Znarfk,
From the title of your post, I infer you to mean, “Obama, not Hillary, created division in the democratic party and Randy Rhodes is unfairly placing the responsibility on Hillary to bring unity to the democratic party. We are in disagreement, I believe that Hillary and her campaign team caused most of the division existing in the democratic party and she is the only one who can bring unity to the party. I have responded by breaking your paragraph into parts and next, respond and provide my sources.
1) You wrote, “FOR YEARS HILLARY HAS HAD BEEN THE UNITY CANDIDATE.” We are in agreement, Hillary has reached acrossed the isle. In fact a USA Today poll, found that Hillary received a 7.25 out of ten on the common ground index. Obama received 8.25 out of ten on the common ground index.[1]
2) You wrote, “OBAMA PEOPLE SAY LIKE SHE WAS ENTITLED…” We are in agreement, some Obama supporters have stated that Hillary acts as if she is entitled. On May 30, 2008, Catholic pastor Michael Pfleger called Clinton entitled and mocked her.[2] Pastor Pfleger is a SUPPORTER of Obama, not a volunteer, campaign member, or Obama. On March 29, 2008, an article descrived Hillary entitled comes from BRob, who uses a college dormitory analogy to describe Clinton’s position of entitlement.[3] If you are going to hold Obama responsible for what all his supporters say, then it is fair to hold Hillary to the same standard.
On April 13, 2008, Hillary said Barack Obama's comments about working-class Americans being 'bitter' showed him to be ‘elitist.’ Over the next two weeks, Hillary, her campaign organization, and her supports made the same argument. In other words, over a month before an Obama supporter (Michael Pfleger) preached an offensive and mocking “satire.” In other words, Hillary, her campaign staff, and her supporters became “divisive” a month before an Obama supporter became offensive.[4]
Who was more divisive, Hillary because of her comments or Obama because of his supporters comments? I believe Hillary comments hold her more responsible than Obama for his supporters’ comments.
3) You wrote, “…SHE WAS THE FIRST CORENATED DEMOCRAT IN MY LIFETIME.” I am unclear what you mean (because . I shall assume you mean that Hillary Clinton led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted between November 2006 and October 2007. For most of this time, Clinton has led Obama by a double-digit margin. In November, some polls showed Obama in the lead for the Democratic candidate.[5] We are in agreement. If you mean Hillary Clinton was the first women to run for the presidency, this is untrue. In fact, in 2004, Moseley Braun ran for the presidency.
However, permit me to point out that the mass media began talking about Hillary’s coronation in October.[6] Indeed, by February, 2008, the mass medica realize the “pre-coronated Clinton” title no longer matched the people’s will.[7] By the end of April, 2008. some reporters began saying, “It Is Not A Coronation,” to Hillary.[8]
4) You wrote, “SHE [Hillary Clinton] HAD 90 PLUS% OF BLACKS, UNION PEOPLE, WHITE LIBERALS, HISPANICS, OR PRETTY MUCH ALL OF US UNDIVIDED. ALONG COMES OBAMA. TO WIN, HE MUST CARVE OUT CONSITUENCIES.”
We are in disagreement. During 2007 and 2008, not one poll showed Hillary with a 90% support of “Blacks, Union People, White Liberals, Hispanics, or pretty much all ofus undivided.” Clinton’s largest lead (62% to 34%) among African Americans occurred in October, 2007. In other words, African-Americans were not racist toward Hillary in Octover, 2007.[9]
Please provide a poll as evidence that Hillary has had a “90% PLUS” lead against Obama with any of the groups you mentnioned during the Democratic primary race.
5) You wrote, “BLACKS, WHO FORMERLY WENT FOR CLINTONS FOR 16 YEARS TURNED ON A DIME, 90% FOR TO 90% AGAINST OVERNIGHT. RANDI WOULD SAY DON'T LOOK TO RACE FOR THE ANSWER. THAT IS RACISM IF I DARE! WELL, STILL TRYING TO CONVINCE MYSELF A WHITE FRESHMAN SENATOR COULD DIVEST THE CLINTONS OF 95% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN A FEW MONTHS TIME AND I JUST CAN'T.”
You raise a good question, how did Obama transform from the “not Black enough” to the candidate with “90%” of the African American vote. First of all, Obama received 90% of the African-American vote in Mississippi and North Carolina, not in all states. Second, Mississippi did vote for former President Bill Clinton at 90% against Republican candidates in 1992 and 1996. Obama did not participate in those races and to use statistics from the 1990s where he did not participate invalidates any comparison with Hillary.
Thomas F. Schaller’s explanation of “Why Obama won over the African American vote” correlates with the polling data.
“In quick succession, three things happened in the month and a half between Thanksgiving and the New Hampshire primary. First, Oprah's unprecedented mid-December endorsement of Obama sent a clear signal to her mixed-race female-dominated audience that they should feel as comfortable having Obama on their living room television screens for the nightly newscast as they do having her there during late-afternoon coffee talk. Next, in January, white Iowans sent a safe-harbor signal to black Americans wary about the Democratic Party nominating a black candidate that it was OK to get behind Obama. Hillary Clinton had no control over either of those developments, of course. And a top Obama advisor confirmed to me that the campaign was already tracking movement by black voters toward Obama by Thanksgiving.
