Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Noop]

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

They spent an hour attacking Obama about his pin, his reverend and his association with some professor. I think Obama was right when he said why is he being held accountable for the words of other people. This process is a shame and McCain will waltz into the white house; my only hope is he is a lot better then Bush.

[sterlingice]

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

He was all but the press secretary and a senior policy advisor. That said, he came off more of a tool but that's about par for the course for him. The big annoyance to me was Gibson who just sounded like a giant bullying asshat. And not in the "I want an answer to that question and be specific" way that we want debate moderators to actually be but little snide comments and belligerent questions.

SI

[Young Drachma]

Some debate reactions (http://themoderatevoice.com/media/msm/18996/clinton-obama-pennyslvania-debate-sparks-media-controversy/)

–Andrew Sullivan:

It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I’ve seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he’s up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully.

Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn’t just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process. In some ways, I’m glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again. But this is still the arena we have. It is what it is. ABC News is what it is. The MSM knows no other way. Obama has to survive and even thrive under this assault if he is to win. He failed tonight in a big way.

And so this was indeed a huge night for the Republicans, and the first real indicator to me that Clinton is gaining in her fundamental goal at this point: the election of John McCain against Barack Obama. How else will she rescue the Democrats from hope?

–The Politico’s Ben Smith:

So, who won, who lost, how did Obama hold up under what was basically a public enactment of Clinton’s case against him.

AND: Didn’t those quotes from the Constitution really set the tone?

ALSO: How much money will Obama raise off his supporters’ perception that this debate was unfair?

–Americablog:

Wow. What the hell was that? Seriously, I’m a bit stunned. The level of discourse has reached a new low — a very new low. To be clear, I don’t think the debate was a disaster for Obama. He did fine. I think it was a disaster for our political system.

It was the worst debate ever. [ABC moderators Charles] Gibson and [former Clinton administration spokesman George] Stephanopoulos were horrible. The questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio.

–The Swamp:

Well, what we saw tonight was Hillary Clinton making a strong, last-ditch effort to pull her flagging campaign back from brink, get it back on track to victory on April 22 and make the superdelegates realize that she really is their last best chance to retake the White House.

She drummed on Obama not just for his remarks about small towns, guns and religion, but for his vast dearth of experience compared to hers–and that includes her experience of being ravaged by Republicans and living to see another day.

Obama, for his part, strove to defuse the negative ripples his aforementioned-ad-nauseum remarks might have engendered, not to mention the controversial comments of his former pastor–all of which appear not to have tarnished him much in polls.

Most importantly, he tried to get voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief, assigning “a mission” to his commanders–he’s the decider–although consulting with them re: tactics.

….And, for Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. There’s a reason people think Clinton is dishonest as we saw today in the findings of the Washington Post-ABC News poll. She’s not only in this to win, she’s in it to win dirty — and to destroy Obama. She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason — just to say it. Give me a break. Throughout this campaign, Clinton has pursued GOP attacks against Obama. He has not gone there against her.

–Daily Kos (one of several progressive sites calling on readers to flood ABC News with protests):

I used to think Republican operative and Karl Rove mentor Lee Atwater had died in 1991, after a nasty career of Republican race baiting, culture wars, dirty tricks, and a illness-induced conversion to Catholicism and public repentance for his dirty and divisive politics. I was wrong.

Lee Atwater apparently works for ABC News in devising…questions to ask Democratic Presidential candidates.

The questioning in tonight’s debate–—mostly straight out of 1988—was an abomination. Gun control. 60’s radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action.

I’ll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton….The questions asked were not the kinds of questions Democratic primary voters care about. But they are the “gotcha” kinds of questions Republicans try to spring on Democrats in general elections.

I’m not afraid of those questions. I think Obama did fine tonight. Generally Clinton has performed best in debates, but as we first saw in the Texas debate, Obama appears to perform better one-on-one. I especially liked how he refused to get lured in to Charles Gibson’s conservative frames, and I like how he dismissed many of Clinton’s attacks on him as avoiding the substantive issues and hypocritical, as when he pointed out that Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground.

–Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey feels the debate was “Obama’s Waterloo”:

The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.

…The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight. And kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included.


–Josh Marshall:

9:46 PM … No Charlie. It hasn’t been a “fascinating debate.” It’s been genuinely awful.

9:50 PM … What happened to the League of Women Voters? Can we give the debates back to them? This sort of episode really sickens me. KB’s point above is sadly accurate. It’s stuff like this that really makes me think that whole big chunks of the established press needs to be swept away.

9:56 PM … As I noted above, I missed roughly the first half hour of this debate. But from what I heard about those thirty minutes and what I saw of the subsequent ninety minutes was basically debate by gotcha line with basically no discussion of any of the big questions the election is turning on.

–National Review’s Jonah Goldberg:

I’m no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a “fighting Dem” who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the “real issues,” I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

–Marc Ambinder:

Keeping the score card, there’s no way Obama could fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she’s perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her. So it would be unwise to declare that Hillary “won” the debate in the dynamic sense just yet. (How much money will Obama raise off this debate? $3m million? $4 million?)

…..This sets up a blowback scenario wherein his supporters will rally to his defense and lash out at the media very loudly. But Obama’s going to be the next president of the United States, maybe. The most powerful person in the world. And questions about his personal associations, his character, his personal beliefs, his statements at private fundraisers — the answers to these questions tell us a lot. Sometimes the questions are unfair (( — nothing about Colombia and Mark Penn — )), but this ain’t Pop Warner; the artificial distinction between politics, personality and policy doesn’t exist in this league, and if you’re uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don’t run for office.

–My DD’s Todd Beaton:

Although it was somewhat redeemed in the final half hour, I feel like taking a shower after that debate. It was tabloid hour on ABC, and certainly Obama did get the bulk of the more disgusting questions. Check out this post over at ABCNews.com: over 4,000 comments, the bulk of which seem to just rip ABC.

As for the candidates’ performances, neither was particularly inspiring and neither had his or her best night, although Obama did get plenty of opportunities to plead for an end to the issues of distraction and division and to call for a new style of politics and seemed to be the conscience of the audience as he called out the moderators. I think Clinton was stronger during the last half hour but not enough to tip the balance in her direction; certainly not enough for this to be a game changer.

It would almost be a shame for this to be the last debate, to go out on such a poor note.

–Chris Bowers:

Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn’t wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can’t win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn’t trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate.

…..It appears that live focus group polling of undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half. Hmmm… perhaps her campaign should learn something from that.

–NBC’s Chuck Todd:

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he’s not yet ready for the general, that’s why she should stay in, and that’s why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.

Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn’t step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn’t very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn’t have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we’ve noted in “First Thoughts” quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let’s see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.

Could tonight’s true winner be John McCain? We’re betting that’s the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

–Monica Crowley:

The final two Democratic candidates appeared to sleepwalk through tonight’s debate. I mean, quite literally, they looked so weary that they appeared to be napping while the other was talking. They swayed. They leaned on the podium. Their eyelids were heavy. Their speech was slow and deliberate, each response called up on auto-pilot.They moved as if through molasses.

They both survived. There were no earth-shattering gaffes or obvious slurring or devastating mangling of an issue. But to have both candidates looking ready to keel over is an indication of the toll this drawn-out campaign has had on them. A lot of Democrats are making an issue of John McCain’s age (71), but while he’s got 10 years on Hillary and 25 on Obama, McCain looks the most spry.

–Somervell County Salon:

Just got done watching the ABC Debate that was moderated by Charlie Gibson. Where were the questions about Bush’s torture, about executive signing statements, what about that permanent base in Iraq, what about the huge cost of the war, about bailing out investment bankers, about using PPPs (whether from this country or foreign) to lease out our infrastructure, what about the airline industry FAA problem? Nope. Had to listen to right-wing Republican talking points in a DEMOCRATIC DEBATE coming from Gibson and Steph. Now, on the one hand, maybe it’s a good thing because that’s what will happen when Gramps McCain goes head to head with Obama but you know, if I wanted to watch Fox News, I’d unblock it…

P.S. Hillary Clinton has a look on her face in much of the debate that reminded me of the pissy pursed look that Bush had in the second debate against Kerry.

–The Morning Call’s Pennsylvania Ave:

After the debate, both candidates surrogates rushed to the “Spin room” to field questions from a mass of media outlets about the debate.

The take from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was that enough serious questions were raised about Barack Obama in the first half of the debate to give voters second thoughts about his electibility.

“A number of questions were asked really for the first time of Barack Obama,” Wolfson said, putting Obama “back on his heels.”

Wolfson also said he didn’t think Obama’s statements about small town voters who he described as “bitter” and clinging to guns and religion, was a gaffe, but rather “What he believes.”

The Obama campaign countered that most voters were probably frustrated with the first half of the debate, which had very little talk about the issues, instead focusing on political games.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Bucks, said he thinks voters were more interested in hearing the candidates talk about issues like Iraq and the economy.

–Blue Ollie:

This night’s debate had potential to be very meaningful. Instead, it was a colossal waste of time.

No, I am not saying that because the moderators (including former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos) piled on Obama; I expect that.

It was because the piling on was over the warmed over trivial stuff: stuff Rev. Wright said, a party that Obama may have attended, why he stopped wearing a flag pin, etc. Yes, Clinton caught the Bosnia “sniper fire” question.

….ABC did more to make BHO’s point that today’s politics is petty and insubstantial….But as far as ABC debate: ABC News not a news organization but rather a tabloid organization.

--Ginger Snaps:

FLAG PINS? Is that what George Snuffalufagus thinks is one of the most important topics that needs to be discussed in a Presidential Debate?!?

Seriously, folks…the first 45 minutes of this debate really should have been relegated to Saturday Night Live. We were treated to questions about flag pins, the Rev. Wright issue that Obama has sufficiently addressed ad nauseum, implying that Obama should answer for the acts his friends committed 40 years ago, and, of course, the “b” word…

…and oh by the way, we have an economic crisis, a war, gas prices are through the roof, unemployment, veterans in crisis, a broken healthcare system…

You know…the things that affect us every single day?!?

…How are we going to get the right candidate in office if the media chooses to ask trivial questions that play on the FEAR of the country, when what we really need to know is their detailed plan for how they are going to fix the situation right now?

–Editor & Publisher Editor Greg Mitchell writing on the Huffington Post:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

–National Review’s Mark Hemingway declares McCain the winner and writes:

My prediction? The debate will be received so badly there will be increased pressure to kick Hillary out of the race. But since Obama was clearly the worse of the two in the debate, Hillary will win PA as expected and the goat rodeo will continue for the forseeable future with even more acrimony between the two candidates. Which only helps McCain.

–Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

The highlight of the debate tonight will be Hillary’s repeated efforts to use an electability argument as the basis for sharp attacks on Obama over Bittergate, Wright and 1960s radicals.

It was a tactic geared as much to superdelegates as to Pennsylvania voters, and Obama was not as sharp as he could have been in response. He seemed surprised sometimes, irritated others, and misspoke at least once (about disowning Wright, which he quickly corrected). So, if you’re scoring the debate like a prizefight, she wins a couple more rounds. But no game-changing moments.

–The New Republic’s The Stump blog:

For what it’s worth, I thought it was smart for Obama to go gracious on the Hillary-Bosnia scandal and suggest that they’re both entitled to make a mistake every now and then. Obviously, the choice of questions isn’t doing Obama any favors–bittergate, Wright, William Ayers!–but he’s doing a decent (if low-energy) job not getting dragged into the fray,* and Hillary is coming very close to over-reaching by rubbing his nose in it.

–Matthew Yglesias:

I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn’t sink any lower, but thus far she’s really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she’s making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she’s the one doing it now.


HERE IS A CROSS SECTION OF NEWS MEDIA REPORT REACTION:
–The New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the attack against Senator Barack Obama on a variety of issues during a contentious debate Wednesday, warning that he would be deeply vulnerable in a general-election fight if he won the nomination.

