Jun

5

Political Activism Alive and Well During Summer Months

Written by

Bwog noticed the following masterpiece chalked into the sidewalk in front of the Citibank on Broadway. (It reminds us of the chilling day that Ron Paul supporters had somehow obtained and mastered chalk.) To ward off any devastating criticism of a possible political bias, the artist has assured us in a note written next to HRC’s cheek, “McCain and Obama to follow.” Check back later in the week for photographs of said Portraits of Straight Talk and Change/Hope, respectively.

(Hello, Politico!) 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

28 Comments

  1. some dude  

    i forget his name but this guy is a famous street artist. he did another piece i think on broadway around 113th st last fall (it was jesus from michelangelo's sistine chapel mural - it's faded but still there). btw, i know it's him because i used to watch him do the michelangelo and i saw him doing the hillary.

    • Wow

      Oblivious train, passenger of one. Everyone at CU knows this guy. His 'name' is Hani, at least that's what he signs to all of his pieces, and if you want a true assortment of his work go down to West 8th St. He has dozens of mini pieces depicting store logos from along the street, and at the end (maybe on the corner of 8th and 5th Avenue, or 8th and University?) is another piece of artwork that I haven't been able to recognize. It's big, though, and impressive.

  2. How

    How is that political activism?

  3. the link...

    bwog, the link to the ron paul chalk artists doesn't work...

  4. what is barack's  

    favorite candy bar?

    He doesn't have one!

  5. why

    no tag for HRC? She is the subject of the post, no?

  6. HRCFan  

    Come on, of course not, we all know bwog is not but an Obama cheerleader. And why do we think it's sarcasm?

    /yes, I'm still bitter.
    //No, I will not support him.

    • hypocrisy

      bullshit. all these so-called "faithful Democrats" who are willing to vote for McCain just because they want to "make a statement" aka be fucking crybabies make me so mad. so in protest of your Democratic values, you're going to vote for a Republican with whom you don't agree on a single issue? yeah, okay. shut up.

  7. democrat

    she didn't actually "win the popular vote" anyway

  8. HRCFan  

    No, because I don't find McCain any better. I'm a faithful democrat but I find it disturbing that a candidate can win right at half the popular vote of the party and the idea of giving the nominee with half the votes the VP position is thrown by the wayside.

    By the way, you embody the Obama supporters in this election. "Shut Up." That's what you want half the Democrats to do, but we won't, and you will be sorry in the general election. But if you would like to play ad hominem then kindly remove your head from your sphincter and note that nowhere in my post I said I was going to vote McCain.

    You can't expect us to be labeled everything from racist to ignorant during this campaign and then to throw our support in with the same group who reviles us.

    If anything, this election has been the best argument in recent memory for a multi-party system in the United States.

    • PoliSciMon Says....  

      A first-past-the-post winner-take-all system leads to two parties both of which attempt to make their appeal as broad as possible.

      Why would it be to Obama's advantage to include Clinton on the ticket, when she has attempted to torpedo his chances of winning the general ever since the eventual outcome of the primary became clear in February? Her appeal to "white, hard-working" voters (as opposed to all those non-white slobs who form Obama's base)? Her unique baggage (a former President looming in the shadows of the White House)? Her fundraising ability (except that Obama outraised her)? Hillary's talents (she is an excellent political operator) are much more useful to the Party in the Senate than in the White House, and her only motivation to be VP would seem to be the opportunity to run in 2012/2016. Clinton by making her final weeks of the campaign so strident even as her defeat was evident puts Obama in a Catch-22, as inviting her to be VP makes him look weak (kowtowing to her demand) but not putting her on the ticket enrages supporters like yourself.

      Can you really say honestly that having HRC in the VP slot brings more than having Sebelius, or Kaine, or Richardson, or Clark? The air of entitlement surrounding Hillary poisoned so many Democrats' attitude towards her - the feeling that she DESERVES to be the nominee and the President - and that aura isn't going away as we shift into general election mode.

