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

[Arles]

I suggest a Bill/Hillary vs. Barack/Michelle tagteam cage match on WWE's pay-per-view Wrestlemania.
That might raise enough money for the "redo" primaries in Florida and Michigan.

[JPhillips]

albion: In regards to the money, don't forget that primary money is not the same as general election money. An individual can donate 2000 to the primary campaign and another 2000 to the general. Obviously not everyone will max out twice, but given that whoever wins will have a sizable amount of donors to pull from the rival, money won't be an issue in the general.

I'll give you that the negative campaigning is more of a worry, but I don't think it will hurt much if the primary is over in early summer.

[Schmidty]

Man. I don't follow politics closely, because it's depressing, but holy fucking shit, Hillary has run a horrific campaign. She seems to have no control over anything, and even when she does try to seize control, she sticks her foot in her mouth. She is the epitome of incompetence mixed with illusions of grandeur.

[Buccaneer]

Playing the sexist card seems to be the speaking point of the month, but playing the sexist card while playing the race card???


Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Ferraro said the New York senator had suffered because the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."

[Vegas Vic]

Any time someone takes a 'who the hell do you think you are' shot at one of the Clintons, it's going to be something that the Republican and independent voters notice.

That's an interesting point, but I think you need to differentiate between the Clintons. Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating in the upper 60's. A lot of people, including independents, think he was an effective president. I voted for him twice, and I would vote for him again if the constitution allowed him to run. However, I would never even consider voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama wins Mississippi something like 60-40, with exit polls showing Obama getting 90% of the black vote and Clinton getting 75% of the white vote.

[Young Drachma]

Playing the sexist card seems to be the speaking point of the month, but playing the sexist card while playing the race card???

And she defended it again today when she got called on it. Gloria Steinem did the same thing in the NY Times not too long ago, she just wasn't as blunt about it. If Obama was a white male, he'd have won the nomination already. She's on meth to suggest otherwise.

[Greyroofoo]

It looks like Obama wins Mississippi something like 60-40, with exit polls showing Obama getting 90% of the black vote and Clinton getting 75% of the white vote.

nice to see racism alive and well in America

[st.cronin]

If Obama was a white male, he'd have won the nomination already.

That's very debatable. John Edwards, for example, is a white male, and has a lot in common with Obama, but did not win the nomination.

[Young Drachma]

That's very debatable. John Edwards, for example, is a white male, and has a lot in common with Obama, but did not win the nomination.

I knew someone would bring him up.

Edwards isn't an Ivy Leaguer, wasn't marketed nearly as well and couldn't campaign his way out of a bag.

He was a poor man's Obama, sure. Good looks and nice smile and all that crap. Nice guy seems too. But nope. Every generation has someone who comes along like this and sweeps everyone up in his swoonability. And Obama is this generation's guy.

[Crim]

Edwards' delivery was smarmy, though. He always sounds like a lawyer. Obama's delivery is the key, IMO.

[sterlingice]

nice to see racism alive and well in America

The South is still a part of America? *checks map* Guess so, (sortof)...

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I knew someone would bring him up.

Edwards isn't an Ivy Leaguer, wasn't marketed nearly as well and couldn't campaign his way out of a bag.

He was a poor man's Obama, sure. Good looks and nice smile and all that crap. Nice guy seems too. But nope. Every generation has someone who comes along like this and sweeps everyone up in his swoonability. And Obama is this generation's guy.

And if Obama doesn't carry the black vote to win South Carolina and get some momentum, he's out of the race well before now (he becomes Howard Dean, who people were all talking up in 2004 for sweeping up new voters and all that). I think people seem to forget in this Obamania that Hillary Clinton is actually a very formidable candidate.

[st.cronin]

I knew someone would bring him up.

Edwards isn't an Ivy Leaguer, wasn't marketed nearly as well and couldn't campaign his way out of a bag.

He was a poor man's Obama, sure. Good looks and nice smile and all that crap. Nice guy seems too. But nope. Every generation has someone who comes along like this and sweeps everyone up in his swoonability. And Obama is this generation's guy.

If you argue that Edwards was advantaged because of his whiteness, though, how do you back that up?

[Young Drachma]

nice to see racism alive and well in America

I don't think that the metrics on the race thing are anything other than media spin to create a story. I think if you asked the 'average' person, there would be people who would naturally say they feel more "comfortable" with one versus the other. But in a year where a black candidate or so-called black candidate is winning states throughout the Intermountain West, South and Midwest with sizable margins, to call this some sort of racial firefight seems a bit off to me.

While I'm sure there are lots of black folks who get an immense amount of pride from seeing Barack Obama doing well, if there was an indication that he wasn't representing their interests, I don't believe he'd be getting support from them.

I think that's the thing to understand about this. And by the same token, I can see plenty of white voters feeling that the black candidate is going to represent the interests of "his own" people despite Obama's record not necessarily showing that to be true anymore than any other liberal progressive's record might.

But by the same token, I can see those same folks choosing to vote for Hillary because even if they don't like her, they can see her as someone that will fight for them. Perhaps even more so now, because of how despite cozying up to blacks in public, the Clintons have been alienated by them when their knight in shining armour as it could be twisted to be put, shows up to the scene.

I do think the optics of this race are the reason things are where they are, but I don't think it's solely about race which is motivating people to decide the way they are or we'd have a minority President by now. I think it's about the right fit in the right year and I've said before that when people used to bandy about who might be the first black President, never did a person like Barack Obama wasn't the idea.

In a historical sense, it makes a ton of sense. But on paper? Couldn't have dreamt him up.

Even if he were white, if everything else remained constant, I think all the other parameters would pretty much be as they have been now. Even the strong black support. The Kennedy family can attest to that loyalty.

It's all speculation obviously, but Obama isn't a charity case who went to UI-Chicago, got a scholarship to law school and used inner city muscle to get himself a Senate seat. Or a product of the Democratic machine at the national level (see Ron Brown, Carol Moseley-Braun or others) who managed to leverage things to get themselves in the right spot at the right time.

Nope. He went to an elite prep school in Hawai'i, transfer from Occidental to Columbia and goes on to Harvard.

The old guard is skeptical of him and while the new guard love him, he still has to fight battles from all sides because he's not beholden to any of the "old school" and on the union-cozy left, that makes life a lot more difficult. He gets through all of that with his work as a community organizer.

Obama believes in his rhetoric. He's not just a shiny package. I mean, I'd not vote for him if he were the Messiah, but...he truly believes in what he says and clearly isn't cut out for campaigning.

But he's certainly the more polished version of Candidate 2.0. Howard Dean really took big strides when he raised all that damn money in the 'net back in '04 and I wondered what that would do the game going forward for '08. I never imagined it would manifest itself in the way that it was with Obama.

But if he were white, none of this would be any different. Except the love that you get from black people who've finally decided to embrace him warmly after being a bit cool to the idea at first, feeling he was some sort of joke created to coddle them and was really some sort of "Uncle Tom". Needless to say, his choice of a wife was the shrewdest campaign move of his life and he damn sure knows it.

When a guy brings millions of people to the polls to vote for him who otherwise would be sitting at home watching the coronation of Hillary I right now on CNN; in a way that no other candidate has -- sure, people liked Edwards, but he didn't put butts in the seats like Obama does..in Boise to Birmingham -- then it's nothing short of a phenomenon.

I'm still not entirely convinced the story ends with him as President of the USA, but only because he looks much less likely the insurgent that he did when this all started, because history in the making is always a strange thing to watch..because you're still blinking in disbelief that whatever has happened actually has.

But it's astounding to watch it all unfold, given that no one predicted the scenarios we're seeing now, rendering the Fourth Estate effectively useless. But that was bound to happen anyway.

[Young Drachma]

If you argue that Edwards was advantaged because of his whiteness, though, how do you back that up?

I never said Edwards was advantaged because of his whiteness. I said if Obama was white, he'd be the nominee. Because the only thing holding him up now isn't the Clinton machine -- they're machine isn't what it once was -- it's because of 1) his name and 2) his imputed race and the 3) relatively unknown nature of his political existence. It's more complicated than that, but the basic breakdown is:

If you have a white, young, likeable candidate with minimal baggage and the ability to generate crowds like a rock concert and to inspire people who otherwise would sit out...without all of the baggage of race or religion, how could you stop him? This is before you mention that our imaginary candidate went to arguably the most prestigious prep school in Hawai'i, is an Ivy graduate and rather than making millions as a lawyer suing the pants off big companies, rolled up his sleeves and worked with the people as a community organizer, before working his way up through the state legislature and eventually making it to the US Senate.

So long as he stayed away from the prostitutes like Eliot Spitzer and had the same rhetoric and everything that Obama does now -- save for the my dad was Black African, but still have his dad leave him at 2 -- what would stop him on paper?

If a person never watches TV, doesn't read the newspaper regularly and hears that Barack Obama has been elected President of the USA, they won't know what to do with that. Because they will imagine him to look like..well...you do the math.

Edwards isn't Obama Lite. He's John Edwards past, present and future. Other than being youthful first-term Senators and members of their respective state bars, neither has much of anything in common with the other. Their trajectories and even the way they've campaigned are contrasts.

More to the point, no way in hell that Michelle Obama lets Barack run again if he loses this time. You might say "he's so young" or "it's politics, he'll run again" but he won't. He can make a hell of a lot more money as Barack Obama, former loser turned Democratic Godfather Al Gore with better trajectory then as "failed candidate trying again for redemption." He can just do speeches, advocacy and be the voice of the new generation and maybe run for Governor of Illinois in 2010 rather than waste his time with this stuff again.

Especially since it's unlikely he'll get to run in four years, stalled by whoever the incumbent is at the time.

And if Colin Powell's wife had enough pull not to let him run in '96, I am doubly certain with no facts to back it up other than my imagination of the dynamics of their relationship through inference that Michelle wouldn't entertain going through this ringer again if he somehow loses now or in the general election.

[st.cronin]

I never said Edwards was advantaged because of his whiteness. I said if Obama was white, he'd be the nominee.

Your second sentence, I think, can be parsed as: Obama is disadvantaged because of his race. Which is exactly the same thing as saying that a competitor, who doesn't share that disadvantage, is advantaged by his race. Its the same exact meaning, just the way you are trying to say it sounds less inflammatory.

[Young Drachma]

Hell, to make it even more fun...our white Obama should still have an African dad. Just let his African dad be a white South African who was anti-apartheid and who moved to Kenya rather than live in a racist South Africa. Man, the media would eat that up all day.

And when his mom re-married and took up an Indonesian man? No worries. The media would just say that those early experienced abroad trained young Barry to "broaden his mind and learn that people are different and to respect other cultures."

Too bad Obama doesn't speak any foreign languages. I think the imaginary one totally should.

[Young Drachma]

Your second sentence, I think, can be parsed as: Obama is disadvantaged because of his race. Which is exactly the same thing as saying that a competitor, who doesn't share that disadvantage, is advantaged by his race. Its the same exact meaning, just the way you are trying to say it sounds less inflammatory.

No, it's not. But you're entitled to your opinion.

[Buccaneer]

DC, you mentioned that Obama wasn't charity but if you look at the Senate race, he certainly was gifted it (both of his opponents, Dem and Rep, screwed the pooch, if I recall). Not sure if it means anything but I still believe, as I have had all along, Hillary's (still) high negatives have a lot to do with it.

[Young Drachma]

DC, you mentioned that Obama wasn't charity but if you look at the Senate race, he certainly was gifted it (both of his opponents, Dem and Rep, screwed the pooch, if I recall). Not sure if it means anything but I still believe, as I have had all along, Hillary's (still) high negatives have a lot to do with it.

He got lucky in his Senate race, no doubt. But so did Hillary in New York. It happens all of the time, that's no big deal. Needless to say, he can have the seat for as long as he wants so long as he stays scandal free. He's pretty popular here by all accounts. Even in southern Illinois.

I don't think he hasn't been lucky. I just say that with his resume on face, that he wouldn't necessarily be treated as some sort of pretty beauty pageant charity case, but a "rising star" in the party.

Oh but to your main point, yes..he's benefitting a whole lot running against a Clinton.

[Arles]

Too bad Obama doesn't speak any foreign languages. I think the imaginary one totally should.
I think we all know who the imaginary Obama would be patterned off...

http://chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2007-01/11/xin_260104111415749315637.jpg

[Young Drachma]

Also I'll concede that his speech to the convention in '04 probably wouldn't have astounded the media the way it did, had he not been who he is. But if he's mythical Obama, he still has books to write about his white African dad and the same zany story Barack does, drugs and all. Only he doesn't have the whole "self-discovery, am I black?, dump my white girlfriend, move to Chicago after college to work with 'the people'" penchant. Though I know plenty of kids who've done that last part only [insert inner city here] in the pursuit of "finding themselves" and so, it wouldn't be that far-fetched on paper.

I'll put Fauxbama to rest now though. ;)

[Young Drachma]

I think we all know who the imaginary Obama would be patterned off...

http://chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2007-01/11/xin_260104111415749315637.jpg

finger wagging ftw

I like how it's all slower now and stuff too. Richard Jefferson needs to put his damn finger back in the socket and shut the hell up. If he'd peaked a few years ago, the Nets might've fluked into a title against the Spurs.

Back on topic now, tho.

[SackAttack]

So here's a fun note from the CNN exit polls.

To the question "Should Clinton pick Obama as VP?" 56% responded "Yea" to 41% "Nay". Okay, that's not hugely surprising.

Of the 56% who said "Yea," 71% of THOSE voted for Obama. Basically, "Our guy is the best thing going, but if Clinton somehow manages to get the nomination, damn straight she should pick him."

Of the 41% who said "No," Clinton had the edge 59-36. To me that almost has to be read that the 36% meant either "No, because she ain't GETTING the nomination, and that's why I voted Obama," or else "Obama shouldn't touch Senator Clinton with a 10 foot pole."

Strangely, if you flip the question the other way, it was 54-43 in favor of Clinton as Obama's VP, but more Obama supporters were in favor of an Obama/Clinton ticket than weren't. I'm guessing THAT has to be the Republican crossover effect.

[Schmidty]

I think people seem to forget in this Obamania that Hillary Clinton is actually a very formidable candidate.

Maybe so, but who in the fuck are these people that are voting for her? Are they the Democrat equivalent of the people that voted for Bush in '04????

[ISiddiqui]

I voted for her :p.

[Schmidty]

I voted for her :p.

That's cool. Now tell me WHY??????

[ISiddiqui]

I like her policies on health care and taxes. I think she'll govern by triangulation as President on other things that come up during the next 4/8 years (as her husband did). And I value experience in my Presidents.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even if he were white, if everything else remained constant, I think all the other parameters would pretty much be as they have been now. Even the strong black support.

I want some of whatever you're smoking, 'cause that's some good shit.
Or 'shrooms. Gotta be 'shrooms for you to hallucinate like that.

If he's white, he's long gone by now, not even an Edwardsian afterthought.

I'm not sure Christ himself could get 90% of the self-identifying Christian vote.

[Noop]

I like her policies on health care and taxes. I think she'll govern by triangulation as President on other things that come up during the next 4/8 years (as her husband did). And I value experience in my Presidents.

What experience? Being in a Senator for 8 years? Or being the first lady for eight years? Or maybe both.

If she is the nominee then I am quite sure I will be voting for McCain or abstaining all together. If she couldn't keep her husband in order how can she keep a country in order? She gets no points from me for standing by her man because it is my belief she did it for her own political gain.

[SuperGrover]

I want some of whatever you're smoking, 'cause that's some good shit.
Or 'shrooms. Gotta be 'shrooms for you to hallucinate like that.

If he's white, he's long gone by now, not even an Edwardsian afterthought.

I'm not sure Christ himself could get 90% of the self-identifying Christian vote.

Has a candidate ever gotten 90% of any demographic? That is amazing!

Anyone who thinks this campaign is not heavily about race is fooling themselves. Obama has used a gigantic majority of black votes to buttress his totals in every state in the union. Clinton has fought back with huge margins in Hispanic votes in California and Texas, which without she would be dead already. This campaign is as racial as one can get in American politics, v 2008.