….
–The Boston Globe framed it this way:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took their hard-fought battle for the Democratic nomination down to a deeply personal level in a nationally televised debate tonight, trading barbs on honesty, their appeal to working-class voters, and who would be a stronger candidate in November.

Clinton, struggling to gain momentum in the dwindling weeks of the primary campaign, accused Obama of associating with unsavory people, including his own former preacher, and questioned whether Obama — whom she called “a good man” — could beat the GOP nominee in the fall.

“They’re going to be out there in full force,” Clinton said of the Republicans. “I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage and everybody has rummaged through it for years.”

Obama, meanwhile, criticized the New York lawmaker for running a negative campaign, and said Clinton herself could not pass the electability test she was imposing on him.

“By Senator Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it,” he said.

–The Globe’s blog political intelligence was far more blunt:

Barack Obama tonight staked his presidential campaign on the idea that the American people will look beyond the inevitable gaffes and errors and character attacks of a 24-hour campaign cycle to meet the challenges of a “defining moment” in American history.

Hillary Clinton staked her campaign on the idea that Americans won’t — and that her tougher, more strategic approach to countering Republican attacks is a better way for Democrats to reclaim the White House.

The first half of tonight’s debate in the august National Constitution Center in Philadelphia was a tawdry affair, as ABC news questioners called on Obama and Clinton to address a year’s worth of dirty laundry, and each combatant eagerly grabbed at the chance to befoul their rival a little more.

But while some in the audience groaned, the litany of nasty questions — about such matters as Obama’s comments on the working class and Clinton’s exaggerations about dangers she faced in Bosnia — helped to flesh out a long-simmering subtext to the Clinton-Obama battle: The Clinton campaign’s insinuation that Obama is more vulnerable to GOP-style attacks on his patriotism.

….Clinton wasn’t so high-minded. At times, she seemed to revel in her tough-gal statements, sounding like a character in a 1940s film noir.

….The tit-for-tat comment showed how off-message Obama was for most of the evening, able to conjure up little of the hopeful energy that has marked his campaign for much of the year.

…What did come through, however, was how crucial Obama’s self-described “bet on the American people” will be to the future of his campaign.

Obama has said on countless occasions that he believes the American people want “an honest conversation,” and not a campaign of charges and countercharges.

–The Washington Post’s news report on the debate includes this:

With the race for the Democratic presidential nomination mired in a form of trench warfare that has left party leaders searching for a way to bring it to a conclusion before the party’s late-summer convention, Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) began their first head-to-head encounter in nearly two months focused on political disputes rather than their relatively narrow policy differences. Obama, who leads in the delegates needed to claim the nomination, fielded tough questions about his relationship with his former pastor, his patriotism and his description of small-town voters as “bitter,” the latter a controversy that has engulfed his campaign for much of the past week.

Obama argued repeatedly that voters are smart enough to differentiate petty issues from important economic matters.

“So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person’s statement, if it’s not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death,” Obama said. “And that’s what Senator Clinton’s been doing over the last four days. And I understand that. That’s politics. And I expect to have to go through this process. But I do think it’s important to recognize that it’s not helping that person who’s sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.”

–The Washington Post’s The Fix blog:

The choice between the candidates crystallized tonight. It is not, fundamentally, a choice about issues or even ideology — it is a choice about approach. Obama is an idealist, using nearly every question to appeal to the better angels in people; Obama sees the world as he wants it to be and believes he can make it. Clinton, on the other hand, is an unapologetic pragmatist; she has been through the wringer that is national politics before and knows how to play the game.

*The longer the Democratic campaign goes on, the more clips Republican Sen. John McCain’s campaign can harvest for use against the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s one thing for McCain to take note of ties between Obama and a former member of the Weather Underground; it’s quite another for McCain’s campaign to roll tape of Clinton making those accusations. You can bet Steve Schmidt of McCain’s campaign was Tivoing every minute of tonight’s proceedings for use when summer turns to fall.

[Arles]

I find two things interesting about the feedback from last night: First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews. Second, the questions were exactly the same that every mainstream network has treated republican candidates. Remember the kook with the Bible on the Youtube debate and the unending questions about lead paint in toys and what crime women who have abortions should be charged with?

Mainstream media debates have now become the prime example of "gotcha" politics for both sides.

[sterlingice]

I think this debate really shows that this Democratic campaign needs to have a bullet put in it or the general election is going to be done before it even starts. Everyone is used to R taking shots at D and D taking shots at R and we can all take it with a grain of salt and go "well, clearly, as they are on different sides of the political spectrum"- there's a mental disconnect there for us. But this is going nowhere but down for the Dems.

SI

[Noop]

In class today we had a debate about this debate and the general feeling was Obama got setup. A few students who lean to the right even said as much, in fact I remember going to the cafeteria to get something to eat and listening to people talk about this debate.

I didn't know it meant that much to people. I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it. The only hope would be Al Gore or maybe John Edwards.

Sorry for the rant.

[ISiddiqui]

First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews.

Yep. That bothered me too. Obama was treated as Clinton has been treated and all of a sudden, its an uproar, and "bias" being charged and all that. It took SNL to shame the MSM into realizing they were fawning all over Obama and dumping on Clinton earlier in the primaries.

[Young Drachma]

Solutions not hope!

[Raiders Army]

Let's focus on the real issues here, not lying about sniper fire!

[sterlingice]

Yep. That bothered me too. Obama was treated as Clinton has been treated and all of a sudden, its an uproar, and "bias" being charged and all that. It took SNL to shame the MSM into realizing they were fawning all over Obama and dumping on Clinton earlier in the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure SNL, particularly modern SNL with the giant pile of notfunniness they manage to assemble on a weekly basis shamed the big boogeyman "Mainstream Media"

SI

[Vegas Vic]

I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it.

No presidential election is going to be "easy" for the modern Democratic party. Starting with a hardcore base of 40% and trying to win over enough independents to get to 270 Electoral votes is extremely difficult with the far left wing in control of the party.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/arts/television/13snl.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=Saturday+Night+Live&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Over the past three weeks “SNL” has put itself back into the national discussion — not a bad place for any television show to be, as Mr. Michaels acknowledged — first with a series of sketches that have centered on the premise that Mrs. Clinton has been the target of a vengeful press that sees Mr. Obama with stars in its eyes

A study by the Pew research organization found that critical coverage of Mr. Obama had increased in the news media after the sketches.

And, of course, that wasn't the only story in papers and on the internet about the SNL sketch's impact.

[flere-imsaho]

Good stuff from Jon Stewart:

Doesn't elite mean "good?" Is that not something we're looking for in a president anymore? ... I know elite is a bad word in politics. You want to go bowling and throw back a few beers. But the job you're applying for---if you get it and it goes well---they might carve your head into a mountain. If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the fuck are you doing? ... [N]ot only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me.

[Logan]

We'll be waiting a long, long time for someone to come around that has no weaknesses, drawbacks, skeletons in their closet, etc.

[Arles]

IMO, anyone that fits that description from Stewart above should be smart enough to make himself not come off as elite numerous times. That's the difference between John Kerry (thinks he's elite and comes off as elite) and Bill Clinton (thinks he's elite but seasoned enough to come off as a normal guy).

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

[CamEdwards]

Like Arlie said, I think there's a difference in being an elite and exhibiting an elitist attitude.

Frankly though, I don't think Obama's coming off as an elitist, as much as he is demonstrating he's out of touch with the everyday experiences of many Americans. I don't necessarily see that as a huge drawback, because I don't think any of the three candidates is the automatic "man (or person) of the people" in this election.

[miked]

They are elite. They think they know what's good enough for 300+ million people. You have to have lots of money to run. These aren't normal people, they are elite. If you think a few comments is what makes people "realize" it, you are quite foolish. If people are looking for one of the guys (or gals) to lead our country, they must have not been paying attention to last 10,000 years.

On a side note, it's funny because most of what you said about being pompous and out of touch applies to our current leader, who you probably defend.

[Buccaneer]

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

[Deattribution]

We need Ron Paul, he would of gotten rid of debates and solved this problem entirely.

[CamEdwards]

They are elite. They think they know what's good enough for 300+ million people. You have to have lots of money to run. These aren't normal people, they are elite. If you think a few comments is what makes people "realize" it, you are quite foolish. If people are looking for one of the guys (or gals) to lead our country, they must have not been paying attention to last 10,000 years.

On a side note, it's funny because most of what you said about being pompous and out of touch applies to our current leader, who you probably defend.

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

[flere-imsaho]

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

Dude, that was 100 years ago. :p

[JPhillips]

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state.

Or giving them backrubs.

[Toddzilla]

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

[miked]

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

No, I'm just talking intelligence here. These people are elite. They are not one of the guys. You don't vote for W because you think he's going to come to your local bar and throw back a few with you. He may live on a ranch, but he hasn't been "one of the guys" for decades. None of these people really have, it's just silly for them to be calling each other elitists (especially Romney who is in the news throwing the "E" word at Obama).

[Passacaglia]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590

[Toddzilla]

Journalist, heal thyself...

"What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them"

George Stephanopolus, 1993.

[sterlingice]

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

Maybe some people get off more on massive power and notoriety than massive money. Dubya's not exactly been an overwhelmingly popular President but he's still more well known than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

How many of the top 20 do you recognize by name if I take Gates and Buffet off the list? I knew all of 1 other (#14):
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/richest-people-billionaires-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305billie_land.html?partner=links

So there's something to be said for want of fame and power vs wealth and power.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Journalist, heal thyself...

"What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them"

George Stephanopolus, 1993.

To be very fair, that was before the Clinton Administration was really hit hard by all these "side issues" scandels. It may have soured Stephanopolus to what the American people actually care about.

And... of course, that's when Stephanopolous was in the Administration (and had to speak carefully for political reasons) and not in the private sector.

[Buccaneer]

From Obama's speech today in Philly:


"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."

The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.

"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.

That's actually pretty good. I can see lightbulbs going on in some voter's minds with these good analogies.

[Young Drachma]

Obama: Being black confers no advantage
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
[email protected]

I bet Hillary Clinton wishes Bob Johnson would stop trying to help her.

Johnson is the billionaire BET founder and Clinton supporter who embarrassed his candidate and himself during the South Carolina primary by clumsily attempting to inject Barack Obama's self-confessed youthful drug use into the campaign and then clumsily denying he was doing it. To judge from his latest comments, he still hasn't learned to engage brain before operating mouth.

In March, Johnson told The Charlotte Observer he agreed with comments that forced Geraldine Ferraro to resign from Clinton's campaign last month. Ferraro essentially called Obama the affirmative action candidate, saying that if he were not black, he would not be the political phenom he is.

Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not.''

Naturally, Johnson is wrong. If being black conferred, as he and Ferraro seem to think, some mysterious advantage in politics (unlike in virtually every other field of endeavor), Jesse Jackson would have been president years ago. He is, after all, black. As are Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes. All tried, yet none came close to winning the presidency.

Johnson is also wrong about black support for Obama. As recently as December, Gallup pollsters found Clinton had significantly higher favorable ratings among black voters than Obama. Of course, that was before Obama's resounding victory in Iowa, Clinton's gaffe about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement, and clanking attempts by Clinton surrogates like Johnson to kneecap Obama.

For the record, Obama became a political phenomenon for the exact reason a political novice named Ross Perot did: He moved voters. But Perot is white. I'd love to see how Johnson fits that into his crackpot thesis.

It's not just that he's wrong on the facts that's galling but, rather, that he is wrong on something deeper.

An easy hook

If you are black, after all, you are used to this, used to having your achievements -- and failures -- lazily conflated with your skin color. It's an easy hook for those who lack the imagination or intelligence to dig deeper. Like Rush Limbaugh, who said in 2003 that Donovan McNabb only became a football star because he's black.

You'd expect Johnson, as a black man, to know better. Especially since he's surely seen his success diminished this same way. You think no one ever said Johnson (who, according to a Washington Post report, went to Princeton on an affirmative action program) only became a billionaire because he's black?