      • Neutral

        I've never really understood all the arguments that Hillary was somehow guaranteed defeat back in February. Or March. Or April. Etc. It's true that she was behind that entire time, but Obama did not in fact clinch the nomination until June 3, and it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination inevitable until it happened. Why? Because neither candidate won enough pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination that way.

        If you look at the final election tallies, compare the results and tell me why it was ever clear that she would lose or that continuing to campaign would be in any way an affront to Obama. CNN has a good summary at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/:

        Obama: 1763 pledged, 395 superdelegates
        Clinton: 1640 pledged, 286 superdelegates

        So you see, the superdelegates did in fact decide the election. And since that's the way the system was set up, it's totally fair that they did so. But had the election in fact been so cut and dried after Super Tuesday, then the superdelegates would have made their decisions sooner. As party officials, they're the ones who ought to have the party's interests at stake.

        • Neutral

          And as for the VP position, I've also heard a lot of Obama people talking about how the Clintons would somehow emasculate Obama, make him look weak, undermine him, etc. and frankly, that seems like a pretty poor endorsement of his leadership abilities. If Obama is a great leader, I think he can effectively use anyone in the vice presidency to good effect in his administration. While there are plenty of legitimate reasons to debate Clinton as a choice, "baggage" or "weakness" seems specious to me. It's the sort of thing reactionary Clinton-haters seem to throw out there, and it suggests that Obama would not be able to direct the campaign and administration of his own government, which again is a pretty backhanded endorsement. Perhaps the people who are most against Hillary Clinton as VP are Republicans seeking to undermine Obama? I say this as one.

          Moreover, based on my count in the previous post, Hillary has 1,926 of the 2,118 delegates required willing or pledged to support her for the Democratic nomination for President. In the roll call vote for Vice President, wouldn't she only need another 192 delegates (perhaps some of Obama's superdelegates or some of the 108 superdelegates who haven't publicly committed) to support her candidacy for Vice President, even if Obama nominated someone else?

        • Sort of

          True, he didn't actually win a majority before Tuesday. (If you want to be hyper-technical, he won't even do that until the convention.) But by March, just about every political analyst in the world had correctly concluded that Obama was going to take a majority of pledged delegates. There were no big electoral surprises or significant toss-ups between the Ohio/Texas primaries and this week.

          In order for Clinton to win a majority of all delegates, it was clear—even in March—that she was going to have to perform outrageously well in the remaining primaries AND swing a huge majority of the uncommitted superdelegates. (Note that the CNN count omits the ~150 superdelegates who still haven't officially declared, so his final margin is likely to grow considerably even if Clinton doesn't release her delegates.) That wasn't a total impossibility, but it was pretty damned improbable, barring a complete political meltdown on Obama's end.

          It also seems likely that most of the undeclared superdelegates knew which way they were leaning by March but withheld their endorsements for purposes of political expediency (i.e. - not wanting to cross the Clintons, waiting for their states to vote, etc.) Was it smart of them to let the clock run out? Hard to say yet. On the one hand, it was good for the party to let every state have its say; on the other hand, there were a lot of unpleasant, damaging knocks exchanged in the last two months that may come back to haunt the Dems in November. Either way, I do think the result was pretty clear from March onward.

          Re #12: there are, indeed, some asshole Obama supporters, but the Clinton camp had more than its fair share, too. (We've been called sexist, elitist, gullible -- you name it.) The point is that the hoards of Clinton supporters threatening to jump ship seem to be doing so on the grounds that Obama or his supporters were abnormally mean, which seems a) untrue, and b) completely oblivious to the political implications of putting McCain into office. I'm glad you don't fall in that category.

          • angry rant  

            those 150 superdelegates who haven't officially declared could vote for hilary, which would make her the nominee.

            all i have to say about obama is that he fucked the democrats in the ass by running. hilary could have easily won in november and had 2 terms, and with obama as a vp, would have secured his place for another 2 (2020/2022).

          • whatever

            That wouldn't make her the nominee, actually, the superdelegates who officially declared plus the pledged delegates give him a guaranteed victory whatever those 150 do.