[SackAttack]

Has a candidate ever gotten 90% of any demographic? That is amazing!

Anyone who thinks this campaign is not heavily about race is fooling themselves. Obama has used a gigantic majority of black votes to buttress his totals in every state in the union. Clinton has fought back with huge margins in Hispanic votes in California and Texas, which without she would be dead already. This campaign is as racial as one can get in American politics, v 2008.

The thing is, everybody playing the race card seems to be on Clinton's side of the line. Yes, the black population is rallying around Obama, but I don't see him trying to play that population off of any other.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, has her husband making the "Even Jesse Jackson won _______" comments, has Geraldine Ferraro saying "He wouldn't have gotten this far if he weren't a black man," and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's racial, but I think that's a bed the Clinton campaign made for themselves, and now they're having to lie in it.

I mean, c'mon - Bill Clinton was ostensibly the "first black president," and his wife is getting creamed 10 to 1 by black voters in Mississippi? That has to be more than just "OMG, Obama is black like me!!!" talking there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's racial, but I think that's a bed the Clinton campaign made for themselves, and now they're having to lie in it.

All I can do is LOL at this quote. I mean, it's kind of sadly naive but it's really too funny not to laugh at.

[sterlingice]

All I can do is LOL at this quote. I mean, it's kind of sadly naive but it's really too funny not to laugh at.

And I thought it was because it had the words "Clinton", "bed", and "lie" in it

SI

[TroyF]

He got lucky in his Senate race, no doubt. But so did Hillary in New York. It happens all of the time, that's no big deal. Needless to say, he can have the seat for as long as he wants so long as he stays scandal free. He's pretty popular here by all accounts. Even in southern Illinois.

I don't think he hasn't been lucky. I just say that with his resume on face, that he wouldn't necessarily be treated as some sort of pretty beauty pageant charity case, but a "rising star" in the party.

Oh but to your main point, yes..he's benefitting a whole lot running against a Clinton.

Hillary got lucky in NY? BullS$#@. She carpet bagged and found a state/county which was highly democratic and used her husbands popularity as president to win going away. That's not luck, it's brains.

Race is playing a factor here, but let's not kid ourselves: Hillary has tried to play the "first female president" card from the beginning. Every full speech I've seen from her brings it up. I'm really kind of with Buc on this. I think Hillary's negatives are a bigger overall reason for Obama's success than anything. At the start of the primary season, when the question "Which candidate would you NEVER vote for" came up, Hillary had the highest percentage of Repbulicans voting for her AND the highest percentage of democrats.

I'm not saying race doesn't come into play here, but I think it's a little naive to think that if Hillary had ran a better campaign and was more likeable that she wouldn't have overcome that problem. Race doesn't explain how Obama has steamrolled through laregly "white" states. She was destroyed in Kansas, Conneticut, and Utah. She won a grand total of 3 delegates out of 21 possible in IDAHO.

There are two big stories to me in this democratic primary:

1) Is Hillary going to be able to engineer a back door deal wtih the supers to get in. If she does, McCain walks into office unscathed.

2) The complete mismanagement of the Hillary Clinton campaign. She had it all entering the start of this race. More money, more connections, more everything. She comes out of the gate and loses Iowa which makes Obama seem like a viable candidate. She then hedges everything on Super Tuesday and comes out of Super Tuesday looking like Mike Tyson after a Buster Douglas uppercut. She didn't have any intrastructure in place in states after that because she honestly believed that'd be the end of this election. She proceeds to lose a month worth of primaries, many by ridiculous scores and then hedges everything on Texas and Ohio. Oops. She comes out of those states a whopping +4 after it is all over. Those were states she had been up 13-15 points in just a month earlier.

Now she's hedging everything on PA. Meanwhile Obama just came out +13 to +15 in MS and WY. Those states that "don't matter" are kicking Hillary's ass. I'm starting to wonder just how wide the delegate count is going to be by the time FL and MI revote. She's going to get her ass handed to her in Oregon and Kentucky on May 20. I think she'll lose the delgate count in the area of 60-40, if not worse. By the time the primary season has finished, Hillary may need virtually all of the supers to come her way.

This is one of the more mismanaged campaigns in my lifetime.

[albionmoonlight]

This is one of the more mismanaged campaigns in my lifetime.

Yup. She had to screw up this badly for me to see just how much of an advantage she had coming in. Tyson-Douglas isn't a bad comparison. She might still win this thing by split-decision after 15 rounds. But the fact that she didn't score a first round knockout is the biggest suprise.

Other than possibly a popular sitting vice-president, she had the biggest advantage of any candidate ever going into a primary season.* And she is behind with 3/4 of the states having voted. Amazing.

*Cue history majors coming in with 10 examples to prove me wrong.

[Vegas Vic]

Race doesn't explain how Obama has steamrolled through laregly "white" states.

What largely white states that held primaries has Obama steamrolled through?

[JPhillips]

If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that the black man is always keepin' me down. Obama's just another in a long line of black power brokers that grew up on welfare, started selling crack, became a two sport HS phenom, got an affirmative action admission to college, ruined our white women, killed an innocent child in a drive-by, sold ten million copies of his obscene "music", and exploited the white guilt of weak-willed liberals to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. I've seen it a thousand times before, and I'll scream if it happens again.

[TroyF]

What largely white states that held primaries has Obama steamrolled through?

Vegas,

The talk of caucuses is getting old.

Hillary wasn't blindsided by these things. She knew what caucuses were going in.

You sound like a football coach that says "Well, we dominated them in rushing, passing, defense, penalties against. . . if we didn't have those damned special teams we'd be world champions"

The fact is it doesn't matter how Obama got 18 of 21 delegates in Idaho. He DID get 18 of the 21. Just as the supers have every right to vote for who they want because it's part of the process, the caucuses are part of how you get delegates. Think of it this way: Hillary was +7 in Ohio and -18 in Idaho.

She can bitch about the caucuses as much as she wants, it was part of the process when this started and I didn't hear her begging for a change at the start of this campaign. (just like I didn't hear her give a damn about MI or FL until she realized she was getting her ass kicked and needed help)

But I will answer your question: Obama slaughtered Hillary in Wisonsin, Vermont and Utah. All primaries. All lily white.

[molson]

The fact is it doesn't matter how Obama got 18 of 21 delegates in Idaho. He DID get 18 of the 21.

He got them by understanding the differences between caucuses and primaries, and actually making a campaign stop here a week or two before the vote. Even the Boise media was a little confused about why he bothered to make the trip, but 14,000 delirious supporters showed up early on a Saturday (and more were turned away). And of course, since Idaho's population is very much centered in Boise, I'm sure he had more than half of the state's caucus voters in the same room with him that day.

[TroyF]

He got them by understanding the differences between caucuses and primaries, and actually making a campaign stop here a week or two before the vote. Even the Boise media was a little confused about why he bothered to make the trip, but 14,000 delirious supporters showed up early on a Saturday (and more were turned away). And of course, since Idaho's population is very much centered in Boise, I'm sure he had more than half of the state's caucus voters in the same room with him that day.

and again, he understood the rules and the game, Hillary didn't.

Hillary did make as stop in Wyoming after she realized that every delegate was going to count. She was slaughtered there too. (though not as bad)

I mean, the rules didn't change midstream here guys. If Obama understood what you said above and Hillary didn't, she deserved to get slaughtered in that caucus. He was more prepared. I guess his lack of experience on the campaign trail didn't hurt him, huh?

[Passacaglia]

I think Hillary was -15 in Idaho.

[TroyF]

I think Hillary was -15 in Idaho.

Yup, 18-3. I knew that, yet typed in the 18. My bad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

(just like I didn't hear her give a damn about MI or FL until she realized she was getting her ass kicked and needed help)

I believe both sides were making noises about those delegates eventually being seated when they assumed the issue would have been settled already. Now that they seem to be potentially significant is when we're getting different views on whether they should be or not.

[SirFozzie]

CNN Tuesday also projected that Obama was the winner of the Texas Democratic caucuses that occurred March 4. Obama will be awarded 38 of Texas's delegates, while Clinton will win 29 delegates as a result of the caucuses, CNN estimates.

So Obama will soften the blow from losing Texas (54/46, I believe it is), by making back some of the delegates on the back end.

[Fighter of Foo]

This (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/republicans-now.html) is hilarious:

"Yesterday [In Mississippi], Barack Obama won 60.6% and Clinton won 37.2%. If her Republican voters hadn't shown up, she would have won about 28% and Obama would have won about 68%."

[SirFozzie]

With the wins in Mississippi and Texas, Obama now leads Clinton 1,608 to 1,478 in the total delegate count, CNN estimates. Neither candidate is expected to obtain the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination outright before the national convention in August.

that 130 delegate lead is really hard for her to make up. she needs crushing victories in Pennsylvania and NC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

that 130 delegate lead is really hard for her to make up. she needs crushing victories in Pennsylvania and NC.

Won't happen. It's up to the superdelegates (which has been the case for a while now I guess).

[SirFozzie]

But she needs the crushing victories to convince the vast majority of superdelegates that despite being behind in delegates and popular vote that she deserves it

[JonInMiddleGA]

But she needs the crushing victories to convince the vast majority of superdelegates that despite being behind in delegates and popular vote that she deserves it

If that's the only way she gets them then she's screwed already. If she can't make it an issue of who is more qualified & prepared to be President then the race is already over.

[TroyF]

If that's the only way she gets them then she's screwed already. If she can't make it an issue of who is more qualified & prepared to be President then the race is already over.

And it is over. Her only chance for a massive victory is in PA in 6 weeks. She's not going to get anything more than a 5-7 point victory there. And the other primaries look bleak for her. NC? Nope. OR? Not a chance. KY? Forget it.

I've even given up on her having a chance with the supers. The dem supers aren't that dumb, they aren't going to piss off a huge voter base to swing the popular, total state and regular delegate vote. Not happening.

Her only hope now is a major Obama scandal. Maybe Michelle will make some idiotic quotes. I dunno. The way he loses is if he goes off of the deep end at this point.

[ISiddiqui]

Her only hope now is a major Obama scandal.

I'm thinking that's one of the major reasons she's sticking around. Maybe she's hoping for a Spitzer like scandel, which would make the superdelegates rally around Clinton and the rest of the party would probably be quite ok with that.

[Vegas Vic]

Here's an excerpt from an article on the issue of race in the democratic primary:

“In Mississippi, Obama’s not carrying independent whites, he’s not carrying young whites, he’s not carrying educated whites,” FOX News contributor and NPR national correspondent Juan Williams said, noting that race was an influencing factor for both black and white voters in the Magnolia State.

“The results are very similar to the South Carolina results, in terms of how blacks and whites polarize,” said Roll Call Managing Editor Mort Kondracke, a FOX News contributor.

Black voters have pushed Obama over the top in southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. He has also succeeded in much whiter and more racially homogeneous states like Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.

“The only kind of state that Obama picks up are states that either are majority black or very heavily black … or states where there are practically no blacks at all,” Kondracke said. “This has been going on in practically every state.”

Like it or Not, Race Looms Large in Democratic Contest (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/like-it-or-not-race-looms-large-in-democratic-contest-donotpub/)

[TroyF]

Here's an excerpt from an article on the issue of race in the democratic primary:

“In Mississippi, Obama’s not carrying independent whites, he’s not carrying young whites, he’s not carrying educated whites,” FOX News contributor and NPR national correspondent Juan Williams said, noting that race was an influencing factor for both black and white voters in the Magnolia State.

“The results are very similar to the South Carolina results, in terms of how blacks and whites polarize,” said Roll Call Managing Editor Mort Kondracke, a FOX News contributor.

Black voters have pushed Obama over the top in southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. He has also succeeded in much whiter and more racially homogeneous states like Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.

“The only kind of state that Obama picks up are states that either are majority black or very heavily black … or states where there are practically no blacks at all,” Kondracke said. “This has been going on in practically every state.”

Like it or Not, Race Looms Large in Democratic Contest (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/like-it-or-not-race-looms-large-in-democratic-contest-donotpub/)

I think there is another elemant people aren't talking about enough. When Obama wins, he crushes Hillary. In a format like the dems have, it's all about the blowouts. Obama has carried 60% of the vote 12 times. He's carried 70% of the vote 4 times more. Hillary? She carried Arkansas at 70%. She hasn't hit the 60% mark in any other win. That's 16 blowouts to 1.

So Obama does well in majority white or majority black states and Hillary wins the mix states? Well, Oregon is 90% white. NC is about 1/4 black. (roughly the same amount as Georgia where Hillary was trounced) I don't see a lot of hope for her.

I'm not sure the above study really covers the issue. Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? It's obviously more than race playing a factor here. Is it the fact a majority of Nebraskans just despise Hillary and would rather have a black man in office than a white women? Or did Obama do a better job of campaigning and getting his message to the people. Was his team on the ground that much better than Hillary's team?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white?

Perhaps the answer to that isn't as obvious as I would have figured after all.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm not sure the above study really covers the issue. Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? . . . I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

I agree mostly. I think that the single biggest factor is that the almost fully white states are the small flat states in which Hillary simply didn't campaign (for reasons that even God Himself probably still does not understand).

There is, however, a racial component to it--at least from what I have read. White people in states with almost no black people seem much more willing to vote for a black candidate than white people in states with a significant black population. So, in states like Mississippi, there are enough black people to carry Obama to victory. In states like Wyoming, there are so few black people that white people don't vote along racial lines. And, in states like Ohio, there are enough black people to scare all the white people, but not so many black people that they could bring Obama to victory. Or so the theory (which seems to accord with the numbers to some degree) goes.

The problem that Obama has (and I think that this is Clinton's strongest argument) is that he has not convinced everyone that the white working-class union member in Ohio who does not like to drive through "that crack neighborhood across the highway" will pull the trigger for him in November instead of McCain. By all rights, that guy should be a solid Dem. voter. And he will vote for Hillary. But will race be a factor in that guy's vote and keep him from voting for Obama? I don't think that anyone really knows that.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

And might I add that I think that Clinton is being mighty stupid in stoking those flames through Ferraro (sp?). It's not like the kinds of people who are going to vote on the basis of race were likely to come over to Obama's side. It was a strong silent base of support that she had/has. She didn't need to bolster it up.

Now, by keeping it in the forefront, she gives Obama a chance to confront the issue and speak directly to it. And she runs the risk of being seen as pushing it too far. It's OK for a democrat to rely on racism and sexism that are already there. You begin to play with fire when you are seen as courting it.

[Arles]

Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? It's obviously more than race playing a factor here. Is it the fact a majority of Nebraskans just despise Hillary and would rather have a black man in office than a white women? Or did Obama do a better job of campaigning and getting his message to the people. Was his team on the ground that much better than Hillary's team?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.
IMO, I've notice that (for the most part) Obama tends to do well in states that tend to vote republican. The South, parts of the West, areas in the midwest. Now, there are some exceptions (most notably IL, but that makes sense too). But, I think the point here is that a lot of the independents and former republicans in these "red/battleground states" don't really like Hillary on a personal level. You combine those people with the extremely high African American turnout in the democratic party for Obama, and it's not surprising at all to see these results. Basically, in states that either have a huge black population or tend to have more conservative democrats/independents, Obama wins (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, SC, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, ...). In states that are more traditional "blue states", with more liberal leaning independents, Hillary wins (California, New York, Mass, NJ, ...). The only real oddball in this theory is Hillary winning Texas - but that's more because of the Latino vote.

The true irony of this entire process is that the two front runners (McCain and Obama) are doing better in states they normally don't do well in for the generals. McCain won the nomination by winning blue states and Obama may end up winning by carrying red states in the primaries.

[Passacaglia]

So Obama does well in majority white or majority black states and Hillary wins the mix states? Well, Oregon is 90% white. NC is about 1/4 black. (roughly the same amount as Georgia where Hillary was trounced) I don't see a lot of hope for her.



It's tough to reconcile this statement, without knowing what you really mean by "majority black" states.