But then, Johnson has never identified overmuch with black folks' struggles. He once told C-SPAN he acknowledged no responsibility to be a role model for his community.

''What are my responsibilities to black people at large?'' he asked. ``If I help my family get over and deal with the problems they might confront, then I have achieved that one goal that is my responsibility to society at large.''

And the rest of y'all Negroes is on your own.

Johnson proved his regard for his people for years by exploiting them, poisoning our kids with a video parade of gyrating backsides, gold grills, and pimp values, a caricature of black life so unremittingly racist as to make the Ku Klux Klan redundant.

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

On the plus side, I don't think he has to worry about being called a role model.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/501952.html

[Mac Howard]

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

What an appalling example of the attitude "if you disagree with me then you're racist - even if you are black" :rolleyes:

The stats speak for themselves - 80% of the black voters vote for Obama, 50% or so of the overall democrat vote is for him (the white voters must be less than 50%).

One of two things can be deduced from this:

1) some black voters are voting for Obama because he's black - ie the black vote should be ~50%

2) some white voters are voting against Obama because he's black - ie the democratic vote should be 80% for Obama

Somewhere in between I suspect but there is clearly some aspect of Obama that appeals to the black population and/or turns off the white population and it is reasonable to assume that at least a part of that is the race factor. Johnson is not wholly wrong - merely expressing a view that offends the self-righteous mentality of the pc thought police.

We might have expected a similar "sexist" vote for Clinton - women/men voting/not voting for her because she's a woman though the stats are not as extreme on this as far as I can see.

[path12]

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.

[Arles]

I don't think the Bob Johnson quote is accurate. This would have been better for him to say:
Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the TV/print media behind him? And the answer is, probably not.''

Obama had been the media darling since his DNC convention speech years earlier. And, to be honest, I can't really blame the media. Here was a well-spoken, idealistic, young, attractive black man with a great message. That's like political gold to newspapers, magazines and network stations. The problem for Obama is that he hasn't been able to turn the corner and close out the race since mid-Feb. Which is no small feat against the Clintons, but it is something he should have been able to do given the momentum he had early on.

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.
I'd like to think that someone out there could be in the "neither" case. Still, in this youtube age, every president from here on out will have atleast a handful of "dumbass" moments during his tenure.

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.
I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

[path12]

I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

YMMV I guess. I get smug way more off of Clinton (and McCain for that matter) than I do from Obama. What I get from Obama is someone actually not speaking to the lowest common denominator, which is both startling in its rarity and a refreshing change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080421/D906FPN01.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A smackdown among presidential candidates?

Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain will appear on World Wrestling Entertainment's live "Monday Night Raw" (8-11 p.m. EST on cable's USA network) but instead of smacking each other down, they separately will deliver some wrestling-themed stumping in taped messages before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

"Tonight, in honor of the WWE, you can call me Hillrod," Clinton says in her message. "This election is starting to feel a lot like 'King of the Ring.' The only difference? The last man standing may just be a woman."

Obama borrows The Rock's famous catchphrase during his appearance.

"To the special interests who've been setting the agenda in Washington for too long and to all the forces of division and distraction that has stopped us from making progress, for the American people, I've got one question: Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" Obama says before flashing a smile.

McCain, meanwhile, looked to Hulkamania for inspiration for his message.

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"

The candidate appearances will be used to promote "Smackdown Your Vote!" - the WWE's voter registration drive.

[CamEdwards]

YMMV I guess. I get smug way more off of Clinton (and McCain for that matter) than I do from Obama. What I get from Obama is someone actually not speaking to the lowest common denominator, which is both startling in its rarity and a refreshing change.

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

[path12]

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I take it your positing that what one gets from all three is bullshit. I don't know that I'm quite that cynical (though I certainly am getting there), but in that case yes, I'd prefer to have the erudite bullshit as opposed to the lowest common denominator bullshit. :)

[Raiders Army]

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"
Don't know why I still quoted the quotes around the quote, but that's Flair and Hogan put together, not just Hogan! He has my vote!

[JonInMiddleGA]

My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I mean, let's face it, you pretty much have to take what you can get these days.

[Buccaneer]

I'm curious. Clinton just used Osama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

[TazFTW]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080421/D906FPN01.html

If Obama ever Barack Bottom'd Hillary, he'll have my vote.

[sabotai]

I'm curious. Clinton just used Obama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

I have not seen that ad. I just tried searching YouTube for it and can't find it. Wonder if it just came out.

I would think doing something like that (putting "Obama bin Laden" in an ad) would be political suicide.

Edit: Did you mean that she used OSAMA bin Laden? ;) I have seen that ad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Although I'll crack a joke about it over in the wrestling thread, I have to admit that it seemed kind of tacky that the WWE got the legit promos from all three candidates for their voter campaign but still couldn't resist a somewhat harsh parody of both Obama & Clinton (okay, rougher on Clinton really).

[Buccaneer]

I have not seen that ad. I just tried searching YouTube for it and can't find it. Wonder if it just came out.

I would think doing something like that (putting "Obama bin Laden" in an ad) would be political suicide.

Edit: Did you mean that she used OSAMA bin Laden? ;) I have seen that ad.

Shit. Did I say that? I really didn't mean to. Sorry.

[JPhillips]

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.

[Arles]

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.
I think that's spot on. Different Q - at what point will there be enough pressure for Hillary to bow out? I can't see her winning NC. So, after that primary, do you think she'll be forced to concede?

[miked]

I would think if she loses NC big, and loses IN, I can't see any reason for her to stay in. She and all her supporters keep talking about needing a delegate lead, or at the minimum a vote count lead. She will have neither, and after NC/IN, I believe OR has Obama ahead in the polls as well.

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

[ISiddiqui]

The irony is that the reason many thought she'd be a good Dem candidate (her tenacity and never say die attitude) is causing major problems in the Dem primary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

I sincerely doubt that she'll get another shot at the presidency. It's now or never for her. Obama could get another shot in future years.

[path12]

I'll agree with JPhillips and guess Hillary by 9.

[chesapeake]

I think Hillary will win by more than 10, which probably means that this thing goes all the way to the convention. Obama can win IN and NC 100 to nothing and it won't matter; we will still be left with a situation where Obama appears unable to seal the deal in a big state that Democrats really need to win.

I hope that I'm wrong. The party is best served if one candidate or the other delivers a knockout blow. Unfortunately, the guy who is probably going to win isn't much of a puncher.

[Young Drachma]

I think he's going to come closer than they're predicting. The fact that he's going to Indiana shows that his people don't expect him to do particularly well, but..my sense is that he'll either come closer than they predict or she'll blow him out pretty bad.

I think the voter fatigue in this one might induce people to break in a manner opposite to what the pundits think (think New Hampshire), but at the same time...it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when" this deal will be over and I wonder how much that'll factor into the minds of people when they enter the voting booth.

If this year has proven anything, it's that the pollsters and pundits know nothing and that the voters hold all the cards.

Should be interesting...

[path12]

I think he's going to come closer than they're predicting. The fact that he's going to Indiana shows that his people don't expect him to do particularly well, but..my sense is that he'll either come closer than they predict or she'll blow him out pretty bad.

I think the voter fatigue in this one might induce people to break in a manner opposite to what the pundits think (think New Hampshire), but at the same time...it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when" this deal will be over and I wonder how much that'll factor into the minds of people when they enter the voting booth.

If this year has proven anything, it's that the pollsters and pundits know nothing and that the voters hold all the cards.

Should be interesting...

That's what I find frustrating. For all intents this primary is over and Obama will, barring something totally out of the blue, be the nominee. I would love nothing more than have the Pennsylvania voters say "OK, let's get this sniping over with" and get him the win. Don't think it's going to happen though.

[Toddzilla]

I'll agree with JPhillips and guess Hillary by 9.I had Hillary -10, but I teased the line and took Obama +4, but I lost because I also had the Wizards +29. Oops.

[CamEdwards]

Fairly interesting article from the Guardian about Philly's "pay to play" system that Obama's not taking part in.


Barack Obama has been warned that his refusal to pay the traditional "street money" to local operatives to help get the vote out in Philadelphia today could cost him the crucial percentage points needed to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race for the White House.

In many of the city's poorer wards, the recipients look forward to these bonuses from Democratic officials - a hangover from the days of the party's old-fashioned machine politics - even though the amounts are relatively small, ranging from $50 to $400.

But as in other contests, Obama is relying on his own army of unpaid
volunteers to get the vote out. The Clinton team, meanwhile, is not saying whether it will pay out "street money".

There are 69 wards in Philadelphia and estimates suggest it would cost Obama $400,000-$500,000 to pay the 14,000 people normally required to help get the vote out.

Carol Ann Campbell, an integral part of the city machine, said she expected Obama to win the city, but his failure to pay could cost him the crucial margin needed to force Clinton out of the race for the presidential nomination.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, Campbell defended the practice of "street money", saying: "We are a machine town." She added that there was nothing dirty about it. "The committee people and the ward leaders have to buy lunch for hundreds of people, otherwise they won't have good workers. They have to buy coffee, orange juice and doughnuts. That's just the way it is."

I'm actually hoping Obama does well in Philadelphia, but Hillary wins the state by 10+ points. I'd like to see a candidate prove that you don't need the "machine" to win in Philly. The practice just seems so freaking dirty.

[path12]

I'm actually hoping Obama does well in Philadelphia, but Hillary wins the state by 10+ points. I'd like to see a candidate prove that you don't need the "machine" to win in Philly. The practice just seems so freaking dirty.

That is interesting. I wonder how many cities have similar machines. I'd imagine Chicago might.

[Vegas Vic]

we will still be left with a situation where Obama appears unable to seal the deal in a big state that Democrats really need to win.

It's interesting to note that in a "winner take all" situation (like the Republican primaries and the Electoral College), Clinton would already have this thing locked up. The only large state that Obama has won is Illinois.

[chesapeake]

It's interesting to note that in a "winner take all" situation (like the Republican primaries and the Electoral College), Clinton would already have this thing locked up. The only large state that Obama has won is Illinois.

Agreed. The democratic part of the Democratic Party is causing a lot of trouble. Talk about irony.

[Buccaneer]

That is interesting. I wonder how many cities have similar machines. I'd imagine Chicago might.

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

[Young Drachma]

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

+1

[Young Drachma]

Too close to call in Pennsylvania.

[bhlloy]

OK, so reading the exit polls (and I am well aware how much of an inexact science that can be) it looks like a 5-7 point win for Hilary in PA.

Is that enough? Some people were throwing out 10 as the threshold to see if she was really back in the race or not. Doesn't look like that is going to happen.

[Vegas Vic]

The exit polls have her winning by 4, which means she'll probably actually win by about 10 points.

[CamEdwards]

Yeah, Obama has tended to underperform the exit polls by 7-8 points, though he underperformed in Ohio by 12. If that were to happen tonight... 16 point win for Hillary? That would be a pretty staggering hit to Obama.

I think 10's closer to the actual result though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, since numbers are bouncing around, I'll go with Hillary by 8.

[Young Drachma]

MSNBC (oops) has projected the win for Hillary. Question is, by how much.

[Swaggs]

The folks on MSNBC are indicating that Hillary's campaign is nearly broke.

[Vegas Vic]

Obama needed to rack up huge surpluses in the Philadelphia region to have any shot, and surprisingly Clinton is running almost even there in the early returns.

[Buccaneer]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Young Drachma]

She should've trounced him here. The fact that he made her spend almost all of her cash here and came within 10 is nothing short of a miracle. He was never supposed to win here.

[Buccaneer]

make a small dent in Obama's lead.

I think this is the operative word.

[Vegas Vic]

She should've trounced him here. The fact that he made her spend almost all of her cash here and came within 10 is nothing short of a miracle. He was never supposed to win here.

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

[Young Drachma]

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

Solutions not hope!

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama only carried Philadelphia 60-40, and as the rural votes start coming in, Clinton is now already up by 10 points.

