Obama Camp Raising Specter of 1968

(The original post attributed these remarks to David Axelrod. That's wrong.)

There's a new talking point this week from Team Obama about the unpalatable prospects of a brokered convention: 2008 will be just like 1968, but worse.

The link above takes you to a remark from the lips of Obama ally Doug Wilder:

Bob, I think it would be a mistake because you pointed out the first convention you went to was 1968. You know what a mess that was. If the majority of the American people who are participating in these processes, either through caucuses or through primaries, have a majority of those votes going for either of the candidates, and if the super delegates intervene and get in the way of it and say, oh, no, we're going to determine what's best, there will be chaos at the convention. It does nothing to help the Democrats. And if you think 1968 was bad, you watch; in 2008, it will be worse.”

Talk about pine tar on the bat. When most Americans and Democrats think about the '68 convention, the specifics of the deal to nominate the establishment candidate, Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey, aren't what comes to mind. . Instead, the mind's eye pictures images of Chicago police officers hitting delegates with baseball bats, of Dan Rather getting punched in the face, of violence, social decay and a political party that could not escape the influence of (or the protests of) radicals.

Historians of political culture point to the convention as a breaking point. It's when the fissures that would almost destroy the party in the 70s were first exposed.

Remember the context: before the convention, MLK had been assassinated. Ditto, RFK. The energy in the party came from identity politics activists and from college students who had organized for Eugene McCarthy.

Is 2008 really like 1968? Elect Obama (McCarthy) or watch the riots in the streets?

Certainly, if the "establishment," whatever it is, somehow contrives to nominate Hillary Clinton over Obama, there will be protests. But there will probably not be any blood. Or violence.

And given the silence of the superdelegates so far, a scenario whereby Obama's having recieved the majority of both earned delegates and the popular vote results in an annointment of Hillary Clinton is a big stretch.

Comments

Hey Ambinder,

I'm pretty sure that was Former Va. Gov. Doug Wilder...check your sources.

Posted by Eugene | February 19, 2008 1:35 PM

Marc, I look forward to you editing this post to reflect who really said this, notorious loose cannon Doug Wilder and NOT Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod. That's a pretty substantial error.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Wilders_warning.html

Posted by Patrick | February 19, 2008 1:38 PM

But there will probably not be any blood. Or violence.

Incidentally, "There Will Probably Not Be Any Blood. Or Violence." was Paul Anderson's original title for his Oscar-nominated film. Personally, I think it's pretty catchy.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Marc,

Are you really silly enough to think there won't be widespread protests (inevitably ending in some violence) if the nomination is stolen from Obama? It would fracture the Democratic party for a generation.

And you're equally silly if you don't think the Clintons have the stones to try it.

Posted by Ryan | February 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Good Lord has this blog ever gone downhill: Egregious, unbelievable errors of substantive fact, rehashed spin masquerading as analysis, and errors of omission that in their frequency and scale amount to a clear, obvious slant. An embarrassment.

Posted by Some dude | February 19, 2008 1:53 PM

Good Lord has this blog ever gone downhill: Egregious, unbelievable errors of substantive fact, rehashed spin masquerading as analysis, and errors of omission that in their frequency and scale amount to a clear, obvious slant. An embarrassment.

Hope you didn't already vote for the blog in the Golden Dot award -- early voting is funny that way. ;)

Speaking of, I thought it was hilarious that Marc was "off the grid" last week -- but not so off the grid to shill for votes a half-dozen times. Priorities, eh?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 1:58 PM

This blog is just eroding in standard every day. That statement was not by Axelrod but by Doug Wilder.
Give it Clinton and the GOP will sing home for the next 16 yrs.
! Stupid imbeciles.
! Non-existing ENTITIEs

Posted by Take it easy on the dope | February 19, 2008 1:59 PM

It was Douglas Wilder, not David Axelrod or anyone officially associated with the campaign, who said this. Get your facts right, please.

And I'll fly to Denver if the nomination is stolen. But seriously, let's sort this out in the long period we have after March 4. Obama wins WI/OH/TX, this is a moot point.