[TroyF]

dola--

And might I add that I think that Clinton is being mighty stupid in stoking those flames through Ferraro (sp?). It's not like the kinds of people who are going to vote on the basis of race were likely to come over to Obama's side. It was a strong silent base of support that she had/has. She didn't need to bolster it up.

Now, by keeping it in the forefront, she gives Obama a chance to confront the issue and speak directly to it. And she runs the risk of being seen as pushing it too far. It's OK for a democrat to rely on racism and sexism that are already there. You begin to play with fire when you are seen as courting it.

I'll admit I haven't been a part of this entire process. I've watched a handfull of debates and read some synopsis of their takes on issues. In the debates and speeches I've watched, I've heard Hillary play the "I'm a women" card plenty of times and haven't heard Obama play the "I'm an African American" card at all. Michelle has with some of her quotes, but it's not something that is consistent from the Obama camp as it seems to be from the Hillary camp.

Hillary is walking a very, very fine line at this point. She's trying to hammer the experience card on Obama to make her comeback and get the supers on her side. That isn't going to bode well for her in the GE, because she won't be able to play that card against McCain. In fact, McCain will be able to play it right back on her. Especially that 3AM quote where she said "I'm prepared to take the call, McCain is prepared to take the call, Obama gave a speech in 2002"

This is the second or third article I've seen from feminists looking like fools and making statements that it's easier for a black man than a white women to get into office. Ummm. . . maybe, maybe not. But bringing it up makes you look idiotic.

This is intersting to watch anyway. :)

[TroyF]

It's tough to reconcile this statement, without knowing what you really mean by "majority black" states.

majority was the wrong word. How about a large percentage?

[st.cronin]

IMO, I've notice that (for the most part) Obama tends to do well in states that tend to vote republican. The South, parts of the West, areas in the midwest. Now, there are some exceptions (most notably IL, but that makes sense too). But, I think the point here is that a lot of the independents and former republicans in these "red/battleground states" don't really like Hillary on a personal level. You combine those people with the extremely high African American turnout in the democratic party for Obama, and it's not surprising at all to see these results. Basically, in states that either have a huge black population or tend to have more conservative democrats/independents, Obama wins (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, SC, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, ...). In states that are more traditional "blue states", with more liberal leaning independents, Hillary wins (California, New York, Mass, NJ, ...). The only real oddball in this theory is Hillary winning Texas - but that's more because of the Latino vote.

The true irony of this entire process is that the two front runners (McCain and Obama) are doing better in states they normally don't do well in for the generals. McCain won the nomination by winning blue states and Obama may end up winning by carrying red states in the primaries.

On the democratic side, I think this is partly explicable by Obama being to the left of Hillary. In a state like Kansas, for example, most everybody in the state is conservative and republican. But then there's Lawrence, which is probably more liberal than New York City, and that's where the democrats live.

[CamEdwards]

On the democratic side, I think this is partly explicable by Obama being to the left of Hillary. In a state like Kansas, for example, most everybody in the state is conservative and republican. But then there's Lawrence, which is probably more liberal than New York City, and that's where the democrats live.

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

[path12]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

[st.cronin]

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

I think in general, no, but I think for certain issues, like Iraq, yes. I think your farcical notion is a media fabrication, and perhaps something his voters like to say, but not something they actually believe. I think they envision him as a liberal/minority/youth takeover of the White House. Down with the preppy Bushes, up with ... whatever Obama is supposed to represent in their imagination.

Just my own $0.02.

[st.cronin]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

I think the Republicans are more entertained by this race than the Democrats. ;)

[SirFozzie]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

Well, the R side of the discussion is settled, it's just a matter of who they face off against. It's fascinating for the neutral or the other side to watch, I'm sure (with a bag of popcorn, and enjoying every in-fighting moment of it)

[TroyF]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

A majority of the dems are too busy cringing right now. I have a ton of (D) friends who are beside themselves now. Both Hillary and Obama supporters. None of them think what is happening is a good thing. They are also becoming more entrenched with "their" candidate by the day. Not a single one of the friends I have who voted for Obama would vote for Hillary in the GE. (15 is a small sample size, but it's the only firsthand thing I have to work off of) The friends I have who support Hillary are supporting her because of her "experience" (which I find laughable, but whatever) and won't vote for Obama in a GE because of that.

Honestly, I think the conservatives are taking a great interest in this thing. Watching to see how the dems finish this thing is of great interest.

I'm interested for a variety of reasons. I am right leaning (though that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a democrat if I thought they were the best person for the job) More than that, I'm a fan of history. I think we are all witnessing something incredibly historical here and as much as I want the right person to get elected, I'm fascinated to see how this thing plays out.

[Passacaglia]

majority was the wrong word. How about a large percentage?

Sounds better, but I still don't know what defines a large percentage. You said NC was 25% black -- is that large? I honestly don't know. You said Oregon is 90% white -- so maybe 6-7% black? I'm assuming that's small.

[Young Drachma]

Here's a better breakdown.

Black population by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_tot_bla_pop_percap-total-black-population-per-capita)
Rank States Amount (top to bottom)
#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

[Noop]

Damn alot of blacks in D.C.? Do they work for the government?

[Young Drachma]

Damn alot of blacks in D.C.? Do they work for the government?

They don't call it Chocolate City for nothing. It's been that way for a long time (http://www.exploredc.org/index.php?id=186).

In 1830, there were about the same number of free blacks and slaves in a total African American population of a little over 12,000. By 1860, the free black population had nearly doubled, to 11,131, while the slave population had shrunk to about half, to 3185. These free blacks created a community with its own churches, schools, and fraternal organizations.

It was a lot higher at one point. It's continuing to drop as more and more folks move to the suburbs.

Here's an article about it. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-01-dcdemographics_N.htm)
WASHINGTON — Much has changed since Ben's Chili Bowl opened nearly 50 years ago on a bustling strip known as America's Black Broadway for its thriving black-owned shops and theaters.

Back then, the red-and-white diner was a popular hangout for black bankers, doctors and blue-collar workers who lived and worked along U Street. Even jazz greats Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald could be found devouring chili half-smokes and milkshakes after performing at nearby clubs.

Now, on some days, the crowd at the Washington landmark is mostly white, reflecting a neighborhood metamorphosis that has brought in high-end condominiums and businesses like Starbucks.

"Sometimes you look around and wonder, 'Where are all the black people?"' said Virginia Ali, who opened the diner with her husband, Ben, in 1958.

A similar transformation is happening across Washington as the black population declines and more white residents and other ethnic groups move in. Demographers say if the trend continues the District of Columbia could lose its longtime majority-black status within 10 years. The changes are shaking up city politics, reshaping neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents.

Washington's black population peaked at 71% in 1970 as tens of thousands of white residents left for the suburbs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But by 2006, the estimated number of black residents had fallen to 57%.

At the same time, the population of white residents, which plunged from 65% in 1950 to 27% 30 years later, is growing. By 2006, the census estimated that 38% of D.C. residents were white. The city's Asian and Hispanic populations also are climbing.

[Passacaglia]

Reverse alphabetical order. Diabolical.

[Young Drachma]

Found a better one that seems more accurate with all of the states included this time.

[Vegas Vic]

She's trying to hammer the experience card on Obama to make her comeback and get the supers on her side. That isn't going to bode well for her in the GE, because she won't be able to play that card against McCain.

Yeah, it's like watching two chihuahuas argue over who is the biggest dog.

[Raiders Army]

Yeah, it's like watching two chihuahuas argue over who is the biggest dog.

LOL. I've seen that today already...

[Buccaneer]

More than that, I'm a fan of history. I think we are all witnessing something incredibly historical here and as much as I want the right person to get elected, I'm fascinated to see how this thing plays out.

+1

[SackAttack]

Found a better one that seems more accurate with all of the states included this time.

Just as an exercise (I'm sure somebody else has already done this somewhere, but I'm going to look it up myself), let's see who "won" each state (popular vote, not delegates):

Obama
Clinton


#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

I left Florida and Michigan out because of the weird circumstances surrounding those states. I also left alone states which haven't held Democratic primaries or caucuses yet.

Okay, no surprise that of the ten states with the highest ratio of blacks to overall population, Obama has won the nine that have held contests.

On the other hand, of the ten states with the LOWEST such ratios, he's won 6 of the 8 that have held contests.

Hell, of the 25 states with the lowest ratios, Senator Clinton has won six, four haven't held contests, and the other sixteen went to Senator Obama. There may be a "black thing" going on in favor of Senator Obama, but it isn't "just" a "black thing."

[SuperGrover]

This (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/republicans-now.html) is hilarious:

"Yesterday [In Mississippi], Barack Obama won 60.6% and Clinton won 37.2%. If her Republican voters hadn't shown up, she would have won about 28% and Obama would have won about 68%."

The 9.2% is about the same as what Obama got from the Republican vote in the Texas primary. Contrary to the tone of this thread, Clinton has not been dominating the Republican vote.

[SuperGrover]

Sounds better, but I still don't know what defines a large percentage. You said NC was 25% black -- is that large? I honestly don't know. You said Oregon is 90% white -- so maybe 6-7% black? I'm assuming that's small.

Remember we are talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. i'm guessing damn near no blacks in the South are Republicans.

[st.cronin]

Remember we are talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. i'm guessing damn near no blacks in the South are Republicans.

Right, how many black people are in the state is an irrelevant question as far as I can tell.

[albionmoonlight]

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

People seem to make him into what they want him to be. If you look at the far left blogs, they love him there. They certainly don't think that he is outside of partisanship. They think that he will pull things way to the left.

And a lot of moderate people do see him as a post-partisan moderate because he has spoken out against the red state/blue state dynamic.

So what I am making him into :)? I like him best of the three for a few reasons. First, I like that he is less beholden to the Washington structure than the other two. That does not mean that he is somehow post-partisan. It does mean that he hasn't been a major Washington player for 20 years, so he will be able to evalute things and make choices without tons of baggage.

Second, the guy was a liberal professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Which means that he has been exposed to the highest level of conservative intellectual thought. Which means that when it comes time to work with the Republicans, he is more likely to say "Even though I disagree with your goals, I understand and respect the truths at the core of your position" and less likely to say "I hate all of you because you kept pointing out how my husband fucked a lot of random women."

Third, I just don't really like the other two. McCain will appoint judges too conservative for my taste. Clinton will expose us to 4 or 8 more years of that soap opera she calls a marriage. Maybe Obama will do something just as bad, but I don't know about it yet. That's good enough for me :).

All of which is to say that not all of Obama's supporters are hopeless romantics with no sense of reality. Just a healthy percentage of them :)

[Passacaglia]

Right, how many black people are in the state is an irrelevant question as far as I can tell.

I think one is a function of the other.

[Vegas Vic]

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary?

No, I don't think the voters at large know or care about his voting record in the senate over his three year career. That's extraneous information to them (at this point).

[st.cronin]

I think one is a function of the other.

I totally don't get it.

[JPhillips]

People don't care about his record in the Senate in large part because there isn't much of one. For good or ill this Senate just hasn't voted on anything controversial. The agreements made wit Republicans to count the threat of a filibuster as equal to the real thing has left us with a scarcity of votes that can be easily used to frighten voters.

His Illinois record has better ammunition, but he also has stories from Republicans about how he was able to respect their views and work with them. I'm sure the same old "liberal elite" arguments will be made, but in comparison to the voting records of the past two Dem candidates, he looks very middle of the road. The Republicans have spent decades defining crazy liberal" and Obama doesn't fit the mold.

Of course it's also interesting that Obama gets criticized for extreme left policies and a shortage of policy specifics at the same time.

On the threat of voters to switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win, it's overblown. It's easy to say that now. When the choice is R vs. D most of them will clench their teeth and vote for the nominee.

[cartman]

For the first time in a long time, I don't think voting records are going to be a central part of the campaign. This is the first campaign I can remember where both candidates will be sitting Senators. In the past, just because of the way the Senate works, there were tons of votes that could be used to attack a candidate as not being "true to the conservative/liberal cause". That is why Governors had an edge, because there wasn't a comparable body of work that could leave them vulnerable to attacks.

[Vegas Vic]

You guys act like Obama just walked into the senate chamber yesterday, and his slate is non-existent. Granted, he only has three years of experience, but in 2007 alone, he cast 286 votes in the senate. He has a lifetime rating of “8” from the American Conservative Union, virtually identical to Clinton’s “9” rating. John McCain has an “83” rating. I’ll concede that this has been a non-issue in the primary, playing to the democratic base, but when the general election campaign gets underway, his voting record and stand on the issues will take center stage, and he won’t be able to continue to skate on ““We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States — We are the United States of America”. At this point, someone will whack him over the head with an Electoral College map, and the real campaign will commence.

[Toddzilla]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.Same reason more people are voting in the democratic primaries than the republican ones - more drama :)

[JPhillips]

Vic: Point out some truly controversial votes. I don't think a number rating has much effect on the moderates who will eventually decide the election. It only matters, if even then, when it's tied to specific scary sounding votes. He won't have the, "Obama voted for tax increases 300 times," or Obama voted to cut defense spending 200 times," charges to worry about.

I'll admit I've only looked at last year's votes, but there wasn't more than one or two that looked like it could be used against him in a thirty second spot. Obama's best decision was to run now before he had a long Senate record of easily distorted votes.

[Toddzilla]

Third, I just don't really like the other two. McCain will appoint judges too conservative for my taste. Clinton will expose us to 4 or 8 more years of that soap opera she calls a marriage. Maybe Obama will do something just as bad, but I don't know about it yet. That's good enough for me :)That's probably the most concise description of this election I've heard yet. Bravo, sir.

[Vegas Vic]

Wait until the RNC starts running ads on this. Let's see if Obama distances himself from these remarks. We'll see. Clinton has been excoriated for playing the race card, but what will happen with this?

Barack Obama's Pastor Preaching the Love of Jesus (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM)

[TroyF]

On the threat of voters to switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win, it's overblown. It's easy to say that now. When the choice is R vs. D most of them will clench their teeth and vote for the nominee.



This isn't overblown at all. The fact is, there are major differences between the two candidates and the two sides don't like each other very much. (and it's going to get nastier, Ferraro's comments are just the tip of what's to come in the next six weeks leading to PA)

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

On the opposite side, don't think a majority of those black voters in the south are going to just flip over to Hillary. If Hillary wins by the superdelegates, they are going to feel like the election was stolen from them. A lot of them aren't going to cast a ballot for the candidate who they feel was responsible for a backroom deal.

I really don't think enough has been made of it myself. I think the longer this goes, the easier McCain can skate into The White House no matter what candidate the dems throw out there. Again, from a historical perspective, candidates who went down to the wire in the primaries have not fared all that well in the GE. I don't think that trend will go away.

One last thing, keep in mind that it doesn't take 40% of the dems to switch over for the reps to win this thing. Bush wasn't a popular president when he won reelection. Don't underestimate the conservatives pulling together and coming up with another big showing in November. ANY split in the dems is going to devastating for their chances to win the election. That split is already there and is going to grow wider the longer this continues. I'm stunned more people aren't on this storyline.

[ISiddiqui]

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

Not only an experienced (R), but one who has had a history of working with Democrats to get things done and one that doesn't seem to be as crazy as some of the other conservative Republicans.

[Fighter of Foo]

One last thing, keep in mind that it doesn't take 40% of the dems to switch over for the reps to win this thing. Bush wasn't a popular president when he won reelection. Don't underestimate the conservatives pulling together and coming up with another big showing in November. ANY split in the dems is going to devastating for their chances to win the election. That split is already there and is going to grow wider the longer this continues. I'm stunned more people aren't on this storyline.

I've detailed this several times already, but here's the short version again:

- There are fewer self-identified conservatives now as there were in '04 and especially '00
- McCain is essentially running as Bush III
- With the economy headed for the toilet, the above two points would keep any R from winning against any non-Hillary D

[Fighter of Foo]

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

Hillary's problem is she doesn't have any experience either. And she can't make an argument that she's more experienced vs. McCain anyway.

R's are getting involved as someone else mentioned and they're voting Hillary. See my post from the other day.