[path12]

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

Not really. Haven't researched it before, and it doesn't seem to be the case here in Seattle.

[path12]

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

From 20 points down a few weeks ago it seems to have had some effect.

[King of New York]

8- or 9-point win by Hillary is about the worst thing that could happen to the Dems. It's too big a win for her to stop running now, but not enough for her to shift the momentum her way--she failed to beat expectations.

[Buccaneer]

Not really. Haven't researched it before, and it doesn't seem to be the case here in Seattle.

Don't know much about history or geography? :)

I think it is one of those things that is so entrenched that is becomes a given but you either had to have experienced it or know the political and social histories of such cities. I will say that it has significantly lost much of its power, compared to 30-50-100-125 yrs ago, esp. as population fled the traditional wards.

[Shkspr]

Another 15 or 20 wins like this and she's right back in this thing.

[ISiddiqui]

She already IS in it... she just won't likely win. Regardless, Obama is going to need the superdelegates to win anyway (and they likely will go for him).

[rowech]

I guess my question is -- why should she quit? It's my understanding that many times before things would go to conventions and crazy crap would happen. That's really the only way Lincoln ever got elected.

[Young Drachma]

I guess my question is -- why should she quit? It's my understanding that many times before things would go to conventions and crazy crap would happen. That's really the only way Lincoln ever got elected.

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

[Greyroofoo]

lol @ democrats

[Vegas Vic]

She already IS in it... she just won't likely win. Regardless, Obama is going to need the superdelegates to win anyway (and they likely will go for him).

He'll most definitely need the super delegates. I think this is going to be a first in political history -- a party nominee who didn't win a single one of the major primary states other than his own.

[rowech]

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

[rowech]

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

[Young Drachma]

Visible Man (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/opinion/24whitehead.html?ref=opinion)

[chesapeake]

Don't panic. A hotly contested primary is not the end of the world. Never forget that pundits and columnists make their money by spinning you up. Plenty of positives are coming out of this.

1. Obama is getting some seasoning as a candidate that he clearly needed. Better now than in October.
2. Democrats across the board are raising money at astounding rates, far outpacing McCain and the GOP. This race is a big reason for that.
3. Democratic voters in every state in the country have turned out in or near record numbers to vote. Primary election voters almost always turn out in the general election.
4. Obama's message is getting out to every key battleground state and people have been paying attention because the primary election has mattered. That is ground that he doesn't have to make up later, which allows you to go straight to your strategic message in the fall. McCain is going to have to devote a lot of his more limited resources to doing this.

I am not convinced that in November, we won't be looking back at this primary mess and saying that it played a big role in the Democratic victory -- sort of the "all press is good press" viewpoint.

[Toddzilla]

Don't panic. A hotly contested primary is not the end of the world. Never forget that pundits and columnists make their money by spinning you up. Plenty of positives are coming out of this.

1. Obama is getting some seasoning as a candidate that he clearly needed. Better now than in October.
2. Democrats across the board are raising money at astounding rates, far outpacing McCain and the GOP. This race is a big reason for that.
3. Democratic voters in every state in the country have turned out in or near record numbers to vote. Primary election voters almost always turn out in the general election.
4. Obama's message is getting out to every key battleground state and people have been paying attention because the primary election has mattered. That is ground that he doesn't have to make up later, which allows you to go straight to your strategic message in the fall. McCain is going to have to devote a lot of his more limited resources to doing this.

I am not convinced that in November, we won't be looking back at this primary mess and saying that it played a big role in the Democratic victory -- sort of the "all press is good press" viewpoint.That's a pretty good point. I'm sure Obama's people would rather all the fuss over Rev. Wright and other non-policy issues come out now when he can deal with them in the context of the primary. If Clinton doesn't hit him with anything, then it is left out there on a tee for McCain to blast away in the general election.

So along the same lines, by not bringing up all kinds of Clinton's dirty laundry, Obama is making it difficult for Clinton to win a general election, since I'm sure the McCain camp has a wealth of stuff on Clinton they just can't wait to unload.

[chesapeake]

So along the same lines, by not bringing up all kinds of Clinton's dirty laundry, Obama is making it difficult for Clinton to win a general election, since I'm sure the McCain camp has a wealth of stuff on Clinton they just can't wait to unload.

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's dirty laundry has already been aired, having been blasted regularly during her husband's administration. If the GOP had something else on her, it would have been used already.

[Fighter of Foo]

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's dirty laundry has already been aired, having been blasted regularly during her husband's administration. If the GOP had something else on her, it would have been used already.

Why???? They want Hillary to win.

[ISiddiqui]

They wanted her to win back in the 90s? Well that's interesting news.

[ISiddiqui]

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

[CamEdwards]

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

I think most Republicans are rooting for a long, drawn out, bitter primary in which Obama wins the nomination. You're right in terms of the polling, and more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the other way around, so it's in the GOP's best interest to have Obama as the candidate.

[ISiddiqui]

I think most Republicans are rooting for a long, drawn out, bitter primary in which Obama wins the nomination. You're right in terms of the polling, and more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the other way around, so it's in the GOP's best interest to have Obama as the candidate.

Yep, exactly and I think that most Republicans realize that. For all the "Hillary will unite the Republican base" stuff, having Obama be the nominee may even work better for the Republicans (yeah, like the base will really stay home when the opposing candidate is proposing all those social programs?)

[-apoc-]

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

I am going to have to disagree there. Assuming they had to pick one or the other they would want to face Clinton at this point. Not even counting how ugly things would get in the D side if she were to win it now.

2 Electorial maps

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr23.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr23.html

Obama has 211 EVs locked up vs Mcains 178, Clinton only has 172 vs McCains 226. So the battle would be fought over the middle ground in Obamas case that would be 58 votes that are currently his that he has to defend and 76 that McCain has to defend plus 15 NC that is a toss up. Hillary has to defend 117 and only has 13 to attack that are McCains plus 10 that are a toss up.

So while at first glance the extra 20 EVs Clinton has over Obama 289 vs 269 at this point looks strong it is very typical of Hillarys numbers overall. She starts out very strong but she doesnt have any room to improve and she will be facing a defensive campaign in FL, OH, MN, MO, NV, OR, WA, HI, NJ, and CT she can only pick up ground in NM, KY and WI is the tossup.

Obama on the other hand is also in a winning position to start and has to play defense in NV, CO, MI, MA, NJ but gets to attack McCain in NM, TX, SC, OH, NH NE and the tossup there is NC.

Given the fincial advantage that the Dems will likely have this fall if you were the RNC where would you rather this fight rage in traditional swing states like FL, OH, MO, WI or being forced to defend traditional red states like TX, SC, NC, and NE. The last thing you want with limited funds is to be forced to defend your strongholds and thats what Obama forces you to do. Case in point he almost bankrupted Clintons campaign in PA by forcing her to defend it with all the money she had. Granted she would have spent most of it there anyway but he was on the air weeks ago in NC, and IN something she couldnt afford to do because she was so invested in PA.

Of course all of this assumes the Dems can actually finish this thing off nicely which at this point who knows.

[ISiddiqui]

Unfortunately on that site, some of the polls are really old. For Texas, for example, the poll is from February 28th. And they seem to only use one poll per state... and a site like realclearpolitics.com shows that they can vary greatly.

[flere-imsaho]

Unfortunately on that site, some of the polls are really old. For Texas, for example, the poll is from February 28th. And they seem to only use one poll per state... and a site like realclearpolitics.com shows that they can vary greatly.

In defense of the guy at electoral-vote.com, he's very clear that he doesn't start compiling and tracking the polls until both nominee are established. I think he said a few weeks back that since there are still two Democrats in it, he doesn't put a lot of faith in the current cross-party polls.

Once the Dem nomination is sorted out, it'll go back to being a very good predictor site (it has been a blast, and pretty accurate, the past two cycles).

[Vegas Vic]

Those electoral college maps are a joke. I quit looking at them after I saw Nebraska and Texas listed as "Barely GOP", and Massachusetts listed as "Barely Dem". Most of their polling data is stale, and quite a few states only have one or two polls from February.

At this point, these states are locks for McCain and Obama. Feel free to disagree with me if you want to, but I've been seriously following this stuff for over 20 years. So I'll go on record right now and say that these states are certain for both candidates:

McCain (189):

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

Obama (175):

California (55)
Connecticut (7)
D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)

[QuikSand]

I think VV's list is pretty sound overall. The only material uncertainty I could see would be that if events (like a bad perceived turn in the Iraq "surge" perhaps) make the whole tide sway against the GOP, then it's conceivable that some of the former swing states could swing blue. In that sort of electoral landslide scenario, I could envision WV and TN (maybe LA?) potentially going Dem. But if we're sizing up to a pretty standard battle for the middle in an overall pretty close race (the likeliest scenario in my view) then I'd agree that those are pretty much the starting point lists for the two parties.

[JPhillips]

My only quibble is that NJ and NH should be safe Dem states regardless of the nominee. The demographics in southern NH make the more libertarian north less powerful and NJ seems to always be almost a swing state, but I imagine it will be +5 or more Dem.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with JPhillips. NJ, especially, has been trending very Dem for a while. Used to be a swing state, but not anymore really.

[Buccaneer]

I still have this feeling that California will come more into play than the past two elections.

I very much disagree with JPhillips about NH.

[Buccaneer]

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most influential black leaders in Congress, said Bill Clinton’s racially charged comments over the course of the presidential campaign have “incensed” the black community, according to an article Thursday on The New York Times Web site.

...

“When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that … this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

He added that black Americans are “incensed over all of this” and almost unanimously believe the Clintons “are committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Rep. Clyburn, perhaps you and others in the black community were duped by his fake sincerity into believing that Pres. Clinton actually cared about you?

[ISiddiqui]

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

[chesapeake]

Vic, I wouldn't say that some of those states are necessarily a lock for either candidate. OR and ME, for example, haven't been shoo-ins for recent Democratic candidates. Likewise AR, NC, TN and WV for the GOP.

But I would say that if you see caandidates having to sink some money into these "core" states once we hit the high campaign season, that a sign of trouble.

[Vegas Vic]

My only quibble is that NJ and NH should be safe Dem states regardless of the nominee. The demographics in southern NH make the more libertarian north less powerful and NJ seems to always be almost a swing state, but I imagine it will be +5 or more Dem.

New Hampshire and New Jersey will be very competitive this year. McCain is popular in New Hampshire, which has been close the past few election cycles (Gore narrowly lost it in 2000 and Kerry narrowly won it in 2004). New Jersey is a likely Obama state, but I don't consider it a "lock" at this point.

In the past, I would have automatically listed Virginia and Colorado as republican locks, and while I still think McCain will win them, I don't consider them locks this year. Likewise with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, which I used to automatically check off in the Democratic scorecard. They've been getting closer and closer every election cycle, and I think McCain has a chance in these states, especially in Pennsylvania.

[JPhillips]

Dems in NH are also aided by a Senate race that looks very competitive. By the end of election night NH will likely have a Dem Gov. and two Dem Senators. In the past four years it's slid decidedly blue.

MN is also a Dem lock as Obama is currently up in double digits and Hillary leads by five or six. The only way it comes into play is if Pawlenty is VP.

As for NJ, it was supposed to be competitive in 2000 and 2004, but it wasn't. It's a tease, but especially with the lackluster senate candidate for the Rep, I don't see it as close at all.

[Vegas Vic]

Vic, I wouldn't say that some of those states are necessarily a lock for either candidate. OR and ME, for example, haven't been shoo-ins for recent Democratic candidates. Likewise AR, NC, TN and WV for the GOP.

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

North Carolina - I grew up there, spent the better part of my life there, and there's no way that Obama wins in November, although he'll beat Clinton easily in the primary. Yeah, I know there's a big African American population and a higher than average percentage of college graduates (with the Research Triangle Park area), but this is still Jesse Helms country for now. Maybe in 15 or 20 years it will change over, but it's safe for McCain in November.