But Clinton did have (or should have had) control over the third factor: the behavior of her campaign and of Bill Clinton from that point forward. Yet, through a series of intended or unintended developments -- from Bill's "fairy tale" and "false premise" comments concerning Obama's stance on the Iraq war, to hints of black-brown animosities between African-American and Hispanic Democrats, to Hillary's incessant "not qualified to lead" insinuations about Obama -- the Clinton campaign signaled that if they were going to lose the black vote, they might as well turn it into an advantage with other elements in the Democratic coalition, notably white working-class voters.”[10]
6) You wrote, “BUT WE HILLARY SUPPORTERS, ACCORDING TO RANDI WILL BE TO BLAME IF WE DO NOT REUNITE. WE WHO FOR 8 YEARS STEADFASTLY SUPPORTED THE UNIFYING CORENATED CANDIDATE TO MINIMIZE DISUNITY. WE WHO NEVER WAVERED FROM THAT. WE WHO DID IT FOR 8 YEARS ONLY TO HAVE IT FALL APART IN 8 MONTHS. STILL NEVER WAVERING, BECAUSE WINNING WAS FIRST, AND UNITY WAS KEY, NOW WE HAVE A PARTY NOT UNIFIED. AND RANDI SAYS WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT AND TO FIX IT. I FIND THAT HARD TO LISTEN TO.”
Could you please expand on the idea that “We who for 8 years [have] steadfastly supported the unifying coronated candidate to minimize disunity.” I am confused, because we all accept that the people’s vote should decide a presidencial candidate and not the mass media. The people have “coronated” Barack Obama as the democratic nominee to the U.S. Presidency. Only the press has pre-coronated Hillary Clinton as the “inevitable” democratic nominee.
The reason why Hillary and her supports will be blamed, if the Democrats do not reunite, is because Hillary and her campaign use a 5-point “kitchen sink” attack on Obama, after Super Tuesday.[11] The 5-point “kitchen “sink” strategy worked well by the time of the Texas and Ohio primaries.[12] However, the tactic drove African-Americans and other groups away from Hillary. The 5-point “kitchen sink” strategy had many dynamics similar to Swift Boat strategy. Hillary Clinton’s 5-point “kitchen sink” strategy divided the Democratic Party and for that reason she is responsible in reuniting the party. If not, she will be held responsible for a third term of Republican in the White House.
7) In conclusion, for several months Hillary led opinion polls among Democratic candidates by substantial margins, until Obama pulled close to or even with her. Hillary then regained her lead, winning many polls by double digits; by autumn 2007 she was leading all other Democratic candidates by wide margins in national polls. She placed third in the Iowa caucus to Barack Obama and John Edwards, and trailed considerably in polls shortly thereafter in New Hampshire, before staging a sudden and dramatic comeback and finishing first in the New Hampshire primary.
She went on to narrowly win in Nevada, but lost by a heavy margin in South Carolina. On Super Tuesday, Clinton won delegate-rich states such as California and New York, while Obama won more states; the two gained a nearly equal number of delegates and a nearly equal share of the total popular vote. Clinton then lost the next eleven caucuses and primaries to Obama, and lost the overall delegate lead to him for the first time. On March 4, his consecutive wins increased to twelve when Vermont was called in his favor but after an increasingly aggressive round of campaigning, Clinton broke the string of losses with wins in the Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas primaries.
She went on to narrowly win in Nevada, but lost by a heavy margin in South Carolina. On Super Tuesday, Clinton won delegate-rich states such as California and New York, while Obama won more states; the two gained a nearly equal number of delegates and a nearly equal share of the total popular vote. Clinton then lost the next eleven caucuses and primaries to Obama, and lost the overall delegate lead to him for the first time (the 5-point “kitchen sink” strategy back-fired at the beginning). On March 4, his consecutive wins increased to twelve when Vermont was called in his favor but after an increasingly aggressive round of campaigning (increasing the number and diversity of attacks), Clinton broke the string of losses with wins in the Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas primaries.
Clinton subsequently lost in Wyoming, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon, and won in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota. On the final day of primaries on June 3, 2008, Obama was estimated to have gained enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee, she then subsequently suspended her campaign on June 7, 2008 and endorsed Barack Obama.
In the end, Hillary whipped up her supporters to believe that the attacks on Hillary came from Obama, his campaign, or his supporters. While I agree that the mass media produced way too many sexist commentaries, Obama cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Hillary’s 5-point “kitchen sink” strategy resembles the right-wing’s strategy. Hillary is responsible for correcting her own and her campaign’s false statements about Obama. Moreover, Hillary increased her supporters’ disappointment by putting forth false expectations about her campaign. By the end, Hillary even tried to change the rules of the Democratic Party.
Respectfully,
Daniel
Afterthought: What I have written does not deny that the mass media used very sexist language and perspectives when reporting on Hillary. However, Obama cannot control what the mass media produces.
SOURCES
[1] blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/who_would_reach.html
[2]
http://www.drudge.com/news/108343/pastor-s...n-obamas-church [3] tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillary-clinton-entitled-colle.php
[4] www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-13-clinton-reax_N.htm
[5] www.gallup.com/poll/102277/Gallup-Election-Review-October-2007.aspx
[6] www.nypost.com/seven/10032007/news/nationalnews/clinton_nearly_ready_for_her_c.htm
[7] www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-cooper/clinton-obama-and-the-nar_b_87644.html
[8] www.huffingtonpost.com/_95293.html
[9]
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...cover02.art.htm[10]
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/...vote/print.html[11]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/26/c...es_n_88478.html[12]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle3499112.ece
Nothing like trying to sow discord. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Banging on about how much you hate the Democratic Nominee, doesn't get the cows milked. How about contributing something constructive, like what are we going to stop Bush from bomb, bomb, bombing Iran?
Ha. Ha.