[JPhillips]

Troy: I just don't think that many people will switch when it actually comes down to it. It's an easy threat to make in March because there are no consequences, but in November after months of negative ads and vitriol most of the people who threaten to walk away will vote Dem. This is especially true since the people making the threat are on average far more partisan than the average voter. It's just like with the Religious Right and McCain. They all threatened to bolt, but one by one they're now stepping in line because McCain is still better than a Dem in their eyes.

There might be a threat of people stying home, but even this diminishes if the race is over in early June. If there's an ugly floor fight I can see people stying home, but otherwise there is plenty of time to heal wounds and move on. Provided the losing candidate comes out and endorses the winner, the "split" in the party won't be anything to worry about.

Every election cycle something comes up that's going to permanently destroy one of the two parties, but it never happens.

[TroyF]

Troy: I just don't think that many people will switch when it actually comes down to it. It's an easy threat to make in March because there are no consequences, but in November after months of negative ads and vitriol most of the people who threaten to walk away will vote Dem. This is especially true since the people making the threat are on average far more partisan than the average voter. It's just like with the Religious Right and McCain. They all threatened to bolt, but one by one they're now stepping in line because McCain is still better than a Dem in their eyes.

There might be a threat of people stying home, but even this diminishes if the race is over in early June. If there's an ugly floor fight I can see people stying home, but otherwise there is plenty of time to heal wounds and move on. Provided the losing candidate comes out and endorses the winner, the "split" in the party won't be anything to worry about.

Every election cycle something comes up that's going to permanently destroy one of the two parties, but it never happens.

Not permanently destroy a party (though this is as close as I've seen to one of the two big parties heading for an iceberg) But in terms of blowing up a single major election? It's happened frequently in our history. And it's about to happen again.

I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the divisivness going on in the democratic campaign now. The only good thing for the dems is that many of the party leaders who I've heard in interviews are taking it seriously and are already preparing to try to heal the wounds after this ends. If the end comes on the convention floor, it will be too late.

Agian, it's just my opinion and we'll have to wait until election time to see if it comes true.

[JPhillips]

In the past forty years I can only think of one example of a split causing a major fallout, McGovern in 1972.

In 68 Humphrey lost by less than one percent of the popular vote.

In 76 Ford closed a 33 point gap after the conventions and may have won if not for a major blunder in an October debate.

In 80 both parties had splits. Carter had so many problems that I think it's very hard to blame the loss on Kennedy. Bush I was the inventor of the phrase "voodoo economics, " but he closed ranks and ran as the VP.

In 2000 Bush angered a lot of moderates in the party with his attacks on McCain and prominent conservatives voiced a "with us or against us" mentality.

In 2004 Deaniacs were pushed to the side to make room for a more establishment candidate. A few thousand votes in Ohio changing hands would have put Kerry in the White House.

I just think the "I'll never vote for that kind of Dem/Rep argument by party stalwarts rarely comes to pass. The primary voters are generally the most passionate members of the party and even though they'll stomp and cry, eventually they almost always come back to the fold.

[Arles]

The problem as I sit it for the democrats is a little bit of a "perfect storm":

1. The line drawn on race and sex during the vote is fairly remarkable. Obama gets very few white women and Hillary gets next to no black men. When this divide is so great, you get a lot of cultural subdivides that could start boiling over.

2. If Obama wins, the Hillary crowd will automatically be upset with him and may move to McCain for the reasons stated above (more experience, similar on many policies). If Hillary wins, the Obama crowd may not vote at all.

3. Because this is fight will go well into June, it's going to have more of a lasting effect in the fall. Bush and McCain had their spat in New Hampshire/SC, it was in mid Feb. By super Tuesday, Bush had it all wrapped up and was able to bring the party together from March to July. When this ends, it will be probably right near the convention - leaving only a few months before the general election. There won't be that mid-March to Mid-July "party honeymoon" most candidates have to recover from the primaries.

4. Their opponent is not a staunch conservative or vilified (R) like Bush, Dole, Reagan or even someone like Romney. Really, the McCain platform and the democrat party are not all that dissimilar on things like Global Warming, campaign finance, public education, sticking it to the rich in taxes, against drilling in ANWR, against Guantanamo, ... He even came up with the "gang of 14" idea for judges so it's questionable how conservative a judge he would nominate. I don't know that the "fear of the other guy winning" Armageddon scenario works with McCain for democrats.

For the first time, I can see McCain winning in the fall as having higher odds than either the Hillary/Obama winner. And, that's not something I would even considered back in December.

[Young Drachma]

I'm not convinced that even a moderate 70-something from the party of the President who is repulsed by all but a few precious souls can beat identity politics when voters get their shot to "make history." I think that will simply be too big a chance for ordinary people to pass up in the end.

[albionmoonlight]

Just had a completely ungrounded theory that is almost certainly not true:

Clinton will drop out before Pennsylvania.

Unsupported Axiom: The Clintons' tax returns show some shady and questionable stuff. Mainly about how Bill learned to stop worrying and love making $50,000,000 with the help of sketchy Russian oligarchs (or some such thing).

When they thought that they would have the nomination wrapped up in February, they figured that it wouldn't really matter. When they released the returns they would be going against Giuliani or some other ethically compromised candidate, so it wouldn't seem that bad. And, even if they had to run against a McCain, the fact that the GOP was attacking Clinton financial deals would almost seem . . . right. It might help energize the base, and it certainly wouldn't hurt. Anyone to whom those things mattered is already against the Clintons.

Now, however, they are in the position of having to release them during the Dem. primary. Which means that they will get scrutiny from other than the GOP. Which means that people might actually listen to what the critics say.

So, they have decided not to release them. Which means that they will drop out soon before Pennsylvania--right around April 15th, when they said that they were coming.

So, why stay in the race until then? First, Obama might stumble (i.e. drop the c-bomb or something). If he hands her the nomination on a silver platter, then she is back where she thought she would be after Feb. 5th.

More importantly, she is raising as much money as she can. For the next five weeks, she can pad the warchest with donations. That will help pay back any personal loans that she made to the campaign as well as give her a healthy amount for her future senate campaigns.

If this whole thing is true, then I also think that only she and Bill know about it. Too much chance of it leaking out otherwise. I also think that she can play her cards right and call Obama with about two weeks to go and extract mega-promises for dropping out.

Anyway, I have nothing to base that on. But six weeks is a long time to keep this thread going until the next primary. Can't spend all that time with facts.

[flere-imsaho]

albion - just to add to your conspiracy theory, it would also explain why they've been pushing the Obama-Rezko connection so hard.

[JPhillips]

But to work against your conspiracy theory, I believe if there's anything really troubling they'll just delay the release. The hit they'd take for a connection to tens of millions from some foriegn dictator is considerably more than the hit they'll take from saying they needed an extension due to how complicated the forms are and they'll try to have it done in the next few weeks.

Honestly how many undecided Dems really give a crap whether the tax forms have been released or not? They'll only care if something bad is exposed.

[path12]

I just think the "I'll never vote for that kind of Dem/Rep argument by party stalwarts rarely comes to pass. The primary voters are generally the most passionate members of the party and even though they'll stomp and cry, eventually they almost always come back to the fold.

Agree with this. No matter how this turns out, the vast majority of Democrats are far more interested in getting the Republicans out of the White House. They'll unite and vote en masse for whichever nominee. I do think that Clinton winning the nom with have a small effect with those who would vote for Obama but hate her, but I think the big picture will eventually bring most around.

However, that's not a good storyline for six weeks with no primary, so I expect to hear much more of the schism in the Dem party for the next month.

[Ksyrup]

Has this been posted yet?


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

[Young Drachma]

Has this been posted yet?


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

Dear Baby Boomers:

Please stop causing problems.

[Noop]

That was sexist. So he is saying that women are only good for cleaning? I hope he realizes that the only thing Hillary cleans is her ass and mouth. Oh and Bill's cock.

[path12]

That was sexist. So he is saying that women are only good for cleaning? I hope he realizes that the only thing Hillary cleans is her ass and mouth. Oh and Bill's cock.

Thanks. Now I have to go wash my brain out with bleach.

[TroyF]

Agree with this. No matter how this turns out, the vast majority of Democrats are far more interested in getting the Republicans out of the White House. They'll unite and vote en masse for whichever nominee. I do think that Clinton winning the nom with have a small effect with those who would vote for Obama but hate her, but I think the big picture will eventually bring most around.

However, that's not a good storyline for six weeks with no primary, so I expect to hear much more of the schism in the Dem party for the next month.

I guess we'll find out.

My money is on it being a big, big split and if this goes to the convention floor the dems get their asses handed to them. Let's see what happens. :)

[Young Drachma]

I know that I'm tired of hearing about this preacher business as much as I am tired of hearing the Democrats talk about people who were "tricked" into getting "deceptive mortgage loans."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I know that I'm tired of hearing about this preacher business as much as I am tired of hearing the Democrats talk about people who were "tricked" into getting "deceptive mortgage loans."

I can't seem to find the popcorn smiley ;)

[Dutch]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/barackobama.hillaryclinton

http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/02/21/barack460x276.jpg


Barack Obama faced potential damage to his campaign yesterday after television networks aired footage of sermons by the former pastor of Obama's church likening the Democratic frontrunner to Jesus and declaring: "God damn America."

"God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Obama has been a member of the congregation of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in the south side of Chicago for nearly 20 years.

On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright described the attacks as retribution for the bombing of Hiroshima, America's policy in the Middle East, and apartheid in South Africa. Obama has told reporters he was not in church that day. Wright retired from the church last month.
Obama's campaign told ABC that he did not think of his pastor in political terms.


However, after 20 years of going to "church" (except when the pastor ever said anything inflamatory apparently)...he's now sold his own pastor down the river for the sake of his Presidential campaign.


"Senator Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees," a statement said.


I like Obama better than Hillary because he's the devil I don't know...but God damn...

[rowech]

I'm curious what people think about political guilt by association...it's happened quite a bit lately, all over the spectrum. People want to act like it's not a big deal but I think it's a HUGE deal...especially in this situation. You have Obama's #1 spiritual advisor saying these things. Obama wants to say he's never heard him say these things? Please. I find things like this to be terrible for candidates when they are associated with them.

It seems Obama especially has to continually distance himself from the comments of his supporters.

[JPhillips]

Actually he specifically didn't throw him down the river,

“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.

“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”

[st.cronin]

I'm curious what people think about political guilt by association...it's happened quite a bit lately, all over the spectrum. People want to act like it's not a big deal but I think it's a HUGE deal...especially in this situation. You have Obama's #1 spiritual advisor saying these things. Obama wants to say he's never heard him say these things? Please. I find things like this to be terrible for candidates when they are associated with them.

It seems Obama especially has to continually distance himself from the comments of his supporters.

I think in most cases its not a big deal.

[Dutch]

Actually he specifically didn't throw him down the river,

You do realize that by saying a man is a Marine speaks nothing to "knowing" his pastor and does not offer a counter of the man's opinions that Obama has followed for 20+ years.

It's clever words from a silver-tongue that has bested many Democratic supporters so far.

[rowech]

I guess for me, you are the company you keep. I don't think he cares about what Farrakan says and I can accept that because I don't see them as being close. This case is VERY different though. He's extremely close with this man and it's frightening to me that this guy could be his closest spirtual advisor if he's elected. That's a major problem.

I think people are growing more and more afraid to attack Obama for fear that they will appear as if they are attacking him for being black. That scares me. If any other candidate was tied so closely to such a man, it would be disaster.

[Dutch]

I think it's becoming more clear why Obama refuses to wear a USA lapel on his coat. God Damn the USA.

[Vegas Vic]

I don’t think that candidates should be responsible for supporter’s comments that are controversial; however, this case goes far beyond that, and it goes to the man’s judgment.

This isn’t some casual acquaintance or hothead campaign staffer. He married the Obamas. He baptized their children. Obama was a regular attendee of this man’s church for 20 years. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy. “The Audacity of Hope," Obama's bestseller, was inspired by one of Wright's sermons.

No, this isn’t some casual acquaintance or campaign worker flying off the handle; this is an overtly racist religious leader who guides Obama's moral code. One must question whether Obama accepts this value system. Is there any other rational explanation for his 20 year attendance at this church? How many times has Obama attended one of Wright's poisonous sermons? Surely there must be hundreds of Christian churches in Chicago where the Obamas could worship, and hundreds of non-racist ministers from whom Barack Obama could seek spiritual guidance. But Obama prefers to follow the moral compass of a man who blames America for 9/11, preaches rabid racism, denigrates the Clintons from his pulpit to the applause of his congregation, and rewards Louis Farrakhan.

For Obama to now come out and say that he “wasn’t aware” of these vitriolic statements is disingenuous, and it reeks of a politician trying to cover his ass.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think guilt by association is a big deal at all, and frankly I'm a bit sick of it.

Nobody can be responsible for the actions/thoughts/statements of everybody else in their life, whether they are a politician or not. Doesn't matter how close that person is to them, whether it's their pastor, or the head of their finance committee.

If it wasn't for the media we wouldn't even know 99% of this stuff, and ever think that the media helps drive it by looking for stories, and then this crazy-pastor goes "oh man...here's a chance for me to get my name in print and get my 15 minutes."

[DaddyTorgo]

I don’t think that candidates should be responsible for supporter’s comments that are controversial; however, this case goes far beyond that, and it goes to the man’s judgment.

This isn’t some casual acquaintance or hothead campaign staffer. He married the Obamas. He baptized their children. Obama was a regular attendee of this man’s church for 20 years. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy. “The Audacity of Hope," Obama's bestseller, was inspired by one of Wright's sermons.

No, this isn’t some casual acquaintance or campaign worker flying off the handle; this is an overtly racist religious leader who guides Obama's moral code. One must question whether Obama accepts this value system. Is there any other rational explanation for his 20 year attendance at this church? How many times has Obama attended one of Wright's poisonous sermons? Surely there must be hundreds of Christian churches in Chicago where the Obamas could worship, and hundreds of non-racist ministers from whom Barack Obama could seek spiritual guidance. But Obama prefers to follow the moral compass of a man who blames America for 9/11, preaches rabid racism, denigrates the Clintons from his pulpit to the applause of his congregation, and rewards Louis Farrakhan.

For Obama to now come out and say that he “wasn’t aware” of these vitriolic statements is disingenuous, and it reeks of a politician trying to cover his ass.

Obama says he didn't attend any of his "poisonous" sermons. And I think if you want to question whether he accepts this value system that's fine, but he's already come out and said that he condems and rejects this stuff. What more can he do? He obviously wasn't aware of the gravity of them, or he would have gone and worshipped elsewhere.

[DaddyTorgo]

how often does obama actually go to this church is the other issue?? I mean he's in washington most of the time, or out campaigning, I can see it as totally true that he's a "member" of this congregation in much the same way i'm a "member" of a congregation that I haven't actually stepped foot in in the last 14 years...

[Vegas Vic]

how often does obama actually go to this church is the other issue?? I mean he's in washington most of the time, or out campaigning, I can see it as totally true that he's a "member" of this congregation in much the same way i'm a "member" of a congregation that I haven't actually stepped foot in in the last 14 years...

In an interview with Major Garrett last night, Obama said he was a regular attendee and contributor. He did say that their attendance was sporadic for a short time after the birth of their children.

[DaddyTorgo]

In an interview with Major Garrett last night, Obama said he was a regular attendee and contributor. He did say that their attendance was sporadic for a short time after the birth of their children.

touche.

then again, how can he be in washington and be a regular attendee?

[Vegas Vic]

touche.

then again, how can he be in washington and be a regular attendee?

How many years since 1988 has Obama been in Washington?

[SackAttack]

How many years since 1988 has Obama been in Washington?

Not necessarily just a Washington thing.

He served in the Illinois State Legislature as well; did he travel home on weekends to attend that specific church?

(Note: not a rhetorical question.)

[DaddyTorgo]

How many years since 1988 has Obama been in Washington?

isn't the more relevent question: "How many sermons has he attended" as he could have not been there for other reasons.