Posted by John M. | February 19, 2008 1:59 PM

Marc, seems to me like this would be one of those times where it's helpful to occasionally peruse your comments. There have been four or five helpful corrections now -- no need to keep this embarassing error in place any longer.

Speaking of, when are you going to post the selected comments from your "Off the Grid" Reader's Open?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 2:05 PM

I won't go as far to say that folks will be rioting in the streets, but I can assure you that if the nomination is stolen from Obama, Black folks are going to be PISSED! They most certainly WILL take to the streets in peaceful protests and will absolutely stay at home in November. It will be like 1960 when the face of the Democratic Party went from Bull Conner to MLK. This time it will be the reverse.

Posted by Marc, | February 19, 2008 2:13 PM

I'm not sure how wise it is for the Obama camp to be bringing up 1968. Do they really want to invite the comparison between Barack Obama and Gene McCarthy? Humphrey, the "Happy Warrior", was able to close an over 20 point gap with Nixon to 1% by election day. McCarthy, the darling of the anti-war Left, would have been a disaster. I'm not saying Obama will be a disaster, but the past few days have certainly shown cause to be weary of his judgment and that of his wife Michelle.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 2:15 PM

The big slip by Wilder was the "most votes should win" line -- Hillary Clinton has a better chance at winning the popular vote than the regular delate count, especially if Florida and Michigan get a do-over.

Posted by Lymon | February 19, 2008 2:22 PM

Tim K, did you read the comments above before commenting? The Obama campaign did NOT make this claim. Doug Wilder did. Wow, that's a significant error in reporting.

As for being wary of his judgement, Clinton has effectively accused him of plagiarizing his own speech writers. Patrick gave explicit consent and encouragement to use the line, and is a national campaign co-chair. The dubious judgement, I think, was Clinton's, as such a spurious accusation betrays her desperation.

You have a better point about Michelle's goof (not a very politic comment), but frankly, I know how she feels. I've found our nation's conduct pretty embarrassing in recent decades, and I'm more proud of our electorate in the moment than I've been in a very long time.

Posted by David in NC | February 19, 2008 2:23 PM

WOW, you are spinning these comments so hard it's not even amusing.

Posted by yiannis | February 19, 2008 2:29 PM

A "stolen" nomination for Hillary will probably not result in riots in the streets. But it will, however, virtually guarantee that John McCain will be in the White House come January 2009.

Posted by SDinIA | February 19, 2008 2:33 PM

Tying this quote to the Obama campaign is a gross error and makes them seem unjustly antagonistic.
Marc, you better post an apology sometime soon.

Posted by Scott | February 19, 2008 2:34 PM

David from North Carolina:

First off, I never said the Obama campaign made the comparison. I just said they should be careful about inviting any such comparison. There's a difference. They should keep a tighter leash on their surrogates, perhaps.

Secondly, I don't think Obama plagiarized, but failing to cite the words was a dumb mistake. It demonstrates his lack of seasoning. The truth is probably that both Obama's and Patrick's words were in fact David Axlerod's. Considering Obama is running on the strength of his inspirational rhetoric rather than any substantial record of accomplishment or experience, maybe we should be nominating Axlerod. It would save the campaign one staffer's salary at the very least.

Finally, this is not the first time Michelle has "goofed" as you put it. What about her remark about "running your own house" or "having to think about" campaigning for Hillary were she to be nominated?

Obama's waffle on campaign financing is yet another example of a foolish error. Do we really need to be inviting the "flip flop" argument yet again with the next Democratic nominee?

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 2:36 PM

Has anyone considered the possibility that Obama could run as an independent if he doesn't win? He just might be able to pull it off. His financing has been grass roots. I bet he would take most of his supporters with him, and a lot of more Republicans would back him if he didn't have to wear Democratic colors. It even gels nicely with his message of delivering a new kind of politics. It almost makes more sense that running as a Democrat.

