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

[flere-imsaho]

Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

[Arles]

Why Richardson's endorsement matters (http://www.slate.com/id/2187113/)
Good article and I agree. We may all look back on this move as the one that pushed Obama into the nomination from a public relations standpoint. Unless the Clintons get Edwards, I don't see how they can recoup the momentum to get the nomination.

[Dutch]

I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

That figures. On the flip-side, I find McCain's "relationship" with Falwell to be miniscule and irrelevant compared to Obama's relationship to his pastor of 20 years and I believe that Obama will tell you everything and anything and is willing to let words shroud his true principles. So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

[Dutch]

Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter?

Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.

Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president.

The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.

People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent).

Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.

I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson.

People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

[albionmoonlight]

The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

I agree.

[JPhillips]

Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

[Dutch]

Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

So we should take Wright into consideration for this or not? Help me out, here.

[JPhillips]

I don't really care, but if Wright, who has comparatively little influence, is important shouldn't Moon, who donates millions, has his own conservatively aligned media empire, gives money to the North Koreans, and is connected to virtually every conservative politician in the U.S., be just as important?

[miked]

Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.



The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.



Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.



People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

Firstly, I'm not an Obamamanic, I even voted Hillary in this poll. I've stopped caring after all those debates. But I don't see anything that suggests Wright has a major influence on policy, in fact it would seem as though Obama started distancing himself before that even came out. People who support Hillary/McCain will just add this to something they can chase, and these little annoying spats are just hurting politics. I mean, CNN felt the need yesterday to make an article about how the CEO of the contractor who was caught snooping at files had donated to Obama's campaign. Buried in the article was the fact that the CEO of the other contractor was a Hillary supporter. But the headline was "CEO of state dept. breach an Obama donor!!!!!!" I saw the comments on this article and it was nothing but Hillary/McCain supporters talking about how this CEO obviously instructed his worker to go through the files to distract from the current "scandal" (despite the fact the first breach took place 2+ months ago).

My point is, people like to make mountains of out molehills, especially this early in the process. If you think Obama is somehow going to bring some white-hatred thing to the office, or consult Wright before making his decisions (we all know that won't happen now), then you are seriously partisan-delusional. Do I have to remind people who GWB selected to be his medical advisor/FDA guy? Who was he consulting on that?

[Young Drachma]

Pat Buchanan wonders where the gratitude is:

Link (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969)
By Patrick J. Buchanan

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “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 … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

[Buccaneer]

So now it's time for everyone to turn partisan hacks? *sigh*

[Arles]

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.
We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

[Young Drachma]

His rhetoric (Buchanan) has really gotten ugly in recent years. I mean, he's just regurgitating talking points from the nationalist right at this point and so, so paying him any mind at this point is really silly. The main difference of course, is that he gets a forum on national television as an opinion commentator.

Of course, Jesse Jackson had a show on CNN for a while. So...I guess whatever works. But this stuff isn't so much vitriol as it does repeat the oft-cited and falsely noted myth that social service programs in this country were devised by altruism intended to help colored folks out of their bleak situations.

It would almost be comedic if there weren't millions of folks who truly believe this to be the case. But I guess will believe what they'll believe. I thought it was actually surprisingly caustic from him, so that's why I posted it.

[Young Drachma]

We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

You folks are overstating the influence and the personal relationship of Rev. Wright and Obama. The media spins "spiritual adviser" to mean something beyond what the true intent was. Even if you claim he's playing politics on this one, to me, it's akin to a close family member that you don't want coming out and saying something crazy, because he's old and can be prone to say crazy thing.

I think Barack looked up to Rev. Wright in terms of his Christianity and given that last year, the debate was whether the Democrats could convert some of the "moral majority" to their side, I think he was trying to carve out a way to let folks know that he had a spiritual backbone.

Rev. Wright isn't going to torpedo this candidacy. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise. Other things might do it, but this isn't the thing. Not in a week here you all swore it'd kill his campaign and he ended up regaining the lead in the polls and getting a major superdelegate to come to his side of the aisle.

He should've been dead in the water and instead, he took the worst week of his campaign and effectively neutralized it by using those oft-cited 'words' and gave a blunt speech on a conversation that most folks would rather gloss over or completely ignore with a simply stroke of a magic wand.

I think the general election will be a very stark contrast in conversations. The problem for the Dems is all of this "John McCain is an American hero" talk that they keep spewing before they decide to attack him. That's going to stick with folks who don't know Obama well and who already know all they need to about Hillary.

But this entire race was unpredictable in January, so to act as if it's all played now in March is very premature.

[cartman]

Considering the overall US budget just passed the $1 trillion mark for the first time in 1987, it is pretty safe to say his estimate of $40 trillion spent on social programs is way off. In any event, he seems to be overlooking the fact that white Americans make up about 60% of those on welfare. Hardly a program set up to exclusively help the black community, as Buchanan seems to be intimating.

[JPhillips]

Arles: You're way off limiting Moon to a donor who went to a banquet. He's kept in the background, but from his early relationship with Reagan and company and the founding of the Washington Times he's been one of the most important sources for cash in the entire conservative movement. That cash has paid off by giving Moon the legitimacy he's so eagerly desired.