[DaddyTorgo]

Not necessarily just a Washington thing.

He served in the Illinois State Legislature as well; did he travel home on weekends to attend that specific church?

(Note: not a rhetorical question.)

I was just about to post that. And various campaigning trips for that, and trips out of state on state business...etc

[st.cronin]

The whole thing seems pretty irrelevant to me, but the question "how many sermons" did he attend strikes me as particularly ludicrous. The question should be, "what exactly is the common ground Obama shares with this guy," or "what about this guy does Obama find appealing." Those are pertinent questions.

[DaddyTorgo]

The whole thing seems pretty irrelevant to me, but the question "how many sermons" did he attend strikes me as particularly ludicrous. The question should be, "what exactly is the common ground Obama shares with this guy," or "what about this guy does Obama find appealing." Those are pertinent questions.

well that's true also.

[QuikSand]

One of the things that we hear a lot of the time is that we dislike politicians who act too much like politicians. I always got a bad vibe from John Kerry, for example, because it seemed like he was a professional politician from about age twelve onward. You got the sense that when he was nineteen years old, John Kerry was constantly thinking "I wonder how this internship/membership/job/meeting will affect my prospects when I run for Congress/Senate/President one day." I confess I just don't like the notion that a person would be thinking ahead with such clarity throughout his early adult life and onward.

As for Obama, and his decision to attend a certain parish, and to confide in a certain religious leader... I wonder if this is to some extent the flip side of my complaint above. I suspect a more careful and calculating long-term politician who had been running for president for 20 years might have said "I need to distance myself from this man, as he is too prone to hyperbole or controversy and I can't be connected to him." Instead, I suspect, he decided that the bulk of what he said was uplifting to him personally, to the community, and to the parishioners. And he made a reasonable decision to, in all likelihood, look past some of the inflammatory stuff he might have said sometimes, to embrace the greater message. It seems to me that for so many religious people, the decision of where and when and with whom to attend services is a complicated and social decision.

So, on a certain level, this is yet another one of these things that seems to make Obama a different sort of political candidate, to me. Maybe a more traditional politician would have had the foresight to stay out of this sort of situation altogether, recognizing the potential for trouble when the time came for a major run for high office. I guess I'm sick of people leading their lives that way to claim they will be more worthy leaders for it.

[Fighter of Foo]

I don’t think that candidates should be responsible for supporter’s comments that are controversial; however, this case goes far beyond that, and it goes to the man’s judgment.

This isn’t some casual acquaintance or hothead campaign staffer. He married the Obamas. He baptized their children. Obama was a regular attendee of this man’s church for 20 years. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy. “The Audacity of Hope," Obama's bestseller, was inspired by one of Wright's sermons.

No, this isn’t some casual acquaintance or campaign worker flying off the handle; this is an overtly racist religious leader who guides Obama's moral code. One must question whether Obama accepts this value system. Is there any other rational explanation for his 20 year attendance at this church? How many times has Obama attended one of Wright's poisonous sermons? Surely there must be hundreds of Christian churches in Chicago where the Obamas could worship, and hundreds of non-racist ministers from whom Barack Obama could seek spiritual guidance. But Obama prefers to follow the moral compass of a man who blames America for 9/11, preaches rabid racism, denigrates the Clintons from his pulpit to the applause of his congregation, and rewards Louis Farrakhan.

For Obama to now come out and say that he “wasn’t aware” of these vitriolic statements is disingenuous, and it reeks of a politician trying to cover his ass.

Do you feel the same way about McCain and Hagee? Because you can write an almost identical post on that relationship which is probably even worse since Hagee is actively campaigning with/for McCain.

[st.cronin]

Do you feel the same way about McCain and Hagee? Because you can write an almost identical post on that relationship which is probably even worse since Hagee is actively campaigning with/for McCain.

McCain is not a member of Hagee's church, as far as I know.

[Vegas Vic]

Do you feel the same way about McCain and Hagee? Because you can write an almost identical post on that relationship which is probably even worse since Hagee is actively campaigning with/for McCain.

That's quite an exaggeration, to say the least. True, Hagee endorsed John McCain, and McCain welcomed that endorsement. McCain has also disavowed Hagee's statements.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama called Rev. Wright his "spiritual mentor." McCain has not made any such statement of Hagee. Obama had his children baptized by Rev. Wright. McCain's kids never knew Hagee when they were small. Rev. Wright performed Obama's marriage ceremony. McCain had never even met Hagee until he became the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. Obama chose Rev. Wright's church and attended it for 20 years. McCain has never attended Hagee's church.

These points are extremely important and mark a completely different relationship between Wright and Barack Obama and McCain and Hagee. Obama had two decades of intimacy with Rev. Wright, so it appears that Wright's hate speech could not possibly have bothered Barack very much at all, much less have come as any surprise. While John McCain had only just met John Hagee, it seems reasonable that his history of anti-Catholic statements is not something that McCain could have had long and intimate contact with.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

molehill, you are now a mountain

[flere-imsaho]

The whole thing seems pretty irrelevant to me, but the question "how many sermons" did he attend strikes me as particularly ludicrous. The question should be, "what exactly is the common ground Obama shares with this guy," or "what about this guy does Obama find appealing." Those are pertinent questions.

This is exactly the point. All I'm seeing so far is some people cherry-pick some quotes and try to make it seem like they accurately and 100% reflect the core of Barack Obama's belief system. Step back for a moment, people, and see how ludicrous that is. I mean, jeez.


It's clever words from a silver-tongue that has bested many Democratic supporters so far.

Yeah, I hate it when politicians don't mean what they say:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/bushmission2.jpg

:p


These points are extremely important and mark a completely different relationship between Wright and Barack Obama and McCain and Hagee. Obama had two decades of intimacy with Rev. Wright, so it appears that Wright's hate speech could not possibly have bothered Barack very much at all, much less have come as any surprise.

Alternatively Obama could have just disagreed with some of Wright's views and left it at that. Despite the picture you're painting, there's no evidence that Wright railed from the pulpit each and every Sunday with this "hate speech".

I suspect all of our regular priests, ministers and/or rabbis say stuff in their speeches with which we disagree.

[Dutch]

One of the things that we hear a lot of the time is that we dislike politicians who act too much like politicians. I always got a bad vibe from John Kerry, for example, because it seemed like he was a professional politician from about age twelve onward. You got the sense that when he was nineteen years old, John Kerry was constantly thinking "I wonder how this internship/membership/job/meeting will affect my prospects when I run for Congress/Senate/President one day." I confess I just don't like the notion that a person would be thinking ahead with such clarity throughout his early adult life and onward.

For reference, Barak Obama received a Political Science degree from Columbia 25 years ago.

[flere-imsaho]

For reference, Barak Obama received a Political Science degree from Columbia 25 years ago.

Being a political science major doesn't mean you're planning to run for political office. It can often mean you're going to go on to law school, though.

And come on, no outrage over posting the picture? I live for your outrage, man! :D

[Dutch]

Being a political science major doesn't mean you're planning to run for political office. It can often mean you're going to go on to law school, though.

And come on, no outrage over posting the picture? I live for your outrage, man! :D

He could have gotten a degree in Dermatology. I'm just sayin'... ;)

[flere-imsaho]

He could have gotten a degree in Dermatology. I'm just sayin'... ;)

Become a politician or spend your days working with people's diseased skin. You gotta admit - it's a bit of a tossup. :)

[Dutch]

Good point! (Kerry also got a degree in Political Science a couple decades before joining the Senate, for what that's worth.)

[cartman]

The latest from the Obama campaign:

hxxp://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/03/obama-disavows.html

Obama Disavows Statements of Controversial Junkman

Chicago - After days of trying to distance himself from a growing hate speech controversy that threatens to envelop his presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama issued a statement this morning condemning "in the strongest way I can" the controversial pronouncements of advisor and Los Angeles salvage yard owner Fred G. Sanford.

"The central message of my campaign is about unity and hope, and I will not let that message be diminished by these kinds of mean spirited and hateful remarks," said Obama. "I repudiate them and I apologize to anyone who was offended, including Senator Clinton, Lamont, Grady, Rollo, Julio, and particularly Aunt Esther."

Obama said that Sanford would no longer play an official role in his presidential campaign operation, but said he remained an admirer of the controversial figure.

"Mr. Stanford has long been a valued mentor to me, and I will alway cherish his friendship if not his counsel," said Obama."I'm saddened that his cherry picked, out-of-context words have overshadowed the many good things he has done for the community and the junk industry."

Sanford, a prominent used knick knack salesman in the South Central Los Angeles, is no stranger to controversy. Long famed for an abrasive nature and hair-trigger temper, even to those closest around him.

"The constant verbal abuse he heaps onto his friends and family is almost shocking," says one person close to Sanford who spoke on condition on anonymity. "He calls his own son 'you big dummy,' and outright brutal mental cruelty I saw him inflict on his his sister in-law almost made me call the LAPD."

Sanford's quick temper and flair for insults first came to national attention in 1997, amid simmering racial tension between Blacks and Latinos in Watts. A Univision news crew broadcast a hoarse-voiced Sanford yelling at a Hispanic neighbor, "hey Julio, why don't you get out of my house-o, and go back to Puerto Rico." The subsequent five day riot resulted in over 800 injuries and an estimated $8 billion in property damage.

Despite his track record of controversy, Obama appointed Sanford as a member of his Hope and Unity central advisory committee. He dismissed complaints about Sanford's earlier statements, calling them "isolated comments of an elderly man with a heart condition who likes to speak his mind."

Harder to dismiss were Sanford's increasingly controversial statements directed toward Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, which were caught on video and spread throughout the internet. In one speech, Sanford says "I'm gonna push her face in some dough and make some gorilla cookies," and later says "that woman look like a fish head sandwich." In another, Sanford holds up a clear peace of plastic, and taunts Mrs. Clinton to "wear it for a Godzilla mask."

At first Mrs.Clinton laughed off Sanford's remarks, and even said she would "welcome Mr. Sanford's help after I am nominated." Mr. Sanford replied that "I'm a junkman, not a plastic surgeon." As the campaign wore on and her lead disappeared, she began responding testily, issuing statements that "God's gonna strike you down Fred Sanford," and "shut up foo."

Clinton's retorts only seemed to encourage the controversial salvage man, who seemed to relish Mrs. Clinton as a foil. His remarks began taking a violent turn. A tape released by the Clinton campaign show Sanford raising his clenched fist and repeatedly threatening Mrs. Clinton's face, vowing to "run over yo face with my truck," "bury your face at sea," "beat the ugly off yo face with my Louisville Slugger."

After these remarks became public, they sparked outrage among feminist and prompted candlelight vigils across the country. Mr. Obama was forced into a defensive posture, a rare wobble in what was up to now an almost flawless primary campaign. Whether or not today's announcement will put the campaign back on track remains to be seen.

For his part, Mr. Sanford declined comment on the controversy, citing health problems. He was admitted to Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles yesterday, complaining of heart palpitations.

"I'm comin' to see you, 'Lizabeth!" he was heard shouting from his gurney.

[Young Drachma]

I think if nothing else, it's interesting that Americans are finally figuring out after all of these years what goes in a lot of black churches on Sundays, maybe that'll convince the most "Segregated day of the week" to be put to bed finally. But I doubt it.

[Young Drachma]

I went to a baptist church growing up and hell, the pastor was married to a white woman and still SAID all sorts of crazy things at times about white people, America, politicians and other social issues. It wasn't every week. Or even once a month. And you couldn't predict it, but it did happen. This stuff isn't as uncommon as folks want to think and that's why I've noticed a lot of commentators who understand this are wondering what the outcry is about.

But Obama's people are to blame for this. If they'd simply taken the ultimate high road with the Ferraro thing and simply said "look, she's not Hillary. Let's get back to the business of the American people," this thing never would've blown up in his face like this.

The press are drama queens and love a story. The Clinton people love trudging around in the muck and love having the heat off of them. And this story has been fed to us a few times and the TV press wouldn't bite on it until now. Obama's people are trying to go fishing with experienced anglers and they're about to get dumped in the water.

[JPhillips]

You do realize that by saying a man is a Marine speaks nothing to "knowing" his pastor and does not offer a counter of the man's opinions that Obama has followed for 20+ years.

It's clever words from a silver-tongue that has bested many Democratic supporters so far.

So throwing his pastor down the river is despicable as is not throwing his pastor down the river. Got it.

On the bigger issue, it's brought up a lot of the reasons why I have stayed out of politics even though I quite obviously have a taste for it. So much of what's gone into this discussion about Obama, as was the case with Hagee, is just a vengeful flurry of attacks consciously or subconsciously designed to destroy what by any reasonable measure are good men. Most of the flames don't seem to have any real basis except as an opening to swing voters away from a particular candidate.

Do any of you that are complaining about Wright really believe Obama is going to set about punishing whites? Can you find even one thing Obama's said or done that might lead you to believe this? And does anyone really believe McCain is going to destroy the Catholic Church or ask God for help in tormenting gays? In the end we're not measured by the company we keep, good or bad, but by what we do.

I'll freely admit that there's a fun side to these arguments. It's a contest to see how much you can tear down someone. In effect it's a strategy text sim with different options for paring off bits of different demographic groups. It's also, however, what has kept me from pursuing a life in politics. I could easily see me relishing in these kinds of games, but in the end I believe the people most damaged are those who can see no other pursuit in politics but personal destruction.

This is not to say we can't argue bitterly over issues. Politics should be about ideas and there are times when we simply can't find any sort of Broderian middle-ground. The difference, though, is that we can actually look at what the candidate says or does and find out what they want to do instead of piling on ever more layers of ritual apology designed to do nothing more than cripple someone.

I had a mentor as a director that changed me both personally and artistically. I see his influence in every piece I do. He was, however, a paranoid misanthrope that fought with any authority figure. Some of his ravings and conspiracy theories were offensive as they attacked people I saw as friends. I mildly disagreed with him a time or two, but I never made a fuss and he probably has no idea I was uncomfortable. I valued him as an older, more experienced, and brilliant artist and I tried to forgive his ramblings. Right or wrong, I would guess that's roughly how Obama saw things.

I'll also point out that Wright himself is going to take an unfair beating on this. Let me be clear that I don't agree with him on any of the controversial statements that have been brought up lately. It's a shame, though, that he's going to only be judged on his most foolish of actions and not by the totality of his life. This may be where I go a little askew as I try to figure out how a flawed man like myself can still be a good father for my daughter, but I hate to see people defined only by the worst of their actions. He's made his own bed, surely, but I'd hate for people to forget about all of the dedicated and inspirational work he's done teaching and living Christ's message.

All that aside, in terms of the game this is bad for Obama and I wouldn't be surprised if it kills his candidacy sooner or later.

[st.cronin]

All that aside, in terms of the game this is bad for Obama and I wouldn't be surprised if it kills his candidacy sooner or later.

No way is it close to that bad.

[rowech]

No way is it close to that bad.

Yes it is.

[JPhillips]

The Rasmussen tracking poll today showed Obama's lead over Clinton drop from +8 to +1. I'll bet those numbers aren't poll variance, but a genuine look at how badly this has hurt Obama.

The worst possible for thing for Obama is to be lumped together with what most of white America sees as the radical black political class. A lot of people will hear about this and unfairly see him as an ideological twin of Al Sharpton.

[Dutch]

The Rasmussen tracking poll today showed Obama's lead over Clinton drop from +8 to +1. I'll bet those numbers aren't poll variance, but a genuine look at how badly this has hurt Obama.

The worst possible for thing for Obama is to be lumped together with what most of white America sees as the radical black political class. A lot of people will hear about this and unfairly see him as an ideological twin of Al Sharpton.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/22/us/600-obama.jpg
You got your USA lapel pin on? Neither do I! God damn America!

[miked]

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

[Dutch]

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

God damn, Americans!

[rowech]

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

[Dutch]

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

Exactly. Obama thought it was a big enough deal to stop wearing it.

[Big Fo]

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

Yeah McCain can be trusted, to continue the process of running the country into the ground.

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

Uh oh, looks like someone isn't swayed by the FUD. Quickly, someone send Paul Begala over there.