Posted by Mokey | February 19, 2008 2:38 PM

The lights are on but no one is at home... Marc, this is not good! Errors of this magnitude are unacceptable - like something you'd expect from a first grader. Did you do any research or perhaps you just jumped at any shred of Obama bashing you could find? If you are going to bash the man find something of substance. You are worse than the HRC campaign. What's next, Obama wears Haynes underwear when he said he likes Fruit of The Loom. Enough of this kindergarten stuff. YOU NEED to take this entire post down. Since the content of the post is wrong, the title is wrong also!!!!

Posted by CZLONG | February 19, 2008 2:38 PM

I hadn't read about this quote prior to reading this item so I'm glad the commentators corrected the attribution of the quote. Odd that the author of the blog hasn't corrected it yet.

Anyway, my beef is with his history. Of course the riots in Chicago were the direct result of the party nominating a pro-war candidate in the face of a growing opposition to the war. The entire issue in the 68 primaries was the war; that was the basis of McCarthy's challenge to Johnson and what forced Johnson out (he pulled out of the race at the same time he announced a cessation of bombing in Cambodia); thats what drove RFK's charge (though like Edwards, his vision of change was must farther reaching than just ending the war); and thats what led progressives to choose to camp out and protest at the Democratic convention.

Sure it wasn't specifically a fight over delegates but its ridiculous to claim that it was not a fight over whether or not the Democratic party would respond to the views of a significant number of its voters.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 2:43 PM

If the Clinton Machine finds a way to drink Barack Obama's milkshake, you'd better believe there will be blood.

Posted by V. | February 19, 2008 2:46 PM

More likely to lead to riots in the streets-- Obama is shot the day after winning the PA primary in a landslide, and despite having had the clear lead in delegates, sufficient numbers of his followers turn to Hillary that John Edwards (to whom most of his supporters had turned) is denied the nomination on the floor.

Posted by David | February 19, 2008 2:46 PM

*** Here's Obama cheif strategist David Axelrod on "Face the Nation:" *** This post took a dive from this point forward. Marc, all you had to do was look at the interview. David Axelrod looks nothing like Dough Wilder. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Wilders_warning.html

Posted by CZLONG | February 19, 2008 2:52 PM

Why is a column with rank distortions permitted to be published? Will the lies be retracted and an apology provided? Slamming the Obama campaign is acceptable, even if the slams are based on untruths.

Posted by shirlin | February 19, 2008 3:03 PM

shirlin:

Maybe the Ministry of Truth should intervene.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 3:11 PM

As 1968 was my first campaign, I have strong recollections of the mood before, during and after thar Convention. I'd argue that Obama is actually more like a combination of RFK and McCarthy. Depending on how this plays out, there's definitely the possibility of an acrimonious fissure in Denver that could lead to a walkout (1948 in reverse?) and/or a Republican victory in November (1968 redux).

Posted by David Bender | February 19, 2008 3:13 PM

David Bender:

1948 in reverse? Could you explain that for me?

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 3:16 PM

damn dude. i was just telling my friends that i had found a "fair and balanced" political blog and that they should check it out. boy was i wrong. what a sham(e).

Posted by dj | February 19, 2008 3:16 PM

Ambinder, you really ought to double check your sources before posting. This is unacceptably sloppy work for a professional blogger.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 19, 2008 3:23 PM

COMMENTERS: FIGURE IT OUT

Armbinder is an expert, and knows better than us plebes. He doesn't read/care about the comments on this site. He'll make a token effort a few times a year so he can pretend to be Web 2.0, but really this blog is a place for him to make pronouncements from on high, not to socialize and debate with the common internet luser.

Posted by Jordan Weber-Flink | February 19, 2008 3:30 PM

He must be aware of his error at this point... the fact that he's done nothing about it is more damning the the error itself!

Posted by Scott | February 19, 2008 3:34 PM

This is why I voted against Ambers for best political blog. THE BEST POLITICAL BLOG DOES NOT MAKE JOURNALISM 101 GRADE MISTAKES EVERY OTHER POST.

This is clearly the worst of the Atlantic blogs. Even McArdle's blog doesn't make this kind of mistake.

Posted by K | February 19, 2008 3:40 PM

I didn't know that David Axelrod was African American and a mayor!