Bush I has received millions in speaking fees from Moon and has praised his vision and principles. Neil Bush has also spoken in praise of Moon and done other work for some of Moon's shadow companies. Bush II has appointed a few Moonies to prominent positions in the government. During Bush's first term millions in abstinence only education funds were given to a Moon front group.

The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.

In effect everything you worry that Wright could do, Moon has done.

In the end I don't really believe that Moon is anything for these politicians but an ATM. I don't really worry about Bush declaring Moon the dictator of the US, just as I don't believe Obama is going to throw whitey down a well. The point is that unless you're willing to condemn Moon and his political allies as vigorously as you do Wright and Obama, you really are just taking an opportunity to damage a political opponent with no higher principles than personal destruction.

[Buccaneer]

The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.


Except that is was spearheaded by an Illinois Democrat?

The thing that makes what Wright said and his alledged influence is the fear of violence, as we have seen in the past and what I remembered growing up seeing the race riots personally. It's one thing to be influenced by money and its evils, but it is another thing to want to purposely do harm to another group. You know it won't take much to have race clashes in certain parts of the country. That is a fear contemplated if Hillary steals the nomination. That is why any kind of race-baiting, hatemongering should be categorically shutdown and not allow to fester.

[JPhillips]

Moon wants to convert or kill anyone who doesn't believe he's the Messiah. He's actively supporting the North Koreans. In the seventies thousands of young American were brainwashed by Moonies to the point where deprogramming them was relatively prominent.

I stand by my belief that if you aren't willing to apply the same scrutiny to people connected with Moon that you are to people connected Wright you're engaging in nothing more than an opportunistic political attack. If the concern is influence by people who are so radical as to be potentially dangerous how can you not see that connections to Moon are at least equally troublesome?

As to the Crowning ceremony, I don't think it's clear who setup the event as it may have been Curt Wheldon, but it's true that some Democrats were also in attendance. Over the past few years Moon has been pouring a lot of money into primarily African-American churches and a few politicians. In the grand scheme of things his influence in the black community is minimal, but his Tear Down the Cross initiative has been primarily aimed at black churches.

And for the record, I absolutely have problems with politicians of all stripes connected to a man as dangerous as Moon.

[Arles]

Honestly, I'd feel a lot better about Wright if it was shown he donated a ton of money to Obama. Then, atleast, we could write this whole thing off as fundraising. But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

[JPhillips]

Arles: Thanks for proving my point.

[Arles]

Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

[Young Drachma]

Obama's Talk Fuels Easter Sermons (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/politics/23churches.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

A snippet:

Some ministers said their congregants were focused not on white racism, but on Mr. Wright’s remarks. The Rev. Dean Snyder, pastor of Foundry United Methodist church, which was the Clintons’ home church during President Bill Clinton’s tenure, said some of his congregants were aghast at Mr. Wright’s remarks.

During staff meetings this week at his church, Mr. Snyder said he noticed the rising awareness among some African-Americans of white Americans, he said, “who don’t understand the history of black people in this country and the role of the black church as a prophetic voice, and that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society.”

The Rev. Kent Millard of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis said he felt Mr. Obama had explained the reality of the relationship between a pastor and his congregants.

“Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is member of our congregation, and I would hope he would never be held accountable for everything I have said in the last 15 years,” said Dr. Millard, who is white. “Why is there any assumption that a person in church is expected to agree with everything a pastor says?”

Some black ministers said that their sermons might address how the reputation of a man many of them revere was reduced to sound bites. They pointed out that sermons in black churches covered a long and circuitous path from crisis to resolution, and it was unfair to judge the entire message on one or two sentences.

“I may not use his exact language,” said the Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, pastor of Victory Church in Stone Mountain, Ga., “but I can tell you that the basic thrust of much of my preaching resonates with Dr. Wright. I don’t think I’m necessarily trying to preach people into anger, but I am trying to help people become conscious, become aware, to realize our power to make change in society.”

[Buccaneer]

that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society

...depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on.

[cartman]

Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

Any chance it might be the message in the other hundreds of hours of sermons Wright has given outside of the snippets that have been over focused on? No, that can't be it, can it? Obama must have had the patience of Job to sit through years of "boring" religious sermons to get to the "juicy" parts he just knew would be taken out of context and plastered all over the place.

[flere-imsaho]

So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

Wait, you've just figured this out? :eek:

:p

[Young Drachma]

Rev. Otis Moss took over recently as senior pastor and was in an Obama ad a while back, explaining what their church is all about. Well before there was all of this hullabaloo.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lY6qjeJ5mG8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lY6qjeJ5mG8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Here's the Easter Sunday sermon from today at Trinty UCC.
Pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJPV1VMRqo)
Pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEcnR3woihU)
Pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCfUxKoDGQ)
Pt. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XonscQyCkHI)
Pt. 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsywwUk3TRU)

[CamEdwards]

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

[Buccaneer]

I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

That would be cool, if it wasn't for the gun thing. :)

[JPhillips]

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

I think if you could expand on that a bit I'd love to hear it. I've generally been frustrated by the idea that faith is of utmost importance for our politicians, but the tenets of that faith are generally considered out of bounds for discussion. I'm bothered by the idea that the media is so accepting of an undefined faith when it's the specific beliefs within that faith that determine it's role on the individual. There are real differences between faiths, be they Black Liberation, Muslim, Mormon, Prosperity Gospel, etc. If faith is going to be an issue at all it should be as an examination of the tenets of that faith. IMO once a person says their faith is important it demands the question, what do you believe?

