorsing jock itch, IMHO.

[scarletwoman]

91. Well, like I said, I'm happy to take your and Ken's word for it that Barrow is useless.

My point is, so what? I'm sorry if Obama's apparent endorsement of the guy is making it harder for you to replace him. That sucks, for sure. But that's a matter for Georgia Dems to deal with.

Does bringing this up help defeat John McCain?

[JeffR]

92. It doesn't at all.

But it's unprecedented for a nominee to record a radio ad for a House seat at this juncture. And it pisses off at least a few of us. So I'm glad to see it get aired out here. It's a refreshing break from the usual angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin quacking, for me at least.

[Ken Burch]

100. I believe it does. Trying for accountability for things like this

Helps us hold down the third-party vote and the attacks from those quarters, and helps those who have felt alienated from the political scene to feel that our party is changing and will be attentive to such things.

And I don't see it really hurting us with the less-political. They expect party activists to do this, and accept it as a legitimate function.

I'm pro-Obama. You've got to trust me on this. If you trust him(at least to a point)you also have to trust those who stay with the party when no one else does.

[Ken Burch]

97. Of course it's a choice between Obama and McCain

My purpose in these threads was never to say "Obama sucks and we can't nominate him". It was "Obama got this wrong and we need to use our strength to get him to do better, because doing better would actually IMPROVE his chances of winning".

We as a party have to get out of the scenario that always comes up in the fall, wherein in the debates THEIR candidate has a clear set of issues and principles he(and it's always going to be he with them)defends, while ours acts like his own party's core values are the political equivalent of child pornography. This has to change. What we stand for isn't a disgrace and it isn't even unpopular.

I'm talking about having confidence and working with that confidence.

It's never been about "purism".

If I was a purist, I'd be demanding that Obama nationalize the banks and give workers control of the means of production.

[JeffR]

80. That's my district.

And Barrow, who won by the narrowest margin in any Congressional race last time, has been pretty much good for boo-all ever since.

Last time around, I voted for him enthusiastically. This time around, I'll vote for him only because there's an insincere (D) after his name. And I can look forward to phoning his office again during his next term to tell his staff how exquisitely disappointing his votes are.

I don't have much patience for the outrage being directed at Obama over this, that and the other these days. But I will say I was repulsed by Obama doing a radio ad for Barrow. Barrow sucks fire engines through hospital straws, he sucks so bad.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

[Hoof Hearted]

85. OMG. The first time I read your thread title I saw "Black Gallagher"

[MojoMojoMojo]

89. The last time Obama screwed over a progressive black woman she was

the incumbent.
Her name was Alice Palmer.

[Occam Bandage]

99. his wife, probably. Hot!

[Ken Burch]

104. Bad Occam! Bad Occam! Go to your room

:spank:

(unless you ENJOY spanking, of course...)

[Occam Bandage]

98. Because Democratic incumbents usually support Democratic incumbents in elections.

The last thing Obama needs is to start a purity civil war during his election year. :shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

109. No, he doesn't need to start any purity civil wars....

We're doing a bloody good job of it for him....

[barack the house]

102. Whatever Obama is doing it's working more Republicans are praising him...

The ones I have heard were formerly callig him muslim and everything now they are saying give him a chance, and how bad can it be.

[redstate_democrat]

106. Thomas will win the primary.

What happens after that?

[CreekDog]

107. the primary challenger is more rightwing than Barrow

still got a problem? sounds like Obama has this one right.

[scarletwoman]

108. You did this same post two weeks ago. Your concern is getting really old. (nt)

[KAZ]

110. You need some sun, or something. I'd say shove your "worry"..

.. where the sun don't shine... but being in AK, you get the point. Or maybe you don't.