Tennessee - No way, no how for Obama. Solid republican territory. People make a big deal about Gore losing his home state in 2000, but fact of the matter is that he barely got elected to the Senate in the 80's, and by 2000 both senators were republican, the governor was republican, and 12 out of 14 congressmen were republican.

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Vic - I generally appreciate your takes and feel like you're on the mark more often than most folks, but I'm still not sure your analysis above doesn't sell voter motivation (or lack thereof) too short.

McCain got a whopping 1% of the GOP convention votes in WV, less than 1/3rd of the primary votes in TN, and is now down to arguing with the state party in NC (who would presumably know better how to appeal to their voters than he does) while Hillary is wisely on the stump there playing every moderate card she can think of, and in the Arkansas primary almost as many people voted for a candidate other than Huckabee as voted for McCain (although granted that primary is hard to take much from under the circumstances).

I can't imagine any of those states ending up more than 54-46, and there's still some time between now & November. A few points of change between now & then and suddenly they're all toss ups.

[larrymcg421]

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.


Kerry lost 54-45 and Gore lost 51-46. I wouldn't call that being destroyed. It's a winnable state for a Clinton or a candidate that isn't comatose like those two were.

[Swaggs]

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

I agree with you about the gun loving and, somewhat, on the faith clinging. Still, I don't think it is a red state, by any means. Both US senators, 2 of 3 members of the house, the governor, 72 of 100 state reps, and 23 of 34 state senators are Democrats. WV went for Carter in '80, Dukakis in '88, and Clinton in '92 and '96.

I agree that it leans towards McCain, but I don't think it is in the mortal lock category.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

Well, let this be a lesson for Bill as to how Hillary felt when Monica gave him a hummer in the White House.

[miked]

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

I just don't get this Clinton thing where the feel everyone who supported Bill (10 years ago) should now automatically support Hillary. I saw Carville on Larry King saying that he didn't care about people supporting Obama, and he would support him should he become the nominee, but that Richardson had no excuse for supporting Obama. I think Richardson hit the nail on the head when he was talking about Clinton entitlement. Rather than persuading the voters to choose you based on policy and what you can do, they should support you because your husband did so much for them. Granted, that's not her attitude now, but that certainly is what Bill's been trumpeting on the campaign trail.

And I agree with electoral-votes issue, that right now a lot of dems are saying they won't vote for the other dem candidate, but now that McCain is pushing himself more toward the right in terms of tax cuts, war, etc, people will vote party line more than is suggested now.

[ISiddiqui]

Rather than persuading the voters to choose you based on policy and what you can do, they should support you because your husband did so much for them. Granted, that's not her attitude now, but that certainly is what Bill's been trumpeting on the campaign trail.

Well, I think it is because Bill is feeling unappreciated. Instead of people falling all over themselves and saying, look how good we had it under Bill, we should line up behind him... they aren't. He's feeling more and more irrelevant and is dismayed that folks aren't more loyal to him than he expected.

[chesapeake]

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

North Carolina - I grew up there, spent the better part of my life there, and there's no way that Obama wins in November, although he'll beat Clinton easily in the primary. Yeah, I know there's a big African American population and a higher than average percentage of college graduates (with the Research Triangle Park area), but this is still Jesse Helms country for now. Maybe in 15 or 20 years it will change over, but it's safe for McCain in November.

Tennessee - No way, no how for Obama. Solid republican territory. People make a big deal about Gore losing his home state in 2000, but fact of the matter is that he barely got elected to the Senate in the 80's, and by 2000 both senators were republican, the governor was republican, and 12 out of 14 congressmen were republican.

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

I don't disagree that this is what should happen. My point is that if these things don't happen -- for example, if McCain has to make a sizeable ad buy in TN or WV in early October -- that means that his own internal polls show that he is in serious trouble. Likewise, if Obama has to spend some time in the fall shaking hands in either Portland, he's got some problems, too.

TN, by the way, has only 9 reps, 5 of which are Democrats. NC also has a majority of Dems in its House delegation, and a long history of electing Democrats to statewide offices. Both states can very easily come into play. The NC Gov and Sen races will also have some effect on the race, depending on the quality of candidates that emerge.

[Young Drachma]

John McCain is Bob Dole 2.0

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history. Any other candidate runs this year and maybe it's a different conversation. But I'm just not convinced, no matter how many statistics you cite or how many years you want to go back in history that a 72-year old white man is going to trump either a woman or a black guy to become President.

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

But again, we'll see what happens in November and then we can play that game where we go back and quote people and say "what says you now?" Should be a good time regardless...at least from the pundit game players standpoint. As for the direction of the country? That's another story.

[ISiddiqui]

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history.

Um... that's why Jesse Jackson won the Democratic nomination in 1988?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

This kind of comment still amuses me to no end. The thought that Hillary Clinton is anything but the 'old guard' struck me as very funny. Putting a skirt on a leopard doesn't change its spots.

[Young Drachma]

This kind of comment still amuses me to no end. The thought that Hillary Clinton is anything but the 'old guard' struck me as very funny. Putting a skirt on a leopard doesn't change its spots.

I'm with you. But people have short memories when they have a chance at "history."

[Young Drachma]

Um... that's why Jesse Jackson won the Democratic nomination in 1988?

I'm not going to explain it to you just because you don't understand the point I'm making. We'll just let time run its course and in the end, we'll see what happens.

Carry on.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm with you. But people have short memories when they have a chance at "history."

I think that the 'history' effect has worn off over the course of this primary season. Seeing these two bicker and backstab each other over the course of a few months on a national stage quickly reminds people that these are still just politicians at the core in a different outfit.

My mom, who is 60, is a Republican who was gung-ho in January about voting for Hillary to be the first female president. Contrast that to just the other day, where she called her 'the bitch that does nothing but argue' and stated that she would vote Republican in the fall because she couldn't stand Hillary. It's amazing how quickly women voters will turn on other women in any aspect of life, including politics.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not going to explain it to you just because you don't understand the point I'm making. We'll just let time run its course and in the end, we'll see what happens.

Carry on.

It's an absolutely silly idea to say people won't ignore a chance to make history. Almost naively idealistic.

If anything, people who "make history" have to fight against old prejudices to do so (ie, JFK becoming the first, and only thus far, Catholic to be US President).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's an absolutely silly idea to say people won't ignore a chance to make history. Almost naively idealistic.

If anything, people who "make history" have to fight against old prejudices to do so (ie, JFK becoming the first, and only thus far, Catholic to be US President).

Yes, the opression of Catholics and the Kennedy family is well documented. You have to feel sorry for them due to the barriers that they had to conquer.

[Arles]

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."
The problem with your McCain/Obama comparisons are that Obama started out as this "mythical candidate" that became whomever a certain person wanted him to be. Run a business? He'll help small business. Sick of politics? He'll bring us all together. Unhappy with health care? He'll fix the system. But, as time has gone on, we are actually getting to know Obama and his policies. And, the more we know about him, the harder it is to mold him into this perfect politician many saw him as. Take the "bringing together" issue. Just look at the Rev Wright, fighting with Hillary and other comments he's made. It's much tougher to view Obama as a uniter after the past 2 months. Once we hit the regular election, even more info will be thrown out on him. There's a good chance Obama transforms from the perfect fiancee to the ole' ball and chain by November.

As to McCain, most people already know about him and most of the initial opinions were negative. Conservatives didn't like his working with Dems in the Senate, democrats were blown away by Obama and looked at him like an old peo-war fossil. Now, conservatives are starting to warm to him (almost out of necessity) and democrats are starting to get tired of seeing their candidates fight each other in the mud.

I still think it's anyone's game (and Barrack will get a nice bump in the polls when he officially wins), but the time between August and November could be harder on Obama than McCain without any "gotchas" being played. No matter what happens in that time, it will be hard for him still be able to transcend politics and be everyone to all voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He's feeling more and more irrelevant and is dismayed that folks aren't more loyal to him than he expected.

Which was pretty pointedly played upon in the (awful & shouldn't have been done IMO) skit the WWE ran on Monday night.

Obama-as-The-Rock "IT DOESN'T MATTER what you think"
Actor-as-Bill (walking away sadly) to Hillary: "He's right"

[CamEdwards]

John McCain is Bob Dole 2.0

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history. Any other candidate runs this year and maybe it's a different conversation. But I'm just not convinced, no matter how many statistics you cite or how many years you want to go back in history that a 72-year old white man is going to trump either a woman or a black guy to become President.

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

But again, we'll see what happens in November and then we can play that game where we go back and quote people and say "what says you now?" Should be a good time regardless...at least from the pundit game players standpoint. As for the direction of the country? That's another story.

I have no idea how many people would vote to "make history", but that has to be one of the dumbest damned reasons to vote for someone and I really hope it wouldn't be a factor for the vast majority of American voters.

I get, btw, that you're not suggesting it's a good thing to base your vote upon. I just hope you're wrong in your assessment of the American people. Personally, I think Obama could be the next McGovern... though he may end up being the next Jimmy Carter.

[Young Drachma]

Drop Out, Obama (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx)

Even as Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, she has made it clear that she plans to stay in the race for the nomination. All of which brings me to this logical conclusion: It is time for Barack Obama to drop out.

If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election.

But Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton’s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.

McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama’s favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don’t rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama’s utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete. QED.

[Young Drachma]

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc113/Dynasty_DC/history.png

I saw it and just had to laugh.

[Young Drachma]

Dems suspense may be unnecessary (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html)

[Young Drachma]

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

Wonder what affect it'll have by September.

My conspiracy theory of the day is that they want Obama to lose, so that the civil rights establishment can be all self-congratulatory as if "there was no way that 'white america' was to elect a black guy." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ISiddiqui]

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

The moron even said he had been "crucified" by the media... trying to tie himself as a Christ like figure. I'm sure Obama is wishing he had ordered the code red right about know.

[CamEdwards]

I'd really like to read a transcript of the speech at the National Press Club today, but haven't been able to find one yet. This piece from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post suggests it really needs to be seen to be believed.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/?hpid=artslot


For Obama, a Voice of Doom?
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.

Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?

Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").

And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"

Capisce, reverend. All too well.

[CamEdwards]

dola

Another piece from the Washington Post that had me rolling my eyes. It's a Q & A with a couple of contributors to The Root (one of them also attended Rev. Wright's church for seven years).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/28/DI2008042801565.html?hpid=artslot

Given that they both seem to be fans of Obama (and I'm not), it's an odd read. I really don't get the antipathy that this question provoked:


Annapolis, Md.: How is the black church different from a white church?

Melissa Harris-Lacewell: There is no one church of either race. I would not, for example, go up to any white person on the street and ask them to explain the polygamous cult that is currently in the news. That said, there are a number of unique racial traditions that emerge in many historic African American congregations. There is a voluminous literature on this topic. A quick Amazon search will lead you to some great texts.

Jack White: Do you really expect an answer to that question?


Given that Wright has said this controversy isn't just an attack on him, but an attack on "the black church", it seems that this is a question we should expect to be asked. And instead of trying to impart some sort of knowledge about black liberation theology, these two Obama supporters poo-poo the idea of a "black church" to begin with.

I realize this has nothing to do with the Democrat nomination (other than the fact that we're talking about this because of Obama), but I'm really fascinated by this issue.

[CamEdwards]

double dola: Here's a link to the transcript of his speech at the National Press Club.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/transcript-rev-wright-at-the-national-press-club/

Just skimming over the speech... I think his prepared remarks were a heckuva lot better than the Q and A afterwards. But my favorite moment had to be this:


MODERATOR: OK, we are almost out of time. But before asking the last question, we have a couple of matters to take care of.

First of all, let me remind you of our future speakers. This afternoon, we have Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association, who is discussing trading up movies in the global marketplace. On May 2nd, Bobby Jindal, the governor of the state of Louisiana, will discuss bold reform that works. On May 7th, we have Glenn Tilton, CEO, United Airlines, and board member of the American transport association.

Second, I would like to present our guest with the official centennial mug and — it’s brand new.

WRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you.