I would warn you though that me listening probably won't make up for all the other listeners that want a more black and white discussion.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.

[Arles]

Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.
I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama. And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information:
1. His words
2. His actions in political life
3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with

If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president.

[flere-imsaho]

Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

Now that's a show I might actually listen to. Even though you're a right-wing gun nut. :p

I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama.

But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_care), and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.

And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

And, you know, maybe you can't, anyway. But maybe it's worth trying. But Obama at least doesn't want to take the easy way out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing. They SHOULD be throwing some of these ideas 'under the bus' because they make little sense and don't represent the beliefs and needs of most U.S. citizens. There's a reason their views don't gain any traction in most government policy. It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

[Arles]

But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_care), and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.
I think this is a real good point. And, IMO, it's closer to the truth than Obama being some kind of closet anti-american monster. All that said, I do think it's fair for Obama to have his feet to the fire for a few weeks while people make up their minds on it.

For a parallel, imagine a scenerio where it came out that McCain's closest economic advisor for the past 20 years was very anti-tax cut and in favor of bigger government spending and higher taxes to build jobs/economy. Now, it very well could be that McCain simply liked the guy as a person and didn't always agree with his tax policy, but I would fully expect much of the media to hammer him hard on inconsistencies between his stump speaches (keeping the Bush tax cut) and the views of his close advisor.

It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.
I would applaud the first candidate that did that. For "unity", I don't expect a person to get the Black Panthers and KKK to sing Kumbaya. It's OK to make people with fringe beliefs on either side less relevant without feeling like you are not "uniting the whole contry".

[ISiddiqui]

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

And when he talks about his general policies, you KNOW there will be significant pushback from the other side on them. True he isn't for "universal" health care, but according to his campaign, he's going to dramatically increase spending on health. He will try to pull back from Iraq in a relatively substantial way. He will be backing programs that will increase spending... at least if he follows what he's been saying on the campaign. He will try to revisit NAFTA. When that happens, you aren't going to have the other side think everyone should sit down and compromise. Instead, they'll do what they normally do and fight to the last man. Then what happens to "unity"?

[albionmoonlight]

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

[flere-imsaho]

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening.

There are a lot of specifics here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). Seriously.

The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing.

That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future.

This really isn't such a far out concept. In my work as a project manager I do this all the time. One of the key problems in managing teams (especially teams over which you have no managerial control - which is true for most PMs) is when you have opposing people (or camps) who are diametrically opposed to each other and won't work together.

The way I bring these groups back into line is finding out the common demoniator upon which they agree, and use this as a way to bring them back to the table. Starting with this as the goal, we can then articulate a workable compromise that then allows the entire team to achieve whatever the objective of the project is.

That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

I'm a manager in an IT group, so I'm certainly aware of those dynamics and you are correct in that regard. That works fine in a smaller setting. A group of 300M+ holds no comparison to that setting and a leader that thinks otherwise is profoundly in error if they treat the two scenarios as similar.

If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct? :)

[albionmoonlight]

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

Sure. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. The man has plans, and those plans differ significantly from those of George W. Bush (re-elected, as people seem to forget, by a signficant popular vote margin in 2004). Lots and lots and lots of Americans will object to a lot of what Obama wants to do. All of the leftists who expect him to be the Regan of the left and win an electoral college/popular vote landslide are, in my very humble opinion, wrong.

[st.cronin]

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

[flere-imsaho]

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:


Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct? :)

Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's. ;)

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

[albionmoonlight]

You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

That reads harsher than I intended it. Indeed, I didn't intend for it to be harsh at all. Just one of those "agree to disagree" points.

[flere-imsaho]

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

[st.cronin]

That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:

Sure, that's a fine policy. But where does it differ from what any of the other candidates will do? My guess is that both candidates on either side would argue for similar mandates. My point being that it's not a bad idea, but it's likely very similar to reform that either candidate will likely have to pass. I would note that I checked the McCain site and I don't see any specific mention of any mortgage policies. I'll have to look a bit more and see if he's got something on record in that regard.

Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's. ;)

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

Gathering 300M people on common ground is a non-starter IMO. I'm all for uniting people, but it isn't going to happen from a realistic standpoint. I'd say that he should be honest and say that he's going to do his best to unite everyone, but political protocol would say that would be an open door for the opposition candidate to say, 'See, he's not going to help everyone!'. Politics are a beautiful thing. :)

[JPhillips]

Something will be done for FL and MI before the convention, likely either a 50/50 split or cutting the delegates in half. If the Supers break as I expect after the April and May primaries the FL and MI delegations may be seated as is because it won't matter.

I think the FL/MI issue won't matter much because if it gets to a floor fight the party likely won't recover by November regardless of what happened to those delegates.

[CamEdwards]

"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/NATION/143263249/1001


Philadelphia's Democratic leaders say they'll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party's nominee in the general election.



Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don't care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.