            OK a few points:

            A) "Half the democratic party" voting for Clinton: Yes it's a close race. What's your point? There's one winner, either way half the people didn't vote for the winner.

            B) The VP Idea: VP isn't a second place prize in the primary, it's an actual position in government. One of ya'll said it's a sign of weak leadership that Obama wouldn't be able to work with Clinton: fuck that, it's an action of weak leadership to appoint the wrong person to the position just because they got votes in the primary.

            C)Personal politics with Hillary Clinton: What's troublesome is the idea that she should get the nomination, VP spot, etc. because she deserves it and has one: not because of any actual qualities of leadership.

            For example, if you think Hillary Clinton was the better candidate because she had experience, why shouldn't Obama choose a former governor as a running mate? If you support her policy positions, why not choose one of many other democrats with similar policies? Hell,if you're gonna play identity politics and say you need a female leader, why not Sebelius, who yes, does not have as much political baggage as Clinton (love her or hate her, Clinton has a lot of allies which is a double-edged sword that Obama may want to avoid.)

            The point is, it becomes about this vague idea of Clinton "deserving" this for no fully justified reason. There are a lot of potential reasons to vote for her, but I haven't heard a good reason she's entitled to anything.

          • Fuck that

            I hate this bullshit about Barack screwing the party by running for President instead of VP. When will Hillary and her supporters lose this irritating sense of entitlement?

    • hypocrisy

      I...just flat out disagree with that multi-party system nonsense. Senators Obama and Clinton didn't vary a great deal in policy, just governing style. If you want an argument for a third-party system, the best argument you're going to find is, lamely enough, Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

  9. meh  

    yes. fight amongst yourselves.

  10. hahahaha  

    silly Americans.

  11. politico

    that's huge for bwog

  12. Columbia

    Leave it to Columbia kids to turn this comment section into a political debate.

  13. Whatever

    After that speech today, Obama would be crazy to pick anyone else for VP. She didn't just endorse him, she exhorted her supporters to do the same. And I don't think there's a politician in American who would do a better a job campaigning for him.

    Come on, she even said "yes we can!"

    • yo but man

      i'm also sick of this ultimatum. it's as if clinton/her supporters are threatening obama - that if he doesn't pick her as his VP, those 18 million people are going to vote for mccain and spite him, and sorry, but that's not party unity. that's pretty ruthless.

      meanwhile: "She didn't just endorse him, she exhorted her supporters to do the same." Was she supposed to just be like i endorse Barack Obama but you shouldn't? John Edwards did the same thing and encouraged his supporters to back Obama when he endorsed him. that's not exceptional leadership or fantastic unheard-of grace. that's sort of what she had to do to avoid being stoned personally by Howard Dean. I don't buy "oh she's willing to endorse the guy who won, that's so brave of her, make her Vice President."

    • nah

      Again, what makes her unique? Other candidates told their supporters to back Obama when they endorsed him.

      Clinton is endorsing Obama a) because his policies are very similar to hers and he won the contest and b) because otherwise she will lose her credibility with the Democratic party Is it a good decision and the right thing to do? Yes. Does that make her the VP pick? No.

      Let him pick a vice president who works with his administration, instead of trying to make it some gift position for anyone who runs a tough campaign and then concedes.

  14. mccain

    mccain and his people are hoping and praying that hillary clinton is the nominee for vice president. the base is not excited at all, but with clinton on the ballot you can bet that the conservatives will be fired up to get out, hold their noses, and vote for john mccain.

    why risk that if you're obama? moreover, why let all the clinton drama, plus her ambitions, plus the bill clinton sideshow, threaten to weaken your administration? the only reason i hear is that it's necessary for party unity. well, i'm sorry, but the idea that the party will be split if clinton isn't on the ticket is ludicrous...it goes against every trend that points to this being a democratic year. obama is facing a very appealing john mccain (the only republican nominee who can win this thing), and he needs to grab a swing state governor or a military guy (NUNN) who can come out swinging against mccain's strong suit - keeping america safe.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.