[rowech]

Yeah McCain can be trusted, to continue the process of running the country into the ground.



Uh oh, looks like someone isn't swayed by the FUD. Quickly, someone send Paul Begala over there.

Generally, a president doens't run anything into the ground. Congress does. Congress runs the country both good and bad. All they have to do is stop funding the war. It's that simple. But they won't. They don't have the guts to do it. The system is perfectly designed as long as people are willing to do what it takes to stop abuses. If they're not, then you get situations like we have here.

As for our country running into the ground, that's going to continue to happen no matter who is elected. Our CITIZENS are the ones that are destroying it. We're the ones that run to the doctor for a sniffle and then cry when insurance rates skyrocket. We're the ones who have lost any sense of morality and right/wrong. We're the ones who spend more than we have and cry about it so the government will bail us out. We're the ones who have three kids too many but have a fourth just to get more money. We're the ones who won't allow schools to actually discipline and expect our kids to do what they're supposed to do.

NOBODY is going to help these things. It doesn't matter who goes in there.

[JPhillips]

So a person can't change, can't make new decisions based on new information?

Guess what's missing in this picture.

http://thepoliticaltipster.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/040416_mccain_vmed_1p_widec.jpg

This kind of gotcha politics is so fucking stupid. Would wearing two flag pins be better? Or should you wear one big one like a super patriotic Flavor Flav? What about a flag suit? Or a full body flag tattoo?

My vote this year will be based on two factors, the metric volume of flag the candidate wears and how close the flag's colors match the Pantone colors of the base flag. That will be in a 62 to 38 ratio.

[JPhillips]

dola

Saw this summary of a new study that seems appropriate here.

According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans -- and especially the smart, well-informed ones -- not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional "high" when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs. In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported, Western found that the brain reverted to the comfort zone of its long-held biases -- and doing so actually made people feel good.

[Dutch]

Guess what's missing in this picture.

http://thepoliticaltipster.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/040416_mccain_vmed_1p_widec.jpg



He's not blaming America for 9/11 and saying God damn? Or what did you mean? :)

[Young Drachma]

Tracy Morgan sounds drunk.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WiB9gCXA9WI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WiB9gCXA9WI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[GrantDawg]

Tracy Morgan sounds drunk.




He always sounds drunk. but that bit was funny. "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch."

[JPhillips]

He's not blaming America for 9/11 and saying God damn? Or what did you mean? :)

So now Obama blames America for 9/11 and says goddamn? By this logic McCain blames God for 9/11 and thinks the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Of course neither candidate believes any of this, which should be the point.

[Dutch]

So now Obama blames America for 9/11 and says goddamn? By this logic McCain blames God for 9/11 and thinks the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Of course neither candidate believes any of this, which should be the point.

Hagee would better equate to Luis Farrakan. The relationship between Obama and Wright is not just a simple endorsement for President from a controversial person.

[JPhillips]

Regardless, Obama didn't say what you alleged.

[cartman]

Regardless, Obama didn't say what you alleged.

But he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, or have a yellow "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on his car. How much more clear can it be?

:D

[Young Drachma]

I hope this is the beginning of the end. I look forward to the delicious revolt that will ensue and using this as the final thing to kill all of the hope of those not part of the baby boom generation. They want to take this country down with them and they'll succeed.

[Dutch]

But he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, or have a yellow "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on his car. How much more clear can it be?

:D

You're right. Like Obama, I could really care less about the lapel. It's what in his heart that matters. Of course, he gets most of his heart-felt guidance from Wright...but I digress. ;)

[Noop]

Wait who the hell are you guys going for?

As far as I am concerned we are fucked. McCain, Clinton, or Obama I would vote for Obama not because he is black but because he is in my eyes different then your normal Manchurian candidate. I simply refuse to vote for a women whose only thing of merit is standing by her cheating husband who has been doing it for years so she can use him for political gain.

I am so tired of this dog and puppy show.

[Vegas Vic]

Getting back on track, here's why I believe that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance in the general election. He's a three year senator with no legislative accomplisments. This has been a non-issue during the primaries, but it will be a big deal during the fall campaign.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzyY5g0Ai14&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzyY5g0Ai14&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Young Drachma]

They were getting ahead of this a while ago (this stuff was posted on the web back in January), so they knew it would blow up eventually.

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

[Young Drachma]

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/and031608blog.jpg

[Toddzilla]

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

[albionmoonlight]

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

1.) The visual of Wright screaming "God Damn America" is almost tailor-made to get people upset.

2.) Most Americans are white Christians, so most Americans realize that it is possible to be Christian and not agree with Robertson, etc. Indeed, most Americans probably fit into that camp. So it is easier for them to reconcile the idea that just because Falwell endorses a politican does not mean that the politician beleives everything that Falwell says. Since most Americans do not belong to a "black" church, they are not as comfortable with the idea that every black Christian does not beleive the most inflammatory statements made by the leadership of the religion. (See also, Islam).

3.) Wright raises the specter of "Black Militants." Catholic/white Christian militants have not been as much of a problem since the Crusades. (But see, abortion clinic bombings).

4.) Deep down, most of us know that Robertson, etc. are crazy old men. It just isn't news anymore. We don't respect them enough to be shocked when they go on one of their "God hates the fags and the myspace.com" rants.

[Warhammer]

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

Hagee is not a personal friend of McCain. McCain basically got an endorsement from a fringe guy.

Obama got an endorsement from a fringe guy, but one that he has had a 20 year relationship with. One who married he and his wife, baptised his children, etc. He went to this person's church for 20 years. So you are going to tell me that he went to this guy's church for 20 years, and never said, "You know what, I disagree with what this guy is preaching. Let's go to another church."

The other problem that I have, is this shows a big problem with his ability to judge people. Let's look at Bush. People despise Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and co. People have claimed that Bush is a poor judge of talent and character (which I think is a difference in ideology rather than talent or ability). Yet, here is Obama, who shows an even greater (IMO) lack of judgement, and we are supposed to over look it.

[Young Drachma]

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

Because black candidates can't be angry or associate with angry black folks. It scares white people and that's not acceptable.

[Warhammer]

Getting back on track, here's why I believe that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance in the general election. He's a three year senator with no legislative accomplisments. This has been a non-issue during the primaries, but it will be a big deal during the fall campaign.

As well it should. I may not be a huge fan of McCain. I may disagree with much of the stuff that he has done, but out of the people remaining in the race, he is the only one that has gotten stuff done in Washington.

[Warhammer]

Because black candidates can't be angry or associate with angry black folks. It scares white people and that's not acceptable.

And angry white folks are considered acceptable candidates? I mean come one, Pat Buchanan in '12 baby!

[Young Drachma]

Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/17/obama-set-to-deliver-speech-on-race-wright/)

Far from putting the controversial issue of race behind him, Barack Obama has decided to address the issue head on in a speech Tuesday.

I think it's a mistake to keep addressing it and yet, I think he wants to be a watershed speech on the role of faith in this election. One thing this whole reverend this has done by accident, is it's burnished the idea that he's a Christian in the mainstream media to where people won't be duped by the "OMG he's a Moslem!" talk if he were to win the Dem nomination.

In a way, that might be the reason his team played along with this. Because even though this sucks, they'd much rather fight this versus accusations that he's of a different faith. In some ways, it might make him "more black" to have a fiery black preacher.

The folks who think this will torpedo his campaign don't understand how small this thing is in the grand scheme of things and of all of the things that could come up for them, it's better than Rezko or other stuff. So...it might been a blessing in disguise, a conclusion that I didn't come to until just now.

[ISiddiqui]

Hagee is not a personal friend of McCain. McCain basically got an endorsement from a fringe guy.

Obama got an endorsement from a fringe guy, but one that he has had a 20 year relationship with. One who married he and his wife, baptised his children, etc. He went to this person's church for 20 years. So you are going to tell me that he went to this guy's church for 20 years, and never said, "You know what, I disagree with what this guy is preaching. Let's go to another church."

Yep, that's about right. I mean this isn't some random guy pledging fealty to the candidate. This is a guy that he's known and associated with for a couple decades now. And this guy hasn't recently been nuts. He's been saying this stuff for years. Now, granted, Obama may have been going up there for political reasons (the preacher is quite a powerful person in that neck of the woods), but that does run in the face of his message of ending politics as usual.

So it's a bigger deal here for real reasons.

[Young Drachma]

And angry white folks are considered acceptable candidates? I mean come one, Pat Buchanan in '12 baby!

Bad example. We're talking about candidates who associate with people who might have crazy ideas or say outrageous things that make people squirm. Going to Falwell's church or to Bob Jones University back when it still had a campus rule that outlawed interracial dating was still something that was acceptable and even required by candidates in the GOP.

These aren't exactly bastions of "progressive" thought from the perspective of embracing all Americans. But that's allowed because folks just dismiss them as being wingnuts on the margins of religious thought.

On the flip, the experience of the 'average' person with the black church is nil and so, hearing what Wright said seemed outrageous out of context because it forces them to confront things in a perspective that they'd not really willing to delve into.

But what informs that rhetoric has a lot more layers and so, while I'd hardly call it 'acceptable', I'll say that it's on par with what those other people did or still do. And the conservative southern church circuit is still and will be undoubtedly part of what helps the GOP win again this year.

It's on par, but they're treating (Wright) as if he's worse, when it's not.

[Young Drachma]

I'd be astounded if John McCain will be able to beat Obama or Clinton. McCain is no Reagan, he's basically a liberal version of Bob Dole. I just don't see how he'll be able to connect to the larger public, unless the vaunted split of the left happens between now and November.

Folks here are using their brains too hard on this one. You imagine a debate between McCain and Obama and think that McCain will wipe the floor with him due to his knowledge of specifics and detail of which he understands certain issues.

But it's not going to be that easy for the geezer. Because this is a beauty pageant, not an election and hasn't been for a while. McCain is going to be sold as Bush III and will have a hard time separating himself from that. If Gore couldn't beat Bush riding the wave of the "success" of the Clinton years, you can only imagine that McCain's uphill battle will be just as fierce, even if it doesn't look that way right now.

The best is yet to come.

[Warhammer]

Bad example. We're talking about candidates who associate with people who might have crazy ideas or say outrageous things that make people squirm. Going to Falwell's church or to Bob Jones University back when it still had a campus rule that outlawed interracial dating was still something that was acceptable and even required by candidates in the GOP.

Yes, it was necessary to get votes, but we're not talking about having a personal relationship with these people or even having to share some of their views.

Additionally, Bob Jones was always looked upon as a wacko place (can't comment on Falwell's church cause I never really listened to what he had to say).


It's on par, but they're treating (Wright) as if he's worse, when it's not.

You're missing the point. The difference is the closeness to the candidate. Obama has close ties to Wright. That is the problem with this. No republican candidate has had close ties to Bob Jones University, that I am aware of.

[CamEdwards]

Well, tomorrow should be interesting with Obama promising to "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."

I have to say I admire Obama's guts to continue to try and respond to this. It's either a gutsy move or an incredibly stupid one. As Warhammer and others have noted, this isn't the same as Hagee or a Falwell endorsing McCain. This is Obama's pastor. The man who officiated at Obama's marriage. The man who baptized the Obama children. The man who blessed the Obama house. There are many Americans who attend church every Sunday who don't have the close relationship with their pastor that Obama has with Rev. Wright.

Forget the "God Damn America" comment for a second. What about "The U-S of K-K-K A"? Or "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." Or hell, let's use the whole "God Damn America quote.


"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."


As a white guy, I have a problem with these statements. As the father of two black children, I have a problem with these statements. Further, I cannot imagine being a part of a church whose pastor routinely made statements like this, no matter the color of his skin. It's not a message of unity. It's a message of division. It's not the audacity of hope. It's the abdicating of personal responsibility and the scapegoating of government for all of our ills.

And what has Obama said to this point about Wright?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

"[He] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with"

And from his campaign:
"Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

I'm at a loss as to what Obama says next. He's clearly NOT disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, all the while suggesting that Wright's comments have nothing to do with his [Obama's] political beliefs. Well, what about personal ideology? Much of Obama's support comes from people who don't know a thing about his record. They're basing their support on the feelings he inspires in them. So what can he say to reassure those folks that, despite attending the church for more than 20 years and having a close spiritual relationship with this man, they don't reflect his personal views and in fact he finds them abhorrent? I'm waiting to see him pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I'll be darned if I can see a way for him to "win" with this issue.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

Now, if Obama says "If elected, I am going to appoint Pastor Wright to an important position in government in which he will help guide the nation's policies on race and religion," then we have a totally different situation. Which is why I don't think that Obama/Wright is like Bush being a poor judge of talent. If Donald Rumsfeld was just Bush's friend who had a poor understanding of military history and middle-eastern cultures, it wouldn't have mattered so much. It only became, in my mind, grounds for serious criticism when he was made Secretary of Defense.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

Cam was posting when I was writing, so I didn't see his post above mine. He does raise a good point, though. The relationship that Obama has with Wright is one to which every voter should pay attention. And, if warranted, one should decide how to view Obama based on that. I don't mean to suggest by my comment above that we should never judge politicians by their friends/mentors. Just that I think we do it way too much.

And I can see why Obama is coming out with a speech on this. Based on one of the main arguments that Clinton is making against him ("Obama hasn't been vetted"), he cannot afford to have any skeletons.

Also, if this really is a deal breaker (i.e. keeps him from being a viable general election candidate), then does it not make sense for the good of the Democratic party to figure that out now, while there is still a chance to nominate Clinton? If he lets this fester, he might be handing the election to McCain. He wants to win, sure. But he wants to win the presidency, not just the nomination. And, as a guy who would hold his nose and vote for Clinton over McCain, I would rather the Dems put up the best candidate possible than rush to judgment on this.

[CamEdwards]

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

Now, if Obama says "If elected, I am going to appoint Pastor Wright to an important position in government in which he will help guide the nation's policies on race and religion," then we have a totally different situation. Which is why I don't think that Obama/Wright is like Bush being a poor judge of talent. If Donald Rumsfeld was just Bush's friend who had a poor understanding of military history and middle-eastern cultures, it wouldn't have mattered so much. It only became, in my mind, grounds for serious criticism when he was made Secretary of Defense.

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said? Wright was already on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee... is it that odd to think he wouldn't have found a place for his pastor had this controversy not erupted?

[Ksyrup]

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

[Ksyrup]

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said? Wright was already on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee... is it that odd to think he wouldn't have found a place for his pastor had this controversy not erupted?

Agreed. The comments about Rumsfeld are hindsight. Are we supposed to wait until after it happens to question Obama's decision to make Wright a part of his circle of advisors?

[CamEdwards]

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

On the other hand, apparently Obama could name Wright the new Surgeon General and we'd solve the AIDS epidemic the day after inauguration. And since the government is providing the drugs to black people so it can put them in jail, if Wright does double duty as drug czar we can win the war on drugs in a heartbeat as well. :p

[albionmoonlight]

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said?

No. I think that this discussion is healthy for democracy. Wright is an aspect of Obama's character, and it is good that we are learning about it now rather than later.

I was simply responding to the point someone made above that criticism of Cheney, et al. is similar to criticism of Wright. It is not. Now, if you want to make the argument that Obama will appoint people like Wright to positions of power, then we are getting a lot closer to the things about which people have criticized Bush. And I can't really say that I have a read on that.

I take comfort in the fact that Obama picks up the phone and calls guys like Cass Sunstein before making big decisions. But I need to examine myself and make sure that I am not ignoring the fact that, after he hangs up with Professor Sunstein, he's not calling up the Reverand Nutjob to solidify his decision.

[Young Drachma]

Well, tomorrow should be interesting with Obama promising to "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."

I have to say I admire Obama's guts to continue to try and respond to this. It's either a gutsy move or an incredibly stupid one. As Warhammer and others have noted, this isn't the same as Hagee or a Falwell endorsing McCain. This is Obama's pastor. The man who officiated at Obama's marriage. The man who baptized the Obama children. The man who blessed the Obama house. There are many Americans who attend church every Sunday who don't have the close relationship with their pastor that Obama has with Rev. Wright.