"If you can't deal with it, then you've got a problem," said Mrs. Campbell, who supports Mr. Obama and heads an alliance of black ward leaders.



"That's what's on the minds of most Philadelphians," she said.



Democratic ward leader Ralph Wynder, who is supporting Mr. Obama, said the candidates should address the pressing issues, but conceded that backing Philadelphia's push for tougher gun laws would be "political suicide."



"You are probably going to be damaged goods in the state," Mr. Wynder said.



"There are just some questions you can't win with an answer. I guess that's why politicians double-talk so much," he said.


To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee.

So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job.

[Greyroofoo]

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.

Can I ask how many states you have votes in, and where your votes in other states are going?

[SackAttack]

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.

I'm of two minds there.

One, I think the DNC needs to stand by "tough shit" on this, given the potential for greater shenanigans in 2008 if Florida/Michigan are allowed to whine their way to relevancy after they broke the party rules that were established.

Two, okay, let them go ahead and re-do their process, but there needs to be some kind of penalty in place so that they (and the other 48 states) don't take the wrong message from a re-vote. Maybe dock 'em a significant percentage of the delegates they otherwise would have had. Take away 50% and split the rest normally so that they don't go "Oh, hey, this was a great idea, let's do this again next year."

Just saying "oh, we didn't really mean it" and letting them re-vote with no penalty, or seating them as originally "voted" upon are both bad ideas, though, IMO.

[st.cronin]

I'm of two minds there.

One, I think the DNC needs to stand by "tough shit" on this, given the potential for greater shenanigans in 2008 if Florida/Michigan are allowed to whine their way to relevancy after they broke the party rules that were established.

Two, okay, let them go ahead and re-do their process, but there needs to be some kind of penalty in place so that they (and the other 48 states) don't take the wrong message from a re-vote. Maybe dock 'em a significant percentage of the delegates they otherwise would have had. Take away 50% and split the rest normally so that they don't go "Oh, hey, this was a great idea, let's do this again next year."

Just saying "oh, we didn't really mean it" and letting them re-vote with no penalty, or seating them as originally "voted" upon are both bad ideas, though, IMO.

The problem really is that no matter WHAT decision is made, it will be seen to benefit either Obama or Clinton. Also the fiasco completely neuters competency as a positive issue for the Dems, which I expected to be one of their trump cards.

[cartman]

The problem really is that no matter WHAT decision is made, it will be seen to benefit either Obama or Clinton. Also the fiasco completely neuters competency as a positive issue for the Dems, which I expected to be one of their trump cards.

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

[st.cronin]

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

I don't think that's remotely the same thing. Was that done to ensure McCain's nomination? That's the question that will be asked of any decision the Democrats make, regardless of what decision, and possibly even regardless of which nominee they end up picking.

[stevew]

Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/NATION/143263249/1001



To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee.

So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job.

My cousin was telling me about this at easter dinner. He's a state rep, and he thought the philly dems were pretty amusing with the way they were acting. You are going to have a nearly impossible time getting any kind of anti gun bill through PA, due to the extreme amount of hunters here.

[Greyroofoo]

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

Also the republicans didn't completely boycott Michigan and Florida. The voters still had some say even if it was 50% of what they should of had.

[CamEdwards]

Interesting (I thought) post from Jim Geraghty.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDEwZGM5OTM1NzE4OTBkYjZjMzhiMDI1ZWNlZjc4NmQ=


I concur with James Joyner that of all the measuring sticks being used to determine who has the "real" lead in the Democratic primary (since neither Hillary nor Obama will finish with enough delegates to clinch the nomination), one of the oddest is the raw vote totals. A couple of problems with using this metric:


* As many have noted, if you don't have a few hours to commit on a winter's night, you can't participate in a caucus. So lumping in those results with the primary results is comparing apples and oranges. Team Hillary contends they perform better in primary states than caucus states. Whether they're right or not, the raw vote totals would look quite different if people could go any time of day and just mark a ballot.

* Ironically, the states that are voting later in the process are having the most impact on the "binary" choice that has been clear since Edwards dropped out. States that voted earliest "wasted" a portion of their votes on candidates who departed the race. How would those who voted for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, etc. cast their ballots if they had known their choice would come down to one of these two?


* The Barack Obama we see today looks very different than the guy who won Iowa back in early January. If Iowans had known about NAFTA-quiddick, the Rezko trial, Samantha Power saying the Iraq plan was tentative, Jeremiah Wright's sermons, etc.; would they have voted the same way? (For that matter, would New Hampshire and Nevada Democrats have rescued Hillary if they could see how her campaign would get increasingly negative and tougher on Obama in the following weeks?) The voters who are deciding today have a lot more information to base their decision on, not least of which knowing that the Democratic nominee will have to match up well against John McCain.

* Do you count Florida and Michigan? In Michigan, Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot. But they were in Florida.

Most of the various versions of the raw vote counts have Obama up. And superdelegates are free to take that into account, or any other factor they deem relevant. But if Barack Obama carries 47.5 percent and Hillary carries 47.2 percent (which is how it currently breaks down with Michigan and Florida included), is it really that much of a win? Can any superdelegate look at that and say, "well, clearly Obama is the more popular choice?"