It's brand new. That line cracked me up.

[Warhammer]

Wow, I thought Obama would have a chance to take down McCain. Wright is going to ruin his candidacy.

[Swaggs]

I agree.

You almost have to believe that Wright does not want Obama to become president.

[Young Drachma]

I agree.

You almost have to believe that Wright does not want Obama to become president.

I think he doesn't. The civil rights establishment know that Obama would put them out of business.

[Vegas Vic]

This is an interesting Newsweek article from a guy I really don't like very much, Karl Rove. He does make some good points.

"Even liberal commentators who adore you warn you can't win with a McGovern coalition of college students and white-wine sippers from the party's left wing."

Newsweek Article: "Dear Senator Obama..." (http://www.newsweek.com/id/134322)

[Buccaneer]

I was going to post the same thing. I do believe he is right on in all points, esp. #1. I like the way he ended

You have talent, intelligence and tapped into something powerful early in your campaign. But running for president is unlike anything you've ever done. You're making mistakes and making people worry that you're an elitist. So while you'll almost certainly win the nomination, Democrats are nervous about the fall. You've given them reasons to be.

[JPhillips]

Well I disagree. Rove knows damn well that there isn't a thing that Obama could do in the Senate during an election year that would help him. The only way the Republicans wouldn't attack him or filibuster it so it died and he looked ineffective is if it was so core Republican that he'd alienate his base. Whether or not he has done enough in the Senate, there's nothing he can do about that now.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, I'll give you that but you have to admit that it would look good if he had done something there. What about the other points?

[miked]

I think it says a lot about the way this country feels about "senate experience" and the current state of politics that a guy who is perceived as having little experience has been running ahead of people who have a "lifetime" of it. I don't see what going back and contributing to the lowest-rated congress (in approval terms) can do.

[ISiddiqui]

Lowest rated Congress, but I bet over 90% of 'em will be re-elected. It's the other Congressmen that's the problem, not mine!!

[JPhillips]

The Senate stuff is tricky. I argued a long time ago that Obama had to run in 2008 before he had a long Senate record that was easily distorted. He doesn't have a big media friendly accomplishment, but he has worked with Republicans and the Independent Democrat on a number of issues.

With Dick Lugar on securing Russian nukes and pandemic preparation

With Joe Lieberman on protecting taxpayer privacy

With Tom Coburn on lobbying reform and no-bid FEMA contracts and making public all government contracts

With Olympia Snow on Veterans Health Care

I don't know why he doesn't publicize this stuff as it would really help with both the "he didn't do anything" and "he's a crazed radical" arguments.

As for the specific points,

1- I don't think it's the words of his stump specch as much as he seems to have been beaten down. The past couple of days he's sounded better and the Fox interview was very good. He can change his speech all he wants, but I think the bigger issue is getting back in control of the discussion. As long as he's constantly on the defensive it really doesn't matter what he says.

2- I don't believe there was a way to handle Wright that would have worked any better. I remember how many people were saying that Obama threw Wright under the bus for political gain. The attacks would have been there regardless.

3 and 4 I've covered.

5- I'd like to see some evidence that he lost ground because of attacks. It may be true, but I'd want some polling data to back that up. My sense is the attacks on him have been far more damaging than any attacks he's made. Again, what's hurting him is that he's on the defensive right now and he looks weak, not that he's being overly aggressive.

6- He does need to highlight his record and policies better, but the 2006 Russert interview stuff is strange to say the least. That sort of gotcha in a supposed advice column erodes his credibility.

But the bigger issue is that Rove is still deeply tied to Obama's opposition. Would you really trust advice for McCain from Mark Penn or James Carville? I just don't see how following Rove's advice will help Obama secure the nomination.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, right now, Obama's opposition is the Clintons, which Rove et al wants him to beat.

[Grammaticus]

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

Wonder what affect it'll have by September.

My conspiracy theory of the day is that they want Obama to lose, so that the civil rights establishment can be all self-congratulatory as if "there was no way that 'white america' was to elect a black guy." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

[JPhillips]

I don't think so Buc. Hillary is much more likely to leave pieces of the Bush policy in place than is Obama.

[Vegas Vic]

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

Interesting take. So, this could be Obama's "Sister Souljah moment".

[Surtt]

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.


Doesn't Hillery's campaign claim Obama isn't capable of doing something like that.
She is the one best able to matching the republican's dirty tricks.

[flere-imsaho]

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

[CamEdwards]

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.

[Buccaneer]

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.

What? You don't believe in the Huffington Post?

[Grammaticus]

Hillary is apparently going on the O'Reilly show. She is pulling out all the stops. This campaign is really interesting.

[Grammaticus]

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

I don't think so. Hagee is just superficial to the McCain campaign. Nothing more than a guy trying to broker votes. McCain is better shrugging it off as a non issue.

While Wright is inner circle to Obama and part of his development as a person. He can't shake it off. In the end it costs him votes. It is just a matter of how many votes. It is really hard to say at this point. Once the general starts, it will get pushed again and who knows how big of an impact it will have.

[Toddzilla]

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.Bingo. However, the question of *why* Hagee's association with McCain isn't hurting his campaign depends on who you ask. It is either because (1) The relationship isn't relevant or (2) The press fawns over McCain to such a degree that - like most everything else - he gets a pass. Guess which side I agree with ;) If you get it right, Cam will buy you a beer at the next FOFC meet-n-greet.

[Buccaneer]

So you really think that McCain has the same relationship with Hagee as Obama had with Wright? Wow. Perhaps you can buy some perspective on eBay or amazon. Not saying the relationship is or isn't relevant but maybe there are different levels?

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's the same relationship, but if Wright is poor judgment isn't seeking out Hagee after you know exactly what his views entail?

[ISiddiqui]

Well because angling for an endorsement and being in a church for 20 years & calling the person your spiritual advisor are like moons apart.

[JPhillips]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

[Toddzilla]

The fact remains that McCain actively sought out the endorsement of a guy who is virulently anti-catholic and anti-homosexual.

To say, "Well, the other guy's preacher is much worse" or "the other guy knew his preacher for a long time" is ignoring the issue.

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

[ISiddiqui]

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

+1

Welcome to politics.

[Fighter of Foo]

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

This particular folk is saying it because Hagee is scary and batshit insane.

[st.cronin]

This particular folk is saying it because Hagee is scary and batshit insane.

Were you inclined to vote for McCain before Hagee's endorsement? And do you think there is a section of voters that that's true for?

[Arles]

Every candidate has some moonbat supporter who they've stood with or complimented at some point in time. But, expecting some chinese guy's relationship with Hillary or Hagee and McCain to be given the same level of importance as Wright and Obama is nonsensical. Thankfully, Obama finally understood this was the case and eventually dealt with it. Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

[CamEdwards]

The fact remains that McCain actively sought out the endorsement of a guy who is virulently anti-catholic and anti-homosexual.

To say, "Well, the other guy's preacher is much worse" or "the other guy knew his preacher for a long time" is ignoring the issue.

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

If you really want to play this game, why don't you look up what the GLBT press is saying about another of Obama's "spiritual advisors", Reverend (and State Senator) James Meeks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

QFT.

I think we're going to look back on his multiple stances on this subject and say that his failure to make this move a month or two ago rather than now is going to be the ultimate reason that he's not elected president. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong reason to not vote for him, but it's a heavy seed of doubt that he's allowed to plant firmly in the voter's minds.

[Fighter of Foo]

Were you inclined to vote for McCain before Hagee's endorsement? And do you think there is a section of voters that that's true for?

I'm conservative in the little 'c' sense. Small government, fiscal responsibility, states rights, leave me (and the rest of the world, and my guns) the fcck alone. If there's a country I think we should aspire to be like, it's Switzerland minus the nanny government.

On paper, and by what you read in the papers, I should be a solid republican and McCain supporter. In reality, McCain's positions and my own couldn't be more different, and his association with Hagee and Norm 'I pray we nuke Iran' only clarify them. Using today's rhetoric, I'm a liberty hating liberal.

The only people I can think of that feel the same way are hard core libertarians who were against the war from the outset and people under 30 who are capable of thinking for themselves. Obviously, this is a very small group.

[Fighter of Foo]

Every candidate has some moonbat supporter who they've stood with or complimented at some point in time. But, expecting some chinese guy's relationship with Hillary or Hagee and McCain to be given the same level of importance as Wright and Obama is nonsensical. Thankfully, Obama finally understood this was the case and eventually dealt with it. Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

You're right, actively seeking the endorsement and votes of hate-filled, hypocritical preachers and their followers isn't noteworthy at all.

I have been persuaded to not vote Rev. Wright for President though.

[Ksyrup]

This is way too big to post up, but this chart tracks the accuracy of presidential polls over the past 50 years.

http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/010/trans010pollposition.html

[Ksyrup]

Oh hell, THIS should go over well in Indiana!


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN_nQOHj__s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT> (http://<object width=)</P>

[JPhillips]

So he has no role in her campaign? Why does this matter at all?

[JPhillips]

I'll add that the captions seem wrong. The first phrase sounds like, "have got to be shitting" and I assume that's directed at the Bush camp. The second phrase is unclear, but given that it references the same poeple as the first phrase it would make no sense for him to say "worthless white ni##@$%".

[Ksyrup]

I'm noticing this with YT all over the place. Why are the videos no longer available, yet they're still on YT? I don't get it.

[Ksyrup]

To answer your questions: I didn't say they were relevant. I said this won't go over well there, and you know this will be attached to her, fair or not. As far as what he says, it's beyond clear that he says "those people are shit." He then looks at someone off camera and says, "Oh, excuse me." Maybe if all you heard was the audio you could get what you heard from it, but with video attached, it's clear as day. The rest of what he says sounds like "worthless white n....," but I can't be 100% sure. It's even possible someone whispered that over the video, who knows.

The first part is obvious, though.

[Young Drachma]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_wKOgMNs0U&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_wKOgMNs0U&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/972175.aspx

*** UPDATE *** Huffington Post quotes Kantor on what he meant by the expletive: "Indiana was not even on our radar screen," he said, "And I was talking about the polling and not the people... If you look at The War Room, this is not the way Carville or George interpreted my statement. This is frankly libelous."

[EDITOR'S NOTE: We've adjusted the language in the first paragraph, because it's not clear Kantor is referring to Indianans.]

*** UPDATE 2*** The director of The War Room tells Ben Smith the film is doctored. One portion of another produced clip -- not included in this post -- making its rounds, is certainly doctored. We are in the process of checking the original film to see about the first expletive.

*** UPDATE 3 *** We've checked the original film, which we link to above. Quietly, you can hear an "-ing" on the end of the expletive. Then Kantor adds "...in the White House." He was NOT referring to the people of Indiana.

[Ksyrup]

Man, you gotta love technology. The whispered stuff seemed ripe for being doctored. But I can't tell if he's saying now that the language is right, but directed at someone else, or if even that is doctored. It can't be both.

[JPhillips]

The first part is obvious, though.

Except it isn't.

[Ksyrup]

The clip that DC posted still sounds the same, but it's certainly possible that his explanation is correct. And interestingly, like I thought, the whispered part is suspiciously louder on the other version I've heard than the original. I can't make that out at all in DC's version.

[Ksyrup]

Except it isn't.

Yes, it is. Kantor confirms the language, but says it was directed at pollsters, not Indianans.

[JPhillips]

Kantor says he was talking about the polls, not the pollsters and if you listen he clearly says, "Those people are shitting." I think it's clear he's talking about the Bush camp, but I suppose it's possible he's talking about the pollsters. Either way it isn't at all what it was reported as being.

[Ksyrup]

On your last point, I agree. But he says he was talking about the "polling" - the process of taking the poll. I think he was talking about their accuracy in taking the polls. "They are shit." I don't hear (or see) anything between "shit" and "excuse me."

[-apoc-]

I dont see much with that video its far to hard to hear the last part and the first part the explanation about the white house shitting themselves makes sense to me. Besides who needs that crap when we have this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

How do you embed on here if someone doesnt mind PMing me the code.