Forget the "God Damn America" comment for a second. What about "The U-S of K-K-K A"? Or "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." Or hell, let's use the whole "God Damn America quote.



As a white guy, I have a problem with these statements. As the father of two black children, I have a problem with these statements. Further, I cannot imagine being a part of a church whose pastor routinely made statements like this, no matter the color of his skin. It's not a message of unity. It's a message of division. It's not the audacity of hope. It's the abdicating of personal responsibility and the scapegoating of government for all of our ills.

And what has Obama said to this point about Wright?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

"[He] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with"

And from his campaign:
"Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

I'm at a loss as to what Obama says next. He's clearly NOT disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, all the while suggesting that Wright's comments have nothing to do with his [Obama's] political beliefs. Well, what about personal ideology? Much of Obama's support comes from people who don't know a thing about his record. They're basing their support on the feelings he inspires in them. So what can he say to reassure those folks that, despite attending the church for more than 20 years and having a close spiritual relationship with this man, they don't reflect his personal views and in fact he finds them abhorrent? I'm waiting to see him pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I'll be darned if I can see a way for him to "win" with this issue.

I think Obama's problem is, he's basically been spending the last 20 or so years in a crash course on black America. He's not sure how to approach this because it never occurred to him that it would come up in the way that it has. I think he's still a neophyte when it comes to understanding these issues, because he didn't grow up with them as a young boy living on the mainland in an inner city context. I mean, he's a smart guy..but I just don't think he understands the dialectic between white and black America in the manner that those of who have lived in it for better or worse since we showed up here have dealt with it.

I think it's vexing him and his team and it'll be interesting to see what his speech will do to the dialogue.

[Young Drachma]

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

[Ksyrup]

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

So we're going to cut him a break for not being the originator? Huh? The man is a leader in the black community. As such, he has a responsibility to do more than simply "play to his base" in order to get people to come to his church. And especially when that includes paranoid delusional propagandist bullshit I can read on conspiracy theory websites, then yeah, I hold him responsible for continuing to disseminate that kind of information.

I'm not sure what would be worse - if he believes it, or if he doesn't believe it but chooses to spread it to "play to the base." This isn't about entertainment where a rock band pretends to be satanist to sell albums because they know controversy sells. I think the leader of a church ought to be just a bit more responsible for his actions than that.

[CamEdwards]

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

Something just struck me. You know what's been missing from ALL of Obama's explanations about his relationship with Wright? Something like this:

"I too have been bewildered and hurt by some of Rev. Wright's claims. But is it better to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that these rumors exist in many black communities, or is it better to engage someone like Rev. Wright and try to convince them they're wrong? For twenty years, I've sat in Rev. Wright's church, but our relationship has been a dialogue, not a sermon. You've heard what Rev. Wright told his flock, but you've not heard what this lamb had to say to his shepard."

Frankly, that might've been Obama's best option, but I don't think he can pull that card out at this late date without at least alluding to it earlier.

[cartman]

I'm not sure what would be worse - if he believes it, or if he doesn't believe it but chooses to spread it to "play to the base." This isn't about entertainment where a rock band pretends to be satanist to sell albums because they know controversy sells. I think the leader of a church ought to be just a bit more responsible for his actions than that.

I know quite a few Catholic priests that have to toe the Vatican line during their homilies but outside of church privately express their misgivings on some of the policies of the Vatican.

[Young Drachma]

Something just struck me. You know what's been missing from ALL of Obama's explanations about his relationship with Wright? Something like this:

"I too have been bewildered and hurt by some of Rev. Wright's claims. But is it better to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that these rumors exist in many black communities, or is it better to engage someone like Rev. Wright and try to convince them they're wrong? For twenty years, I've sat in Rev. Wright's church, but our relationship has been a dialogue, not a sermon. You've heard what Rev. Wright told his flock, but you've not heard what this lamb had to say to his shepard."

Frankly, that might've been Obama's best option, but I don't think he can pull that card out at this late date without at least alluding to it earlier.

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing, that he could basically play it up as "I'm giving him another perspective..." rather than "he's teaching me things."

But, I don't think he'll be able to pull that off convincingly. His team's lack of political savvy is going to have to be boned up. They might be a good organization and have a good ground game, but they're going to get eaten alive tactically if they don't get their operatives in order.

[Ksyrup]

I know quite a few Catholic priests that have to toe the Vatican line during their homilies but outside of church privately express their misgivings on some of the policies of the Vatican.

And again, I don't see the connection. What part of "the government invented HIV to kill off blacks" is part of an honest debate with which people can reasonably be on either side? This isn't about having private misgivings about a part of your faith, this is about claiming as fact things that are utterly insane.

In the Catholic context, this would be like a Priest taking the position that child molestation is OK. Not ignoring it, like the church did for years, but coming straight out and endorsing it. That's not an argument where we just "agree to disagree."

[cartman]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that what a priest/preacher says at the pulpit isn't necessarily what they believe off of the pulpit. Goes back to your point and Dark Cloud's of "preaching to the choir".

[SuperGrover]

I'm at a loss as to what Obama says next. He's clearly NOT disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, all the while suggesting that Wright's comments have nothing to do with his [Obama's] political beliefs. Well, what about personal ideology? Much of Obama's support comes from people who don't know a thing about his record. They're basing their support on the feelings he inspires in them. So what can he say to reassure those folks that, despite attending the church for more than 20 years and having a close spiritual relationship with this man, they don't reflect his personal views and in fact he finds them abhorrent? I'm waiting to see him pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I'll be darned if I can see a way for him to "win" with this issue.

I agree. His campaign is one of uniting an America beyond political ties. The video clip of his pastor is not exactly a rallying cry for the majority of Americans.

[SuperGrover]

Do any of you that are complaining about Wright really believe Obama is going to set about punishing whites? Can you find even one thing Obama's said or done that might lead you to believe this? And does anyone really believe McCain is going to destroy the Catholic Church or ask God for help in tormenting gays? In the end we're not measured by the company we keep, good or bad, but by what we do.

Of course not, but when your campaign is based upon unity and hope, how can you so closely associate yourself with someone so divisive? Certainly, this is going to cause many to question whether your message is honest or simply good politics.

If he were campaigning on economic stimuli and health care reforms, it would be less on an issue. He's not and never has.

[st.cronin]

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

This is how I see it. I understand the concerns, though, but I think ultimately this will be no big deal.

[Vegas Vic]

I think Obama's problem is, he's basically been spending the last 20 or so years in a crash course on black America. He's not sure how to approach this because it never occurred to him that it would come up in the way that it has.

Oh, I think he knew.

In January 2007, Obama asked Wright if he would deliver a public invocation at his announcement to run for president. But Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation. Instead, he prayed in private with Obama before the announcement.

[Jas_lov]

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

[st.cronin]

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

Shockingly stupid, if true.

[Young Drachma]

Shockingly stupid, if true.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/776838.aspx

First Read has obtained a letter from Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman, in which she says there won't be a re-vote in her state. This seems to mean: 1) that Florida's delegates won't be seated; 2) that they will, via a vote from the credentials committee; or 3) that there will be some sort of compromise (like counting delegates by half).

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," Thurman writes. "So we won't."

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline. This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April."

Here's the full letter...

Dear XXX,
For a year now, the Florida Democratic Party has tried to comply with the Delegate Selection Rules of the Democratic National Committee.

We researched every potential alternative process - from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections - but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida.

We made a detailed case to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, but we were denied.
Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29, but of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government <<Link to Audio>>.
Does '537' ring a bell? It should. It's the number of votes that separated Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore in Florida in 2000.

It's the number that sent this country and this world in a terrible direction.

We can't let 537 - or the Republicans - determine our future again.

President Bush plans to stop in Florida tomorrow to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Republican National Committee's efforts to elect his successor in November.

The last thing America needs is a third Bush term. Despite the widespread anxiety that working families feel, not to mention the broad agreement among economists that we are in a recession, President Bush and John McCain blindly believe that the economy is strong.

And let me remind you that John McCain endorsed President Bush's decision to deny health care to thousands of Florida children by vetoing an expansion of the successful SCHIP program. McCain also promises to jeopardize the financial security of Florida seniors by privatizing Social Security. He continually threatens to push Florida's military families to the brink by keeping American troops in Iraq for "100 years" or more.

This is why we are Democrats, and this is why we must stick together, no matter where this ongoing delegate debate takes us.

Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input.
Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again.

So we won't.

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline.

This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, "The rules are the rules." Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today… Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."

The Florida Democratic Party has stuck to its principles throughout this debate. We've remained open-minded while never wavering from our commitment to an open and fair election that would allow all Florida Democrats to participate, whether serving in Iraq, retiring in Boca, studying abroad or entertaining at a theme park.

Another late great President -Abraham Lincoln, a Republican - said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

If Democrats heed this wisdom, we will win in November.

America needs a great president again, but a President McCain will settle for the status quo and carry on the disastrous Bush tradition.

President Clinton or President Obama will make history and lead this nation in a new direction.

Let's remember this as the delegate debate continues. We must stick together as Democrats. The stakes are too high and the opportunities too great.

I will keep you posted on any major developments. Thank you for your concern and your commitment.

Sincerely,
Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman
Chair, Florida Democratic Party

[Vegas Vic]

Florida is obviously a very important state. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html)

[CamEdwards]

This is interesting:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_on_News_Hour.html

From a Newshour interview by Gwen Ifill talking to Barack Obama:


MS. IFILL: Anybody watching this campaign for the last week to 10 days would think it was all about gender and race between what Geraldine Ferraro said and what your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. Do you look at this and think that maybe with a woman and a black man running against each other that this was going to be an inevitable conversation?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I’m not sure if it was inevitable. I think that there’s no doubt that race and gender are powerful forces in our society. They always have been. And I think it would have been naïve for me to think that I could run and end up with quasi-frontrunner status in a presidential election as potentially the first African-American president that issues, race wouldn’t come up any more than Senator Clinton could expect that gender issues might not come up.

But, ultimately, I don’t think it’s useful. I think we’ve got to talk about it. I think we’ve got to process it. But we’ve got to remind ourselves that what we have in common is far more important than what’s different and that if we’re going to solve any of these problems, we’ve got to come together and bridge our differences in ways that we just have not bridged them before.

MS. IFILL: Is that the speech you’ll be giving tomorrow in Philadelphia?

SEN. OBAMA: That will be a major focus of it.


Okay, seriously... if that's the major focus of the speech then I'm just about willing to pronounce the Obama campaign over.

Obama's been saying "we're the one's we've been waiting for." But this seems to be "You are the one with the problem." I mean this is the same platitudinal bullshit that Obama's been saying all along. And this is his big address on race?

Wow. As a sneak preview, color me unimpressed.

[CamEdwards]

dola

Another gem from the same interview:

MS. IFILL: The distinction between you and Senator Clinton that’s been drawn by both of you over the last several weeks has been judgment versus experience. So let me ask you about your judgment on some issues, not only Reverend Wright and your association with him over the years but also Tony Rezko who you’ve talked a lot about recently, the Chicago developer who is now on trial on federal charges. Do you think that your association with those two people or people we don’t know about would raise questions about your judgment?



SEN. OBAMA: Well, no, look, all of us have people in our lives who we meet, we get to know, in some cases form friendships with, who end up getting themselves into trouble or say things that we don’t agree with. And probably what’s true is because I haven’t been in Washington as long as Senator Clinton or others that I have not distanced myself from these people for as long a period of time as somebody more steeped in Washington politics might have.But keep in mind, on all these issues, there is no allegations that I’ve done anything wrong, just as in the situation with Reverend Wright there is no allegation that I’ve said something that was inappropriate. And so I think the American people recognize that all of us have friends or associates or people who we meet along the way who are not ideal or perfect. But that’s part of what life is about.

That's a weird line. And again, it's not that Rev. Wright is "less than ideal" or "not perfect". The dude thinks the government invented AIDS and is responsible for distributing crack as a means to imprison the black community, and on and on.

I'm finding Obama's responses amazingly pedestrian (for lack of a better word). I thought he was supposed to be a rhetorical genius.

[Greyroofoo]

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

John McCain smiles.

[Young Drachma]

Tribune editorial (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story) on Rezko and Obama after he spent time with them answering every question they had about it. Story ran yesterday.

[JPhillips]

The Florida revote means nothing come the general. There isn't one person who will switch there vote due to the primary delegates. I think it's likely a red state, but that has nothing to do with any revote issues.

As to Wright, humans have a tendency to buy into conspiracies. This certainly isn't something specific to Wright or black churches. Look at how many people think Saddam was behind 9/11 or how many think it was a Jewish/government plot. People of all ideologies are prone to believe bullshit conspiracies when the truth is too hard or random to accept. While Wright is offbase to think HIV was a government plot, unfortunately he's certainly not on the fringe to believe in crazy conspiracies.

Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

[Ksyrup]

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/031708DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

[Grammaticus]

The Florida revote means nothing come the general. There isn't one person who will switch there vote due to the primary delegates. I think it's likely a red state, but that has nothing to do with any revote issues.

As to Wright, humans have a tendency to buy into conspiracies. This certainly isn't something specific to Wright or black churches. Look at how many people think Saddam was behind 9/11 or how many think it was a Jewish/government plot. People of all ideologies are prone to believe bullshit conspiracies when the truth is too hard or random to accept. While Wright is offbase to think HIV was a government plot, unfortunately he's certainly not on the fringe to believe in crazy conspiracies.
Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

I think you are stretching it there. People who believe in crazy conspiracies are definately on the fringe as it pertains to those beliefs.

[SirFozzie]

This actually happened at the best possible time for Obama, because there's no votes for five more weeks. This will be a dead story by then

[Ksyrup]

I also think trying to bring some legitimacy to conspiracy theories by equating the Sadam & 9/11 issue with the government/HIV thing is way off-base and a bit disturbing. One is an incorrect belief based on a mistaken set of facts; the other is truly a fringe, wacko belief. Misinformation does not equal a conspiracy.

[Grammaticus]

This actually happened at the best possible time for Obama, because there's no votes for five more weeks. This will be a dead story by then

Well, he has announced he will give a speach tomorrow (Tuesday) on the subject, going beyond the comments, but to discuss the issue of race in the campaign. Here is his quote:

"I am going to be talking about, not just about Reverend Wright but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters after a town-hall meeting. “Part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I completely disagree. Remember that the government did in fact let blacks suffer the ravages of syphilis long after we knew the cure. Saying that HIV is a government invention to a poor, black audience does have a perverse set of facts that backs that up. After all it wouldn't be incorrect to say, "The US government has studied sexually transmitted diseases by withholding treatment from black men and allowing them to die.

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

[stevew]

I didn't put much stock into Rev. Wright's conspiracy rants until he brought up that part about Neil O'Donnell being paid to throw Superbowl XXX away.

I now blame George Bush for the sickle cell.

[SuperGrover]

Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

WTF are you talking about? When did I say anything about conspiracies?

Look, Obama's entire campaign has been based upon the fact he's different. He's a uniting force of nature that will bring and end to disparate politics and instead foster change through cooperation and understanding. That's it.

Now, how can someone bring about unification when he calls someone family who is obviously a crackpot? Should Wright's opinions affect your views of Obama? Not if you believe in him because of policies. However, if you believe in him as a conduit of unity, then Wright's words better reverberate, because I guarantee you they will with many in this country.

[SuperGrover]

Ksyrup: I completely disagree. Remember that the government did in fact let blacks suffer the ravages of syphilis long after we knew the cure. Saying that HIV is a government invention to a poor, black audience does have a perverse set of facts that backs that up. After all it wouldn't be incorrect to say, "The US government has studied sexually transmitted diseases by withholding treatment from black men and allowing them to die.

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

He was linking Saddam and 9/11 not the government and 9/11.

Anyone who believes HIV and crack are government conspiracies doesn't deserve to be part of any intelligent discourse on race in this country.