[timmynausea]

So if you include the two states where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and he still beats Hillary in raw votes, the superdelegates should decide that his margin of victory is too small to actually count? Interesting stuff.

[JPhillips]

Cam: When the primaries end it's all but certain that Obama will lead in total votes, primaries won, and total delegates. It will be very close, but Obama is going to be ahead narrowly. At that point the Supers can choose to do whatever they wish, but giving the nomination to Hillary will guarantee a split in the party.

It's telling that all of Hillary's arguments eventually come down to ignoring all of the ways Obama is narrowly ahead.

[Mac Howard]

So if you include the two states where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and he still beats Hillary in raw votes, the superdelegates should decide that his margin of victory is too small to actually count? Interesting stuff.

If there is an obvious swing to Clinton and the numbers narrow between now and the convention the super-delegates could justify taking Clinton over the top by arguing that the advantage Obama holds comes from the time when little was known about him and had the full knowledge been there from the start he would not have had that advantage.

If they had to make their decision at this point the super-delegates would be between a rock and a hard place - give it to Clinton and they antagonise Obama supporters, give it to Obama and they give it to a candidate who may be unelectable in the Presidential race. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

I think they'll be keeping a close eye on how sentiment towards Obama moves over the next few months both within the Democratic community and the population as a whole and hope that things become clearer one way or the other and make life a little easier for them.

On this gun law point - has a nationwide, independant poll been taken on the population's attitude towards gun laws in recent times? If so what were the results? The assumption in the above posts seems to say the results are overhwelmingly against such laws. Would restricting laws to, say automatic weapons only, significantly affect the results?

[Buccaneer]

I read in Time.com (I think) recently about the demographics of the voters (always a favorite topic of mine). They talked about the impact that they White Male voters will have and said that the 25% that makes up that demographics is more than the combined black and latino voters. Ok, if we add 30% for White Female, that still leaves about 20-25% for something. What am I missing? Were they just talking about a segment of the White Male voters since the article was focusing on the OH-PA blue-collar voters?

Anyone know about this?

[CamEdwards]

Cam: When the primaries end it's all but certain that Obama will lead in total votes, primaries won, and total delegates. It will be very close, but Obama is going to be ahead narrowly. At that point the Supers can choose to do whatever they wish, but giving the nomination to Hillary will guarantee a split in the party.

It's telling that all of Hillary's arguments eventually come down to ignoring all of the ways Obama is narrowly ahead.

And that's the argument that Obama's sure to be making now. But given that the most likely scenario is that neither Obama nor Hillary will have the magic number of delegates by the time Denver rolls around, Hillary gets to make the argument that Mac made above.

I still think a brokered convention would be the most fun to watch, even if it resulted in Al Gore as the compromise candidate with Obama as VP. :p

[BishopMVP]

On this gun law point - has a nationwide, independant poll been taken on the population's attitude towards gun laws in recent times? If so what were the results? The assumption in the above posts seems to say the results are overhwelmingly against such laws. Would restricting laws to, say automatic weapons only, significantly affect the results?Cam's the one to talk to on this, but I'm pretty sure automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.

[Grammaticus]

Cam's the one to talk to on this, but I'm pretty sure automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.

They are not illegal. They require a special license.

[Jas_lov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

CBS catches Hillary in a lie about her trip to Bosnia.

[stevew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

CBS catches Hillary in a lie about her trip to Bosnia.

about time someone backdoors a clinton.

[lungs]

Just a general thought, and this has more probably to do with the general election but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7312078.stm

Let's say that Moqtada al-Sadr ends the cease fire and the Mehdi Army starts fighting again. Could this have any effect on our politics? I'm no expert but one of the main reasons the surge has been successful is that the Mehdi Army has stood down (did we bribe them?). Looks like things are starting to heat up again.

If we see an upswing in violence, will this help somebody like Obama who wants to get out sooner rather than later? Likewise, if the cease fire ends and the Mehdi insurrection is squashed, it could just as well help McCain a ton and keep the electorate's focus off Iraq.

Not that I'm hoping for violence, but anybody that thinks al-Sadr and his army will hold to the cease fire is crazy and I dont' think our electorate can stomach another round of violence, whether that is right or wrong.

[SackAttack]

Just a general thought, and this has more probably to do with the general election but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7312078.stm

Let's say that Moqtada al-Sadr ends the cease fire and the Mehdi Army starts fighting again. Could this have any effect on our politics? I'm no expert but one of the main reasons the surge has been successful is that the Mehdi Army has stood down (did we bribe them?). Looks like things are starting to heat up again.

If we see an upswing in violence, will this help somebody like Obama who wants to get out sooner rather than later? Likewise, if the cease fire ends and the Mehdi insurrection is squashed, it could just as well help McCain a ton and keep the electorate's focus off Iraq.

Not that I'm hoping for violence, but anybody that thinks al-Sadr and his army will hold to the cease fire is crazy and I dont' think our electorate can stomach another round of violence, whether that is right or wrong.

I think it could swing both ways. If the violence starts back up again, it might play into McCain's hand as the whole "military C-i-C" thing. I know that's one reason my grandma has decided she's voting for McCain, is because my brother recently joined the military and McCain's got the military background. There will be some for whom something like that would either make the decision for them or further solidify it.