Posted by I learned a few things.... | February 19, 2008 3:51 PM

Wow, this article needs to be edited immediately. Marc, that's no small error on your part. Like everyone else said, it was Doug Wilder who talked about 1968, NOT David Axelrod.

Posted by Ryan | February 19, 2008 3:55 PM

"There will be blood"

The Clintons can't afford to go down without a fight. That's what the libbies don't understand. All the graft, the money taps, and even Hillary's chances of becoming Senate Majority Leader hinge on putting up a good fight in Denver.

Obama Delegates need to prepare to have a good, meaty fist in face, courtesy of the Bubster. And now, I hear they're going after the pledged delegates. You've got to love the Clintons. They fight!

Someone had to stand up to this dadgum Obambi Whambo Mambo Cultural Revolution Cargo Cult. Nice to see Vampirella and Bubba actually take this to the mat. Somewhere, the Ghost of the Undead Richard M. Nixon is very, very proud.

By God, I can see it now. Hillary and Bill roll into Denver with bags of money, Teamsters, and Chinese People's Liberation Army goons, and of course, women. Obama won't know what hit him. Neither will his delegates.

Karl Rove, to the white courtesy telephone....

Posted by section9 | February 19, 2008 4:16 PM

Re: 1948, this from Wikipedia: "When Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey addressed the convention, he urged the Democratic Party to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights," prompting a walkout by Southern delegates who later nominated Strom Thurmond as the presidential nominee of the States' Rights Party, or "Dixiecrats".

Posted by David Bender | February 19, 2008 4:21 PM

Also, cut Marc some slack. His central point is still valid: there is rising concern among Obama supporters that a brokered convention which nominates HRC could lead to a public outcry (or more)in Denver. And BTW, he links to the Daily News article which cites Wilder, not Axelrod on FTN.

Posted by David Bender | February 19, 2008 4:30 PM

David Bender:

I know what happened in 1948. I was just trying to see whether you were making an offensive comparison between Hillary Clinton supporters and segregationists.

Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 4:32 PM

Apart from the factual inaccuracy, the underlying point is mistaken, imo. I will personally be in the streets peacefully protesting and very pissed off if the popular vote is overturned. I would think that there will be many people much more pissed off than me. I would also think that, unfortunately, we could see significant rioting and violence. A superdelegate-enabled win by HRC would have all the hallmarks of a undemocratic process. It would remind many of historical examples of disenfranchisement. And it would suggest that the system is rigged against the black candidate. It will be ugly.

Posted by John D. | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM

Why hasn't Ambers made the correction yet?

The substantive point that needs to be addressed is this: the overwhelming goal of rank-and-file Democrats is not to elect Obama or Clinton per se, but to elect a Democrat for president. Given this, voters would most likely favor the most electable candidate *taking the route that causes the least amount of damage* to the Party's chances of winning the White House.

Right now, both of these points heavily favor Obama. If it becomes clear that the only way Clinton can win is through some kind of superdelegate/FL-MI machination at the convention, you will see that the Party Elders, the voters, and liberal pundits all placing heavy pressure on the Clintons to concede.

If the Clintons win the nomination through the backdoor, it's a near-certainty they will lose the general election and become totally maligned by party loyalists. The Clintons understand this, I'm sure, and care too much about their legacy to kamikaze the party.

This talk of superdelegate coups is simply a way to keep the money flowing to the campaign. Otherwise, the media would be focused exclusively on a "Hillary in trouble" narrative, which won't help fundraising.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 19, 2008 4:56 PM

Why has this not been corrected? This post, in my mind, has gone from a bad, but excusable error . . . to absolutely inexcusable and bordering on bad faith.

Posted by Patrick | February 19, 2008 4:58 PM

HELLO????????????? IS THIS DUDE BLIND OR DEAF????? IT WAS DOUG WILDER, NOT DAVE AXELROD! YOU POISONOUS VERMINE

Posted by JC | February 19, 2008 5:08 PM

Lord,
about half the comments on this post are incredibly nasty, considering all the guy did was switch one Obama surrogate for another!
To be clear, I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't see how anything in this post could be considered 'spin' against the Obama camp - Doug Wilder did in fact say that 2008 would be worse than 1968, which seems awfully unlikely given Marc's points that: a) this highly competitive campaign isn't nearly as socially divisive as the'68 campaign, and b) it's just not very likely that the Super Delegates will go against the will of the voters - there's no sign they will, in fact.