[flere-imsaho]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

That's the way I see it. Of course I'm biased. :)

[flere-imsaho]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

That's the way I see it. Of course I'm biased. :)

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama’s lead in my old home state of North Carolina is down to single digits now, and I’m not quite sure why. This is precisely the type of state primary that he should win in a landslide over Clinton. 40% of the registered democrats are African-Americans, and there is a large concentration of “latte liberals” and college students in the Research Triangle Park area of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. Although he stands almost no chance here against McCain in November, there aren’t many other states where his three-legged primary coalition is stronger.

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, it's going to hurt Obama badly, one way or another. That is unfortunate because, personally, I really want him to get rid of the Clintons. In column today in cnn, it quotes from the NYTimes and it (the Wright controversy) appears to not be good.

So what happens after tomorrow? The Dems will be no closer to a resolution. Is the gash in Obama's shining armor big enough to kill him or will he be a wounded survivor?

[Ksyrup]

Obama is still going to win the nomination. The superdelegates seem to be siding more with him, ironically as the public seems to be sliding a bit towards Clinton. A couple months back, had the superdelegates made their moves then, perhaps Clinton wouldn't have had as easy a time of getting back into the race.

He's already conceded that the race is going to go through June 3rd, which means he knows she will do well tomorrow. A far cry from trying to get her to concede in advance of the TX/OH primaries, huh?

In looking at the RCP (Real Clear Politics) polling averages, the votes tomorrow should be interesting. In Indiana, the race has been back and forth since Clinton held a decent lead (about 7 points) about a month ago, but the RCP polling average shows her ahead by about 4.5 points today. In NC, I'm amazed at how small Obama's margin is now. Consider that less than a month ago, he held an average 17-18 point lead; right now that's down to 6.5 points. Isn't this going to be the flipside of Clinton's PA win - unless he wins by a lot, it's almost a victory for Clinton? As VV points out, this state's Democratic demographic is tailor-made for Obama. If Clinton only loses by 6-8 points, that's still a significant move for her. And keep in mind that undecideds seem to be consistently breaking for Clinton in the last 72 hours before a primary.

Aside from the politics of all of this, I have to admit I find the process and results fun to watch.

[Buccaneer]

K, I don't know if NC is "tailor-made" since it is one of the states at the core of the so-called Reagan Democrats. That is why, as VV said, it will be solidly red in November, particularly if Obama wins the Dem. I went to grad school there and studied the geography and demographics of the state (as well as the region) and while I know of the growth of the RTP, the left-wing enclaves are still pockets in the state surrounded by conservative Dems and many forms of Reps.

[Brian Swartz]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Wright is worse than Hagee.

All I've heard is 'well, he's just playing politics and getting support', which seems a lot more craven to me than having a pastor or former pastor who says controversial things.

But I get the feeling more and more that I am way out of touch with the majority of the country these days, so take that with a grain of salt.

Against my better judgement, I'll wade in here. A couple of these are from the Rev. Wright thread, but in the interests of respecting the wishes of the OP there I think the discussion is more appropriate here.

The first thing is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that the accusation here against Obama is guilt by association: Wright says X and knows Obama therefore we can assume Obama believes everything Wright says. That's not the case at all, and I reject that argument.

However, the big unknown in this race is who is Barack Obama, anyway. What are his core beliefs and principles. You can make all the speeches and release all the white papers you want, but who is he? Is he someone America can trust? Hillary Clinton and John McCain can only redefine themselves to a certain extent. We pretty much know who they are. Such is not the case with Obama. Therefore one of the most important questions you can ask is what do we know about him. One of the best ways to find this out, about anybody, is to examine those he is close to personally.

This is why there is a huge difference between Obama-Wright and McCain-Hagee. The latter is about votes. Relatively speaking, it's not that important whether Hagee endorses McCain or Wright endorses Obama. There is no long-standing relationship there. It is not even remotely comparable. With Wright and Obama the issue is that this is a person by the senator's own statements who is a powerful figure in his life, a spiritual mentor, officiated his wedding and baptism, etc. A key formative influence, personally.

The whole 'he's not who I thought he was' line recently given by Obama and his supporters and people on these forums is a laughable crock on its face. There is absolutely nothing in what the good reverend has said recently that is any more extreme than what was previously known. The ONLY thing that has changed is the political temperature and the exposure.

Barack Obama has set himself up as a candidate of change. A unifier. One who can bring back the spirit of America. A beacon of hope. A messiah. He speaks for all of us, not special interests. This is not a vision remotely compatible with the Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric. And you don't just have to take what Wright says at face value only. Black liberation theology and the black value system, both long-standing core tenets of the Trinity United Church of Christ, also fly in the face of who Obama has presented himself to be in this campaign.

And so the question must be posed: is Obama who he says he is, or is he a fraud and a charlatan? It's fair to ask, and it's reasonable to expect him to credibly answer how someone with his type of vision could be comfortable in such a congregation and with such a pastor/spiritual mentor for 20 years. Logically, it would seem that either he's not at all what he pretends to be or he's an idiot who had no idea what was going on. Either results casts serious doubt on his fitness for the office he is running for.

Why, if Obama believes what he says he does, would he have considered it the least bit appropriate for him to remain a member there? He hasn't answered that, and by far the most probable reason he hasn't is that there is no good answer to that question.

[Ksyrup]

K, I don't know if NC is "tailor-made" since it is one of the states at the core of the so-called Reagan Democrats. That is why, as VV said, it will be solidly red in November, particularly if Obama wins the Dem. I went to grad school there and studied the geography and demographics of the state (as well as the region) and while I know of the growth of the RTP, the left-wing enclaves are still pockets in the state surrounded by conservative Dems and many forms of Reps.

I'm talking about from the Dem standpoint. I know big picture, the Dems won't take the state. But within their own party, Obama should take this state easily.

[JPhillips]

Brian: One of McCain's closest advisors helped set up a crowning ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon in the Senate office building. How do we know whether or not McCain is a fraud or charlatan?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Brian: One of McCain's closest advisors helped set up a crowning ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon in the Senate office building. How do we know whether or not McCain is a fraud or charlatan?

Welcome to the world of missed points.

There's a reason that the Wright story gained traction while the attempts to push the endorsement of Hagee/Moon/whatever other idiot into the limelight have fallen on deaf ear. It's not even close to the same thing as Brian stated so well.

[ISiddiqui]

Welcome to the world of missed points.

There's a reason that the Wright story gained traction while the attempts to push the endorsement of Hagee/Moon/whatever other idiot into the limelight have fallen on deaf ear. It's not even close to the same thing as Brian stated so well.

Exactly. As pointed out, we know who McCain and Clinton are. They've been central on the national political scene for over a decade. Obama is completely new. Now, if Obama hadn't run for President until 8 years from now, the Wright stuff may not have been so important, because most of us would have known what kind of person Obama was and what he really did believe in.

[Buccaneer]

I'm talking about from the Dem standpoint. I know big picture, the Dems won't take the state. But within their own party, Obama should take this state easily.

My point was that it would be the conservative Dems that would vote Clinton today.

[Swaggs]

Just got back from voting in the NC primary.

I live in Durham, which should be in Obama's wheelhouse (nearly 40% African-American and high level of college graduates), but it didn't seem like there were a lot of voters out (granted I voted before 9:00 AM). If Obama doesn't get a huge turnout in Durham, Wake (Raleigh), and Orange (Chapel Hill) Counties, he may be in for a long night.

[JPhillips]

If Moon had dumped as much money on and gotten as much back from the Democrats as he has the Republicans it would be the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. Moon is a convicted felon, alleged brainwasher, friend of North Korea, self-proclaimed messiah, advocate of abolishing the Constitution, but because he gives huge amounts of cash and has a media empire that supports mainly conservatives, he's been legitimized and honored by by nearly every prominent Republican.

Everything that people are worried might happen with Wright has happened with Moon. I understand why the media is focusing on Wright, but if you're honestly concerned by Wright you should be more concerned with Moon.

[Fighter of Foo]

Exactly. As pointed out, we know who McCain and Clinton are. They've been central on the national political scene for over a decade. Obama is completely new. Now, if Obama hadn't run for President until 8 years from now, the Wright stuff may not have been so important, because most of us would have known what kind of person Obama was and what he really did believe in.

You know what McCain believes in? Please, share it with the rest of us.

[Brian Swartz]

Everything that people are worried might happen with Wright has happened with Moon. I understand why the media is focusing on Wright, but if you're honestly concerned by Wright you should be more concerned with Moon.

You continue to miss the point. Moon, like Hagee, is about pandering to influential figures for the purpose of votes/contributions. That's certainly not something anybody should be proud of, but it is a totally, completely different issue from Wright-Obama. Had McCain been a 20-year member of the Unification Church or spouted platitudes about Moon being his spiritual mentor then yeah, it would be similar. It's about who Obama is. It's not about political contributors. It's about personal associations and assessing what those say about the man himself. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[Vegas Vic]

Exit polls show Obama winning NC by 12 and Clinton winning Indiana by 5. As noted before, the exit polls have consistently overrated Obama's actual vote totals, so we'll see if that trend continues tonight.

[JPhillips]

VV: Southern exit polls have tended to underestimate for Obama. The question is will the undecideds break for the winner as they have most of the election or will they break for Clinton as they have recently.

[Young Drachma]

The second after the polls closed in North Carolina, they called that state for Obama. He's still down by 26,000 or so votes in Indiana to her, only 3% of the results in Indianapolis and other cities are in, though.

[Young Drachma]

For comparison/contrast, here is a map of Indiana from the 2004 primary (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2004&fips=18&f=0&off=0&elect=1). Obviously wasn't as important as this one in terms of having to determine the outcome of things, but...still shows you how much higher turnout is this year compared to then.

[mrsimperless]

Hillary is winning the rural areas in Indiana pretty strongly right now, while in the bigger cities Obama seems to have a slight edge. It'll be a matter of if his edge in the cities is large enough and the turnouts in the cities high enough to give him a chance to pull it out. As of right now it's an uphill battle for him, which is nothing less than I expected from my fellow Hoosiers. :rolleyes:

[Buccaneer]

You know, I bet the Clintons are cursing their bad luck. The year that they get all of their ducks in a row and run, is also the Year of the Obama. If she had gone up against the 7 Clowns of 2004, she would have won easily.

[Buccaneer]

Hillary is winning the rural areas in Indiana pretty strongly right now, while in the bigger cities Obama seems to have a slight edge. It'll be a matter of if his edge in the cities is large enough and the turnouts in the cities high enough to give him a chance to pull it out. As of right now it's an uphill battle for him, which is nothing less than I expected from my fellow Hoosiers. :rolleyes:

Why the rolly-eye thing?

[mrsimperless]

Because this is conservative country. In the comments of our local paper we've even got admitted republicans who are crossing over and foregoing their own primary to vote Hillary on the dem side quoting some "Operation Chaos" mandate from Limbaugh. Not that it wouldn't have been a struggle for Obama regardless throughout the "heartland". I feel like most of the people I know have their heads in the right direction, but that when you get out into the country here people just don't seem to have a clue what is happening right in front of their faces.

I haven't completely given up hope yet, we'll see what happens.

[JPhillips]

Buc: Is it bad luck or is she simply not that great a campaigner?

[Buccaneer]

(CNN) — Just how badly is the Democratic Party divided?

According to the exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election match up with John McCain. A third of Clinton voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Just 48 percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.

Obama gets even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina. There, only 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-eight percent said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote.

Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said they'd support the New York Democrat.

CNN seems to bring this up every week or so. It really must be scary for the Dems if any of it holds true.

[JPhillips]

We'll see where this number is after the convention. Right now it's an easy threat. However, if even twenty percent vote for McCain it's going to be a problem.

[mrsimperless]

CNN seems to bring this up every week or so. It really must be scary for the Dems if any of it holds true.