And as you point out, it might push some folks into Barack Obama's camp.

I tend to think it would be an issue of "what was their inclination on the issue to start with?" Folks who support remaining in Iraq are probably more likely to vote McCain in the first place, and less likely to change their minds if violence starts up again. Folks who want out are more likely to support Obama, and violence would only harden their resolve.

Can't imagine there are too many left who are undecided on the issue of the war at this point.

[lungs]

All good points. Then you also have people like many moderate McCain supporters I know. They want to get out of Iraq, but it's simply not one of their priorities. Not allowing Democrats unchecked power is their highest priority.

[Ksyrup]

March 25, 2008
Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats? (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/25/gore-led-ticket-good-for-democrats/)
Posted: 02:15 PM ET
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/25/art.al.gore.march.gi.jpg

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

In a newspaper interview (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/24/mark-tomasik-dont-discount-gore-led-ticket/), Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn’t endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

It’s an interesting idea. It’s not clear if Democrats really know what they’re in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it’s over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.

Al Gore has insisted he won’t run and that he has “no plans to be a candidate”, although he’s also said “I see no reason to rule it out entirely.” And, it’s worth pointing out that the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner has not yet endorsed either Clinton or Obama. So stay tuned.

[st.cronin]

I was very surprised that Al Gore never sought the nomination, but I think its exceedingly unlikely that he gets the nomination without even campaigning.

[Young Drachma]

Apparently, Gore's finances are such that he'd not risk running and having to expose who is giving him cash. Dunno what the story is on that, but that's what I've heard.

[JPhillips]

Denying Obama the nomination when he'll be ahead in every way you can count it will guarantee a lose in November. Clinton may figure out a way to make it happen, but I see no reason why Gore would want to jump headfirst into that shitstorm.

[SuperGrover]

I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama. And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information:
1. His words
2. His actions in political life
3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with

If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president.

Exactly.

[SuperGrover]

I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.

Obama has no chance either. It's gonna come down to the supers or a brokered agreement.

[SuperGrover]

That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future.

How is white, Midwestern America going to find middle ground with Wright's comments? Please explain the specific common ground they are going to find with someone like Wright.

You have to start at the middle and work your way out. You don't get the radicals on your side first. You follow the "Remember the Titans" plan and get liberal leadership from both sides to show unity and slowly bring others along. Maybe that's what Obama was trying to do, but Wright blew that paradigm out of the water.

[Mac Howard]

Obama has no chance either. It's gonna come down to the supers or a brokered agreement.

Just how many delegates are yet to be declared and how many of those are super-delegates?

[miked]

How is white, Midwestern America going to find middle ground with Wright's comments? Please explain the specific common ground they are going to find with someone like Wright.

You have to start at the middle and work your way out. You don't get the radicals on your side first. You follow the "Remember the Titans" plan and get liberal leadership from both sides to show unity and slowly bring others along. Maybe that's what Obama was trying to do, but Wright blew that paradigm out of the water.

Since you are an expert in Wright, pleas tell us his specific policies, other than the 5 clips you've been watching on Foxnews for the past week. I have a feeling that in 2 months, it won't really be an issue, of course until some conservative group swiftboats some ads. I'd tell you watch the whole sermon, but I guess you get your info in 30 second sound bytes instead of 5 minute in-context clips. Point is, only the foolish partisan types really believe that Wright's views represent Obama's views. I've heard my rabbi say some pretty interesting shit I don't agree with about Israel, but in the A, we don't exactly get a wide variety of choices on where we can go.

[Grammaticus]

Why are so many people upset about the coverage of Wright and the scrutiny on Obama for his choice to associate with him?

Obama is running for President of the United States. I don't care what color he is, he needs to be vetted and scrutinized just like everyone who runs for president.

If people don't care about his choices around Wright, let them decide for themselves. For some it will be a meaningful issue about who he is and who he chooses as influential mentors and advisors. For example, one person in an earlier post responded to concerns of inexperience, saying they thought Obama would surround himself with smart competent people to advise him on foriegn policy, etc. For others it will simply be a case of one mans Bigot is another mans Hero.

I would think most of you would appreciate the idea of an informed populace.

[Ksyrup]

Obama a distant cousin of Bush

It has emerged that Barack Obama is a tenth cousin, once removed, of the man whose job he wants - George W Bush. They are linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. Mr Obama is also a distant cousin of the actor Brad Pitt while Hillary Clinton is related to Mr Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. The ties of the US Democratic rivals were established by a respected US genealogical organisation after three years' investigation. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama can also boast a long list of other famous relations.

Christopher Child, from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, says that the politicians' ancestries show they have more in common than they think. The Society, founded in 1845, is the oldest and biggest non-profit genealogical organisation in the United States. The research, conducted by Mr Child and Gary Boyd Roberts, came up with some extraordinary family connections.

Mr Obama is the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. He was previously identified as a distant cousin of US Vice-President Dick Cheney. His political lineage includes not just President Bush but also Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S Truman, Dick Cheney and Winston Churchill. The connection made with Hollywood star Brad Pitt adds a welcome splash of glamour to his family tree.