Posted by Jesse | February 19, 2008 5:09 PM

I'm not a hughe fan of the 1968 talking point, at least without more nuance. But didn't Wilder explicitly say he was not predicting bloodshed? Or was that Durbin on MTP? I am pretty sure that one of the Obama surrogates made that point clear.

Posted by Chunche | February 19, 2008 5:09 PM

Lord,
about half the comments on this post are incredibly nasty, considering all the guy did was switch one Obama surrogate for Obama's chief adviser and campaign manager, in the blog title and blog post, two posts after regurgitating Clinton spin verbatim from her campaign's latest "conference call"

Fixed

Posted by TIGHT | February 19, 2008 5:21 PM

I remember 1968 even though I couldn't vote and I remember the riots, I remember Eugene McCarthy, the antiwar movement (my then husband and I wore black armbands - he was an antiwar Marine injured in Viet Nam), I remember it all. And I gotta say that the riots of 1968 were tame compared to whatI read on most of the blogs which are just too crazy, too hateful, too over the top to even be seriously considered.

If America elects Obama, so be it. They deserve what they get. I know I'll get blasted but I'm going for McCain. The Republicans look more sane every day. And no I don't believe in torture and quite frankly I don't give a damn any more about Roe v. Wade (and I spent quite a few years in the 1980s as a clinic escort so I know all about the battles on that front)

The Democratic Party has never been able to get its shit together and they never will. Howard Dean and his "punishment" of Florida and Michigan was just so damned stupid. Let's see if you were a Democrat in either state, just why would you vote for a party that said the hell with you and your worthless vote?

And can anyone please tell me why Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were not punished for moving up their primaries.

And what happens when Hillary Clinton drops out and then Howard Dean and Donna Brazille at the urging of Rahm Emanuel and Dick Durbin seat the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention. Don't think there won't be a little disturbance over that?

The whole Democratic Party has devolved into an insane cesspool of hate. I though Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly had the corner on that market but I've found out that the so called left. liberals and progresives are just as bad.

Posted by Sue | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM

IF Obama has:
1. The lead in PLEDGED delegates
2. More votes

And the SuperDelegates give the nomination to Hillary, the Democratic Party is done. D-O-N-E.

You can try and gloss over it anyway you want to, but it'll be DONE.

And Marc, please explain how you can mix up a BLACK Douglass Wilder and a WHITE David Axelrod.

Posted by rikyrah | February 19, 2008 6:15 PM

can anyone please tell me why Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were not punished for moving up their primaries.

Because if you read the DNC delegate selection rules, those states, plus Nevada, are the only ones authorized to hold primaries prior to Feb 5. An entire year's worth of a commission, co-chaired by Harold Ickes, looked into how to change the early states and came up the calendar.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM

So, Marc any chance of you correcting this post?

This is a pretty fundamental factual error and it's been sitting here uncorrected for 6 hours even though numerous commentators have mentioned it.

Posted by Andrew | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM

Six hours since the original post, numerous comments (and presumably e-mails) about the mistake and still no correction. You've been posting...what's the hold up?

Posted by natthedem | February 19, 2008 7:46 PM

Reading Timothy Egan's book about the dustbowl, A Worst Hard Time, I came across the incredible that that FDR won on the third ballot in a contested convention!
have a little faith: good can come from a long and difficult process. I'd feel more comfortable if my candidate won going away and many of you would feel comfortable if your candidate won easy now but good might come of all this.
Selecting a nominee is party politics, not democracy. It resembles democracy at times but it really is party paticipatory politics. Expecting the party selecting its candidate to be entirely democratic and open is not really a sane expectation.