[JPhillips]

Supergrover: But there's no evidence that Obama believes any of the most offensive things that Wright has said. I still want to know how Wright's statements change Obama's positions. In the end what's truly important is what Obama will or won't do. Wright's words in and of themselves don't mean anything to me.

Will it hurt Obama, of course. I said many posts ago that I wouldn't be surprised if Wright kills Obama's campaign sooner or later. My point is that most of the people going crazy about Wright are people that were opposed to Obama to begin with and see a way to destroy him. I don't believe that any of you seriously believe that Obama is secretly a black separatist.

On conspiracies in general, I've been giving this a lot of thought. I think people are so drawn to conspiracy theories because they are a way to retain a predetermined worldview in the face of contrary evidence. Without doing the research necessary to prove this, I would hypothesize that some, perhaps most, people are more willing to accept an irrational theory that supports their closely held beliefs than accept verifiable facts that go against their beliefs. I'd bet that while each individual conspiracy theory is on the fringe, the totality of fringe conspiracy believers in general is near or above a majoity of the population.

[Ksyrup]

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

Wait a minute - "9/11 was a government conspiracy" and "9/11 was perpetrated by Sadam Hussein" are two totally different things. One is a true conspiracy theory, the other a mistaken belief. That's the dichotomy I was trying to draw with the Sadam/HIV thing. There is no Sadam "conspiracy theory."

And also, I can say from personal experience that there are, in fact, backwards messages in heavy metal. But they were either purposely planted there, or just something that people think they hear from a mish-mosh of sounds...they weren't placed there by Satan. And yes, I had an awful lot of free time during college. :)

[Ksyrup]

He was linking Saddam and 9/11 not the government and 9/11.


Exactly, I was responding to the original comment using the Sadam example.

[Raiders Army]

What a fucking whiner. She won the state, now she's quibbling.
AUSTIN, Texas(AP) The Texas Democratic Party said Monday it had denied a request by Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that it take extra steps to verify the signatures of election night caucus-goers before party conventions being held at the end of the month.

State chairman Boyd Richie said Texas Democrats will not "set up an unnecessary, ad hoc 'verification' process that could effectively disqualify delegates selected at their precinct conventions after the fact."

An estimated 1 million people attended Democratic caucuses after the party's presidential primary concluded March 4. Those caucuses began the process of choosing 67 pledged delegates to the party's national convention in Denver in August.

Clinton's campaign, in a letter to the state party Friday, said it wanted the signatures of those attending caucuses double-checked before county and state Senate district convention convene on March 29.

Richie said the party conventions already have rules in place to address complaints and problems.

Clinton's campaign said it received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic turnout on March 4, and that it is the party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the caucus process. Among the problems cited were caucuses starting before precinct polling places closed and results being taken from head or hand counts instead of a written roll.

In an unofficial and incomplete caucus tally, the state Democratic Party reported Barack Obama was ahead of Clinton with 56 percent to her 44 percent, after reports from 41 percent of precinct caucuses.

Clinton narrowly won the primary stage of the two-step contest, which allocated 126 delegates.

"Our only concern is that the caucus outcome accurately reflect the voices of those who were eligible to participate," said Adrienne Elrod, a Clinton campaign spokeswoman.

Caucus delegates are awarded as a result of three stages: the precinct conventions, or caucuses, held election night; county and state Senate district conventions planned for March 29; and the state Democratic convention on June 6-7.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I'm not trying to attack you on a 9/11 conspiracy. All I'm trying to point out is that there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs. We humans seem to have a love for hard to explain conspiracies. That's my point.

[Ksyrup]

Ksyrup: I'm not trying to attack you on a 9/11 conspiracy. All I'm trying to point out is that there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs. We humans seem to have a love for hard to explain conspiracies. That's my point.

I don't take it as an attack, I'm just pointing out the difference between a true conspiracy and a mistaken belief that you lumped in as being equivalent to a conspiracy.

The problem with making a statement like "there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs" is that it legitimizes them to some extent AND excuses him from any responsibility in the position he's in. Personally, I'm fascinated by certain conspiracy theories. I remember when I first heard of that Titor guy years ago, I spent a solid week reading stuff on the net about it. And then when I finished, I came back to reality and put that back on the shelf where it belonged, in the fiction section.

I also have some issues with people who buy into that kind of stuff. Yes, I know people who legitimately believe 9/11 was started by Bush as a pretext for the Iraq War, and also believe Pearl Harbor was bombed by the US as a reason to get us into WWII. I do not give their opinions much credence. But they're just people posting on a messageboard. They are not on a pulpit preaching to people and mixing conspiracy theories with the Word of God.

Let's say a Cabinet member of Congressman or someone bought into the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Do you think it would be responsible of them to use their office as a means to argue their belief? And if they did that, would you not think less of them or question their judgment on other things? Again, this all comes back to Obama - which is the reason we're even discussing this - and me just not understanding how one could listen to something like this and not want to get as far away from it as possible. It's one thing to argue that the US government has not acted in the best interests of the black community. It's another to throw out such ridiculous nonsense as fact, in the context of being the leader of a church.

[JPhillips]

We have exactly what you describe in Congress right now. James Inhofe has said that 9/11 was punishment by God for America's sins. In the White House it's been widely reported that Cheney is a fan of Laurie Mylroie who wrote that the 1993 WTC bombing was Saddam's doing. Richard Perle even wrote a blurb for the cover saying the book was, "splendid and wholly convincing." I'm sure some of the same people pushing the Clinton/drug dealer stuff in the nineties are working in the White House now. I bet I could find more if I tried.

I'm not trying to excuse Wright's conspiracy theories. I'm just trying to make it clear that the belief in conspiracy theories in general is a mainstream position. Honestly it's more of an academic argument, but since I'm an academic it has appeal to me.

[Young Drachma]

What a fucking whiner. She won the state, now she's quibbling.

She actually didn't win the state, if winning means the person who got the most delegates.

She won the primary, but he won the caucus and that resulted in a positive net number of delegates for him. The media invented that she won, but he won more delegates out of Texas than she did. And she has no one to blame for the process, since Bill Clinton was part of the group that helped re-write the rules there back in the 90s.

[Ksyrup]

I'm just trying to make it clear that the belief in conspiracy theories in general is a mainstream position.

I simply disagree. It's not mainstream. Curiosity in conpiracies is mainstream; belief in nearly all of them (I'll allow that there is probably some bit of truth to some conspiracy theory out there somewhere) is either flat-out ignorance or, as you say, something people latch onto as a way to explain the unexplainable. I've never heard of the WTC or Clinton/drug dealer things, and they certainly are not out there as mainstream positions. Frankly, given the political implications of the Clinton thing, my guess is that is/'was being pushed more for political gain than as a belief in a "conspiracy theory."

And the Inhofe thing you refer to is NOT a conspiracy theory, either - unless you're arguing that God is conspiring against us. That's a Falwellian comment that got some play when it happened, but I don't see any evidence that it took hold in the mainstream public as having any legitimacy. It's just a stupid comment from the kind of person that has made me, as a conservative, all but decide I'm either sitting this election out, or voting Libertarian.

[JPhillips]

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

[BrianD]

Just to aid in the discussion here:

con·spir·a·cy /k?n'sp?r?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

[Ksyrup]

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

Re: Coburn... I don't even know what that means, or that it logically makes sense. It sounds stupid on its face, though.

Re: Inhofe, the issue here is the influence of someone like that on the President, not the statement/idea in a vaccuum. So even accepting your suggestion that the Inhofe statement is equivalent to the God Damn America statement, the question is, shouldn't the influence of the person making the statement on a Presidential candidate at least be a consideration when judging the candidate? If Bush considered Inhoke a close confidant and spiritual guide, then I think it would be proper to question whether Bush agrees with that kind of statement. That's he just a Senator means the party as a whole should have to answer for it, to the extent he represents the party, but I don't see this as analogous to the Obama situation, given his close relationship to Wright.

Re: Mylroie - this goes back to the hindsight thing. Sure, that link should have been questioned. What are you going to do about it now? We have the information about Obama/Wright now, and therefore it may or may not play a part in our evaluation of the candidate, as we each see fit.

[JPhillips]

I think this discussion of Wright and Obama could get to something interesting if allowed. The fact is that in churches all across the country, of varying ethnic compositions, angry rhetoric is the norm. Political speech is heard every Sunday. Hateful attacks on some mysterious "them" is a part of weekly sermons all around the country. The fact is that Wright's type of angry denunciation isn't by any means unique. A discussion about what is said in churches of varying political and racial mixes could benefit the country.

There's also the issue of tone. It was kind of sad to watch David Broder Sunday fret over the way Wright spoke. He was almost more fearful of the style than the words and I imagine his reaction is pretty common among older, mainstream Christians. In reality, though, that style that evolded from the Pentecostal tradition is common in lots of churches, regardless of racial makeup. The passion and fire of these preachers is what draws folks in regardless of that particular Sunday's message.

If this controversy were able to expose more Americans to some of the different strains in American Christianity it would be good for all of us. I don't expect that to happen, but it would be nice.

[Ksyrup]

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

That's what I've been trying to get at.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder what the pastor of W's church has said in his sermons or, for that matter, what kind of things Rev. Huckabee said in his....

[Ksyrup]

I think this discussion of Wright and Obama could get to something interesting if allowed. The fact is that in churches all across the country, of varying ethnic compositions, angry rhetoric is the norm. Political speech is heard every Sunday. Hateful attacks on some mysterious "them" is a part of weekly sermons all around the country. The fact is that Wright's type of angry denunciation isn't by any means unique. A discussion about what is said in churches of varying political and racial mixes could benefit the country.

I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not that it's not true, but I personally have never been to a service where something even remotely close to this has happened. And I've been attending church services (fairly :) ) regularly my entire life. Maybe it's that I have always attended "mainstream" denominations - United Methodist and Presbyterian (with a couple of Catholic services when visiting my parents). But I have never heard "angry rhetoric" at a church service, never had political views expressed - in fact, I've heard many preachers go out of their way to say "however you choose to vote this week" or something along those lines. Even when something like abortion is raised, it's never in a political setting. Can't say I've ever heard a discussion of the gay lifestyle in church, other than how it affects who can be ordained.

In short, I don't relate to this at all, and perhaps that's why I'm coming down on this where I do, because I would hightail it out of any church that even discussed politics to any substantive extent, let alone went off on "angry rhetoric" bends on certain issues under the guise of teaching the Word of God.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I'm close to agreeing with you. My question would be, what influence do Wright's words/thoughts have on Obama? As far as I can tell from what he's done and said over the past decade Wright's controversial thoughts have had no influence whatsoever. If evidence can be shown that Obama actually believes what Wright said I would quickly change my opinion of Obama. Until then, Wright's word's are just that, Wright's words.

Much the same way you say Bush's decisions aren't based on Inhofe's thoughts I believe Obama's decisions haven't been based on Wright's thoughts. I'd say the same about McCain and Hagee/Robertson/Falwell also. I'm much more concerned about what the actual candidate says and does as opposed to the supporters/mentors/endorsers.

[JPhillips]

Just to aid in the discussion here:

con·spir·a·cy /k?n'sp?r?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

But what substantive difference is there in a crazy conspiracy theory and a crazy theory?

[cartman]

The text of the speech is out there.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

hxxp://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

Choose the link that is least offensive to your sensibilities.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I've also been with mainstream churches my whole life (Methodist, Disciples of Christ), but I have enough friends and relatives that are evangelicals and have seen enough video to know this goes on all across the country. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people are exposed to this weekly and it's important to note that even the churches that engage in the type of speech that we're talking about don't do it every Sunday. It's important for people to realize that this kind of sermon is by no means limited to one guy in Chicago.

[Young Drachma]

This thread is unplayable.

[Ksyrup]

Ksyrup: I'm close to agreeing with you. My question would be, what influence do Wright's words/thoughts have on Obama? As far as I can tell from what he's done and said over the past decade Wright's controversial thoughts have had no influence whatsoever. If evidence can be shown that Obama actually believes what Wright said I would quickly change my opinion of Obama. Until then, Wright's word's are just that, Wright's words.

Much the same way you say Bush's decisions aren't based on Inhofe's thoughts I believe Obama's decisions haven't been based on Wright's thoughts. I'd say the same about McCain and Hagee/Robertson/Falwell also. I'm much more concerned about what the actual candidate says and does as opposed to the supporters/mentors/endorsers.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that it goes to the candidate's judgment and leaves a lingering question of whether the person has left any lasting influence on him that would manifest itself. But mostly, it's just judgment - how can you not outright reject that in action, not just in words? And by that I mean, you don't attend his church, and you certainly don't have him as a part of the most significant moments of your life. That is very troubling to me.

I mean honestly, if I came on this board and made it known that while I personally don't believe that killing abortion doctors is right, but that one of my closest friends advocates killing doctors, you wouldn't store that information about me in the back of your mind and approach me a little differently than you otherwise would? I'm not talking about a relative you're stuck with and have to put up with on Thanksgiving - Obama was free to choose or reject this man as a spiritual advisor, and seems to have embraced him. That may not tell me that Obama is going to act on his advisor's outrageous statements, but that tells me something about Obama's judgment. And it's not good. That's the bottom line for me.

[Young Drachma]

The following is the text of Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia, as prepared for delivery and provided by his campaign.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

[cartman]

I'd say he hit the proverbial home run with the speech.

[BrianD]

But what substantive difference is there in a crazy conspiracy theory and a crazy theory?

Mostly I was trying to point out that you and Ksyrup were arguing past each other because you were talking about different things by using "conspiracy theory" in different definitions.

To answer your question though, I would say there is a big difference. Preaching that God caused 9/11 for whatever reason is probably not going to cause too much action. People aren't going to go attack God for being mean to us. People of different religions probably aren't going to start fighting over a theory like that.

A conspiracy theory - like saying the (White) government created HIV to kill Black people could be potentially damaging. People believing in conspiracy theories tend to become very unhappy with those doing the conspiring, and they have an actual target to direct that unhappiness toward.

[Warhammer]

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.


Let me get this straight. Did you see the movie JFK? If so, you must believe in conspiracies. That is exactly what you are saying here.

Just because some one reads a book does not mean that they subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Just because I meet some one once does not mean that I am a close advisor. If you attend a church for 20 years and this same person is very influential in the writing of your book, that person is a big influence over your life.

If a lifelong catholic runs for the White House, I can understand abortion advocates being concerned with abortion legislation being passed, regarless of the candidate's actual statements regarding his position. This is the same thing.

The problem that Obama has, and will have is that he cannot let the debate devolve into issues. He will be seen as a fringe liberal, and that will scare many voters away. As long as he keeps the debate about his cult of personality, he will attract the mindless mob.

You bring up a very good point though. There are many conspiracy theories out there that many people have not heard or have not given any credence to. But, you're going to tell me that a close spiritual advisor of a candidate for president, one who attended this church for 20 years, has no belief in any of this at all. Even though, he credits this same person as being a huge influence on his life. But, that's ok because these are mainstream beliefs?

Sorry, I can't buy that.

[Young Drachma]

I'd say he hit the proverbial home run with the speech.

+1

[Young Drachma]

The conservative slant of people who clearly don't understand the debate of what's going on with a good half of the population in this country make this thread really hard to read. And this coming from someone who sits right of center and won't vote for the Democratic nominee either. But the line between punditry and just saying "OMG, I don't get it. No one wants to vote for a fringe liberal" completely defies the reality of NOW.

You can cite 1988, you can cite 1888 or whatever you want. No one has any clue what's going to happen in November, but the fact of the matter is...this year is different because the challenge we face going forward are different. Maybe the past is instructive, but it's not a real crystal ball for what's to come.

Something will change, things will be different and stuff will go in a different direction. The generation of twittering, emailing and bluetooth induced Americans don't care about who is a liberal and who is a conservative only care about sound bites and are looking for someone they feel they can trust. Whoever the people feel they can trust, they will vote for. Most of us are far more informed than Joe Average Voter. We don't represent the folks being polled or asked what they think on any of the sides of this debate.

[Fidatelo]

I only heard portions (stupid CBC kept cutting away), but Obama's speech was one of the best I've ever heard.