But Mrs Clinton's kin has much more of an exotic feel. Her distant cousins include the singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morisette, as well as the beatnik author Jack Kerouac and Prince Charles's wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles. She and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed. They are both related to one Jean Cusson, who died in St Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718. If the Hollywood couple, collectively known as "Brangelina", decide on a very extended family gathering, it could provide the perfect Opportunity for the two Democratic presidential rivals to get together. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_615052-->

[Ksyrup]

From Jake Tapper, ABC News correspondent:

"l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight. The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold."


I have to say, this has the potential of not only completely screwing the Democratic Party's shot at the White House in 2008, but if Clinton somehow manages to convince enough people to switch their votes (not just superdelegates, but regular delegates, too, since she's made statements recently suggesting that they aren't really tied to anything and can change their votes) and captures the nomination despite having fewer popular votes, less delegates from the primaries/caucuses, and winning less states than Obama, they could be responsible for a race-fueled protest/riot.

And I gotta believe that being the genesis of a racial incident would be devastating to the Democratic Party, given how it has positioned itself with the black community compared to the Republicans. And all because the Clintons are so self-centered, and Hillary knows this is her last shot at the Presidency, that she's apparently willing to screw her party over in order to get there. Maybe Obama wins Pennsylvania and a couple other states and Hillary throws in the towel. But if not, all indications are that she's willing to shoot her party down in flames to get to the GE against McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Since you are an expert in Wright, pleas tell us his specific policies, other than the 5 clips you've been watching on Foxnews for the past week. I have a feeling that in 2 months, it won't really be an issue, of course until some conservative group swiftboats some ads. I'd tell you watch the whole sermon, but I guess you get your info in 30 second sound bytes instead of 5 minute in-context clips. Point is, only the foolish partisan types really believe that Wright's views represent Obama's views. I've heard my rabbi say some pretty interesting shit I don't agree with about Israel, but in the A, we don't exactly get a wide variety of choices on where we can go.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

[Fighter of Foo]

From Jake Tapper, ABC News correspondent:

"l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

Why do you need anonymity to speak candidly?

[Fighter of Foo]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

By resonate with voters do you mean resonate with you? Or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

[Ksyrup]

Why do you need anonymity to speak candidly?

Because he's giving a backroom version of what's going on that the Party likely doesn't want out there, and if this person's name was attached to the statement, he/she would be in hot water. That's pretty much standard in every facet of life - sports, law enforcement, you name it. Reporters get more information if they promise not to divulge names. This is news?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

By resonate with voters do you mean resonate with you? Or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

In general, states in the South and Midwest tend to have more rural voters than most states. Although it greatly pains me to state this, people in those rural areas aren't quite as advanced in their thinking as people in the urban areas. Plainly speaking, comments like the ones from Rev. Wright will be attached to Obama and, whether it's right or not, will serve as a stigma against his presidential bid because of their race. I wish that were not the case, but sadly, it is. I wish there wasn't ignorance involved, but it does exist whether we admit it or not.

[Fighter of Foo]

Because he's giving a backroom version of what's going on that the Party likely doesn't want out there, and if this person's name was attached to the statement, he/she would be in hot water. That's pretty much standard in every facet of life - sports, law enforcement, you name it. Reporters get more information if they promise not to divulge names. This is news?

No, it just makes me sad.

[Buccaneer]

In general, states in the South and Midwest tend to have more rural voters than most states. Although it greatly pains me to state this, people in those rural areas aren't quite as advanced in their thinking as people in the urban areas. Plainly speaking, comments like the ones from Rev. Wright will be attached to Obama and, whether it's right or not, will serve as a stigma against his presidential bid because of their race. I wish that were not the case, but sadly, it is. I wish there wasn't ignorance involved, but it does exist whether we admit it or not.

In other words, there is a sizable group that will consider this an issue and another sizable group that wish it would all go away and doesn't know why it's not completely swept under the rug.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In other words, there is a sizable group that will consider this an issue and another sizable group that wish it would all go away and doesn't know why it's not completely swept under the rug.

Yep, that's pretty accurate.

[Young Drachma]

Hilary Clinton in a Time interview. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725514,00.html)

A snippet:


Last question Senator. Some people look at the current state of the delegate counts and say the only way you can win the nomination is at the convention, with a convention where delegates move around perhaps, and you'll make your case side by side. Are you comfortable if that's the way you win the nomination, going all the way to Denver and winning it there? Is that a comfortable outcome for you?

You know it's the same thing for Senator Obama. Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment. And, you know, I'm just going to do the best I can in the next 10 contests to make my case to the voters in those elections and then we'll see where we are.

[JPhillips]

Well the South doesn't matter as it's now the base for the Republican party. The Midwest is a much bigger problem as that's likely to be where the general election is decided.

I don't want it swept under the rug, but I do want to know why association with Wright is so unacceptable while association with Rev. Moon is fine. If this is the road we're going to go down let's expose radicals on both sides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This Gallup poll result has to be a nightmare for the Democratic party. There were concerns that this drawn-out battle may have this effect on the electorate..........