Do you have similar numbers for how many of those who voted McCain today would cross over and vote dem come November in Obama vs. Clinton scenarios?

[CamEdwards]

Okay, I've gotta ask what the guy with the Ron Paul quote in his signature is doing rooting for Obama, who's about as un-libertarian as you can get.

[mrsimperless]

It's not about libertarianism vs. liberalism, its about patriotism vs. evil. I know plenty of liberal libertarians and libertarian liberals. Pretty much all of them are voting for Obama.

[Young Drachma]

Obama is doing fine with white independents and is getting consistent numbers of white Democrats, despite what the pundits will say. The numbers in Delaware County, Indiana are currently 53-47 for Clinton. It's supposedly a bellweather and it's at 93% reporting the last time I checked. But the fact that he's closing fast and with the way turnout is, past reports mean little to nothing at this point.

Indiana could break like Missouri did for him at the last minute, which would end this thing effectively and while his people are deliberately downplaying expectations, they privately have to be hoping for an upset here.

[CamEdwards]

It's not about libertarianism vs. liberalism, its about patriotism vs. evil. I know plenty of liberal libertarians and libertarian liberals. Pretty much all of them are voting for Obama.


Huh. And to think I always thought the converse of evil was good, not patriotism.

So why are your libertarian friends voting Obama?

[mrsimperless]

Huh. And to think I always thought the converse of evil was good, not patriotism.

So why are your libertarian friends voting Obama?

I would assume for the same reasons I am. I don't usually talk politics with my friends, although I do know how they tend to lean. But for some reason everyone has been wanting to talk about Obama lately.

[Buccaneer]

Huh. And to think I always thought the converse of evil was good, not patriotism.

So why are your libertarian friends voting Obama?

Small sample size.

[Young Drachma]

He already conceded Indiana to her in his speech tonight. And look at the crowd behind him that they put together strategically in North Carolina in his speech tonight...

I'm really interested to see how close Indiana ends up being. He's trying to change the language of this from being a "race" to coming to a close...interesting rhetoric. He needed a moment like this, because he hasn't had one in a long while.

[Vegas Vic]

In spite of his victory speech dogma, North Carolina will not be in play in the general election.

[mrsimperless]

He appears to be trouncing her in Marion County (Indianapolis). No clue why he would concede at this point. He has been steadily gaining ground all night.

[Young Drachma]

He appears to be trouncing her in Marion County (Indianapolis). No clue why he would concede at this point. He has been steadily gaining ground all night.

I think it's a trick. There is math that they could actually win Indiana and pull a Missouri here. But...I think they're tricking them into thinking they're going to win and then pull it out in the end. And to dampen expectations in this thing, if they lose as expected.

They fact that the exit polling haven't let them call this thing and that the trigger happy media are sitting on their hands, says something may be afoot.

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Young Drachma]

They really need to change the rhetoric of his stump speech. I know it's comfortable for him, but he needs to basically roll up his sleeves and tell these people that he's "going to work" for them. This "Yes We Can" shit doesn't resonate with the people he's trying to attract.

He's down 50,000 votes now. Seems like it'll be about a 15-25k difference when it's all said in done for Hillary, if the numbers hold up like they're falling now. But if Lake County breaks big for him, it could shift to be a much smaller margin of victory for her or even...the improbable upset.

[Vegas Vic]

North Carolina turned out to be very polarized. Obama got 92% of the black vote and Clinton got 60% of the white vote.

[Young Drachma]

Indiana is officially too close to call. The Obama folks think they are going to fall 10-15k too short. But they need about 55% of what's left on the board to pull off the upset. Still, none of these developments are good news for Camp Clinton.

[Buccaneer]

Indiana is officially too close to call. The Obama folks think they are going to fall 10-15k too short. But they need about 55% of what's left on the board to pull off the upset. Still, none of these developments are good news for Camp Clinton.

Like Troy said a while back, it's the math. She needed to pull in 60% of the votes/delegates in each state after March 5(?) to have a chance.

[mrsimperless]

Still lots of votes to count in Hamilton and Lake counties, which would seem to maybe be his spots...

[mrsimperless]

Like Troy said a while back, it's the math. She needed to pull in 60% of the votes/delegates in each state after March 5(?) to have a chance.

Agreed, but the perception of "winning" can't be understated for him at this point, regardless of a proportionate delegate distribution.

[Buccaneer]

Still lots of votes to count in Hamilton and Lake counties, which would seem to maybe be his spots...

I assume Gary is in Lake, what city is in Hamilton?

[Young Drachma]

I assume Gary is in Lake, what city is in Hamilton?

Tippecanoe is where Purdue University is and only half the votes are in there and he's up 59-41. Hamilton is almost done at 90% of the vote in and he's up 60-40. It's suburban Indiana.

[Warhammer]

I am puzzled why would any type of libertarian lean towards Obama?

[Young Drachma]

I am puzzled why would any type of libertarian lean towards Obama?

They're probably left-libertarian types, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism) as opposed to the typical traditional libertarian who are usually right-leaning libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism) that we're all pretty familiar with.

[mrsimperless]

Some views from other professed libertarians who support Obama. Maybe Bucc would like to see us all kicked out. :)

hxxp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/29/libertarians-for-obama/
hxxp://www.libertariansforobama.org/
hxxp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/27/libertarians-for-obama/
hxxp://www.joannemcneil.com/weblog/index.php?p=809
hxxp://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-and-constitution-one.html
hxxp://lesowijs.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/can-we-get-a-libertarian-for-obama/

[Buccaneer]

They're probably left-libertarian types, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism) as opposed to the typical traditional libertarian who are usually right-leaning libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism) that we're all pretty familiar with.

Oh great. Here I have been advocating for years something other than the red/blue spectrum and they're trying to put libertarians into neat boxes.

[CamEdwards]

Man, phrases like anarcho-communists make my head hurt. Talk about identity politics.

[Buccaneer]

Some views from other professed libertarians who support Obama. Maybe Bucc would like to see us all kicked out. :)

hxxp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/29/libertarians-for-obama/
hxxp://www.libertariansforobama.org/
hxxp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/27/libertarians-for-obama/
hxxp://www.joannemcneil.com/weblog/index.php?p=809
hxxp://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-and-constitution-one.html
hxxp://lesowijs.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/can-we-get-a-libertarian-for-obama/

You tell me that the House and/or the Senate will go (R) and I will gladly vote for Obama. That's the essense of practical libertarianism at the federal level.

[Fighter of Foo]

You tell me that the House and/or the Senate will go (R) and I will gladly vote for Obama. That's the essense of practical libertarianism at the federal level.

I used to believe in the virtues of split party government too. Since the Dems are nothing more than Bush enablers, I've taken that to mean they agree with Bush and thus the theory is invalid. The Dems have no plans to impeach Bush, no plans of repealing the military commissions act and unanimously voted in the senate to condemn Iran, a country that's done fuck all to us. There's the whole Iraq thing too. :( The Republicans have brought all of this to the table. If that's not the antithesis of libertarianism I don't know what is.

Obama's statements regarding the lack of impeachment/accountability toward Bush et al for making war and his commitment to increasing the military-corporatist machine sicken me to no end, but there's little doubt he would be marginally better than Hillary or McCain. Their positions on the gas tax nonsense proves that.

My only decision is whether to vote Obama or not vote at all. Given the state I live in, I don't think it matters.

[JPhillips]

Buc: Take this as the gentle ribbing intended, but I sure don't recall you advocating for Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000.

[Young Drachma]

Oh great. Here I have been advocating for years something other than the red/blue spectrum and they're trying to put libertarians into neat boxes.

This isn't new, Bucc. This left-right split in the Libertarian spectrum has been around pretty much since the beginning.

[Young Drachma]

Man, phrases like anarcho-communists make my head hurt. Talk about identity politics.

anarcho-capitalists are even funnier. ;) And just hang out with a few, that's an interesting dinner party.

[JPhillips]

It appears that Operation Chaos may be the deciding factor in Indiana. From Jon CHait:

One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.

[mrsimperless]

I used to believe in the virtues of split party government too. Since the Dems are nothing more than Bush enablers, I've taken that to mean they agree with Bush and thus the theory is invalid. The Dems have no plans to impeach Bush, no plans of repealing the military commissions act and unanimously voted in the senate to condemn Iran, a country that's done fuck all to us. There's the whole Iraq thing too. :( The Republicans have brought all of this to the table. If that's not the antithesis of libertarianism I don't know what is.

Obama's statements regarding the lack of impeachment/accountability toward Bush et al for making war and his commitment to increasing the military-corporatist machine sicken me to no end, but there's little doubt he would be marginally better than Hillary or McCain. Their positions on the gas tax nonsense proves that.

My only decision is whether to vote Obama or not vote at all. Given the state I live in, I don't think it matters.

hxxp://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/041508.html

You can't expect him to actually come out and SAY something like that, regardless of what he may believe. By all appearances his is an intelligent person of integrity, which should be a job prerequisite anyway. I'm not aware of too many of those these days who don't think that the criminals should be sent to jail. Although most people will not come right out and say it.

[Buccaneer]

Buc: Take this as the gentle ribbing intended, but I sure don't recall you advocating for Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000.

For the same reason I would not vote for Clinton even if all of Congress were (R). :) Besides, I don't think anyone knew what the extent of a soild (R) would be in 2000. I believe I passed in 2004 because I certainly did not support Bush2 and disliked Kerry even less. Unlike those that in some incredulous way take what happens at the federal level in a personal way (like Foo), it becomes an interesting thing to watch power struggles and the contrast between rhetoric and realities. Also, it took the last 4 years for me to solidify and to articulate my libertarian stances, whereas before, I knew what I was feeling but really didn't understand it much (due to years of apathy).

[Fighter of Foo]

hxxp://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/041508.html

You can't expect him to actually come out and SAY something like that, regardless of what he may believe. By all appearances his is an intelligent person of integrity, which should be a job prerequisite anyway. I'm not aware of too many of those these days who don't think that the criminals should be sent to jail. Although most people will not come right out and say it.

Your link contains the most telling Obama quote ever:

“I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances,” Obama said.

I'm beyond appalled that he thinks or expects anyone else to think that "authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers," not to mention causing the death of over a million people is somehow not an exceptional circumstance.

[Fighter of Foo]

Unlike those that in some incredulous way take what happens at the federal level in a personal way (like Foo), it becomes an interesting thing to watch power struggles and the contrast between rhetoric and realities.

Apologies to everyone if I'm overly pissy about what MY government is doing in MY name with MY money. These threads tend to bring this stuff out.

[mrsimperless]

Your link contains the most telling Obama quote ever:

“I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances,” Obama said.

I'm beyond appalled that he thinks or expects anyone else to think that "authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers," not to mention causing the death of over a million people is somehow not an exceptional circumstance.

Again, you need to read between the lines. He can't come out and say that right now without pissing off a lot of people that he needs to win the election, and yet he is leaving the door open. We already know it's not going to happen with Hillary.

[Buccaneer]

Foo, you haven't read much about the FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy and esp. LBJ and Nixon administrations, have you? Intolerable circumstance, yes, but exceptional? Hardly.

what MY government is doing in MY name with MY money.

It's funny that certain people (on both sides) want to act all libertarian, only when it justifies an oppositional position. But to extend that to other circumstances of federal powers, expenditures and unconstitutionalities? No way.

(unconstitutionalities. Is that a word?)

[Fighter of Foo]

Foo, you haven't read much about the FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy and esp. LBJ and Nixon administrations, have you? Intolerable circumstance, yes, but exceptional? Hardly.



It's funny that certain people (on both sides) want to act all libertarian, only when it justifies an oppositional position. But to extend that to other circumstances of federal powers, expenditures and unconstitutionalities? No way.

(unconstitutionalities. Is that a word?)

In fact I have. What are you insinuating?

[digamma]

This Lanny Wright guy or whatever his name is on CNN is a clown.

[JPhillips]

I don't think Obama had anything to do with it, but the way Gary is playing out sure looks bad.