Posted by Michael C. | February 19, 2008 7:59 PM

Make no mistake...if superdelegates decide to go against the will of the people, the Democratic party can call it a day. While the conflict may not rise to the level of punches being thrown and police standoffs, I can certainly envision massive protests and voter unrest that could threaten the very legitimacy of this year's elections. Remember, we've already been through the questionable 2000 and 2004 results. At this point, most people--even us calm, law abiding types--have had our fill of being disenfranchised. So please don't be surprised if this turn into the equivalent of citizenry standing up to scream, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"

Posted by KC | February 19, 2008 8:18 PM

OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT -CNN — Striking similarities between Barack Obama's words and those of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick during his 2006 election campaign have raised eyebrows and attracted traffic on YouTube. The stump speech Barack Obama has been giving aimed at convincing voters that his campaign is not just about lofty rhetoric — is from Patrick, Obama's campaign acknowledged over the weekend.
Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed!
Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Posted by OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT | February 20, 2008 7:11 AM

Obama is winning because No one supporting him cares about his awful senate record or where he stands on any issue and that FACT he has no original thoughts or solutions for our very troubled country. WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AMERICA, voting for a man based soley on his skin color. You better hope there are enough blacks to do the job, Obama has shown he is a TALKER, not a worker! RESEARCH PLEASE! OBAMA SIDED WITH BUSH EVERYTIME! YOUR GETTING A REPUBLICAN CLAIMING TO BE DEMOCRAT.

***OBAMA IS THE ANTI CHRIST***

Obama NEEDS to answer questions about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. In addition, Obamas TRUE, record that he and the media want to hide shows he supports the war!!!!voted twice against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Chaney and Halliburton/Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come. Record shows Obama when faced with tough choices ALWAYS gave in to pressure from the Bush administration and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates way over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, human food or just plain rip you off. ( See why China likes Obama) Obama also the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

Posted by ***OBAMA IS THE ANTI CHRIST*** | February 20, 2008 7:14 AM

William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, is Obama's Willie Horton."
Former counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson, Huffington Post, Feb. 16, 2008.
There has been sudden information linking Obama to a former member of the radical Weathermen Underground group that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, told the New York Times. I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough. Obama and Ayers were members of the board of Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed to Obama's election to the Senate. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles. Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicts Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and raises questions about Obama's judgment.

2). Obama's Relationship with Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's wife And others per ABC News. Obama Campaign still hasn't returned more than $200,000. Obama referred to in document outlines case against Rezko Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations. For the third time in less than a year, Obama's camp announced it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Rezko.

3)Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists.

4) Senate Record shows when Obama is faced with tough choices he always gave in to pressure from the Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, human food or just plain rip you off. Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations. HE IS NOT FOR THE WORKING MAN OR WOMAN!

5) Obama voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents call Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless and accused him of supporting infanticide.

Posted by blk | February 20, 2008 7:15 AM

if b.hussein obama wins the nomination the republican win the white house...simple enough for ya...to inexperience in a time of war, the president of the u.s. hugging and shaking hands with the prez of iran, out of iraq, then a massacre and a foothold of alqaida in iraq..come on people, blow hards and hot air wont fix these problems...get out of iraq and you loose another war....there goes ur empire and say hello to all those enemies come a knokin at your door for revenge...

Posted by canada | February 20, 2008 8:12 AM

C'mon Marc really? Still?

Correct the piece.

Posted by natthedem | February 20, 2008 10:00 AM

if the riots are confined to the ghettos not much comcern,should it spread or polling places are mobbed it will be up to the feds or armed citizens to keep order,,govt by riot,rather like its done in africa

Posted by kaffirsmasher | February 20, 2008 1:05 PM

if the riots are confined to the ghettos not much comcern,should it spread or polling places are mobbed it will be up to the feds or armed citizens to keep order,,govt by riot,rather like its done in africa

Posted by kaffirsmasher | February 20, 2008 1:05 PM

Keep your shirts on. We'll put the kabosh to Obamas lil engine at the convention and prevail in 09.

Posted by kendall | February 20, 2008 7:59 PM

What if the convention selects somebody neither Hellery nor Hussein?

Posted by Ron | April 28, 2008 7:59 PM