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/gallup-poll-shows-many-democratic-voters-ready-to-vote-mccain-if-their-first-choice-doesnt-make-it-to-november/

Gallup Poll: Many Democrats Ready to Vote McCain if Their First Choice Doesn’t Make It to November
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 26, 2008


Many Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters are ready to spurn the Democratic party and vote for John McCain in November if their candidate doesn’t win the presidential nomination, according to a new poll out Wednesday.

Among people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is his opponent, the March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking survey found.

The same poll found that 19 percent of Obama supporters would switch sides and cast ballots for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

The survey interviewed 6,657 Democratic voters nationwide and had a margin of error of 2 percent.

Gallup analysts note that the results could change by November, by which time Democrats will have made great efforts to unify the party.

Gallup analysts also noted that voters tend to threaten party desertion but don’t necessarily do so. A recent Gallup survey found that 11 percent of Republican voters said they would vote for a different party or not at all if McCain doesn’t pick a running mate who is more conservative than he is.

Historically, the party-switch factor has shown to be less dramatic, Gallup analysts said. Less than 10 percent of Republicans and Democrats crossed party lines in pre-election Gallup polls from 1992 to 2004.

[Ksyrup]

Hilary Clinton in a Time interview. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725514,00.html)

A snippet:

That's what I was referring to in my post above. She's made it clear that all the delegates are up for grabs.

[Noop]

Well the South doesn't matter as it's now the base for the Republican party. The Midwest is a much bigger problem as that's likely to be where the general election is decided.

I don't want it swept under the rug, but I do want to know why association with Wright is so unacceptable while association with Rev. Moon is fine. If this is the road we're going to go down let's expose radicals on both sides.

I agree 100%

[miked]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

No, I live in Atlanta, but I'm from New York and New Jersey. I think everyone involved has their own character issues, but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care about this sort of thing. I care about actual issues, not who's got mean friends. I'm fairly certain Hilary and McCain have "friends" or allies I would consider to be repugnant for different reasons. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I just don't really care about whether he's a uniter, I am in favor of an intelligent leader who will take this country in a different direction. I don't think Wright's comments (which most people agree were taken out of context) were really that far off from what a lot of people believe.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think Wright's comments (which most people agree were taken out of context) were really that far off from what a lot of people believe.

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

[Young Drachma]

Chelsea Clinton tells someone during a Q&A that Lewinsky questions are off-limits. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/lewinsky-questioner-surprised-with-chelseas-response/)

[miked]

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

Like I said, context is important. But you are correct, those people who just hear he said "God Damn America" and nothing else will believe Obama to be unpatriotic because his pastor said that at the end of a 5 minute speech about the God vs. Government. I actually feel for the future of our country that these people may ultimately decide its direction.

[Young Drachma]

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

Caricatures do not the sum of America make.

[panerd]

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.


The people you describe don't vote Democrat very often.

[Vegas Vic]

The people you describe don't vote Democrat very often.

They don't vote Democrat very often, but they were the difference in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton getting elected.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Like I said, context is important. But you are correct, those people who just hear he said "God Damn America" and nothing else will believe Obama to be unpatriotic because his pastor said that at the end of a 5 minute speech about the God vs. Government. I actually feel for the future of our country that these people may ultimately decide its direction.

But let's be fair. The people in this thread generally don't reflect the voting knowledge of the general public. They're listening to things they see on the nightly news or in political commercials and basing their decision on that small snippit of information. That's the way it is for the majority of the voting public.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

They don't vote Democrat very often, but they were the difference in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton getting elected.

Exactly. To get elected as a candidite promoting unity, you need to get some swing votes from the other party. Similarly, Reagan had cross-over votes that helped put him in office for 8 years (i.e. Reagan Democrats).

[JPhillips]

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

But some of these voters are the same ones that will sit in an evangelical megachurch and approve of their pastor saying 9/11 was God's punishment for America's sins. Any honest discussion of Wright would include this too. The bigger issue is that in churches all across America millions of people hear messages that the majority find out of bounds. Cheap political gain focuses on Wright, a real concern about the mix of religion and politics in America's churches focuses not just on one pastor.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

But some of these voters are the same ones that will sit in an evangelical megachurch and approve of their pastor saying 9/11 was God's punishment for America's sins. Any honest discussion of Wright would include this too. The bigger issue is that in churches all across America millions of people hear messages that the majority find out of bounds. Cheap political gain focuses on Wright, a real concern about the mix of religion and politics in America's churches focuses not just on one pastor.

Great. The first day we hear that McCain's pastor said something like that, we'll dive right in and beat him up about it. My guess is that there have been many media writers that have already dug into that possibility and found nothing. As far as the voters that would listen to crap like that, that's their business unless they run for government office. At that point, scrutiny begins.

Your repeated argument seems to be that 'everybody's doing it'. That's simply not the case. There's many people that go to churches where these kinds of things aren't said and there's also many people that have left churches where they didn't feel comfortable with the pastor. Obama chose not to fully distance himself from those remarks. That's his choice. As a result, he's paying a political price for that decision. Welcome to Politics 101.

[SackAttack]

Great. The first day we hear that McCain's pastor said something like that, we'll dive right in and beat him up about it.

You don't find it a little strange at all that McCain's campaign has been endorsed by guys like [EDIT: John. Don't know where I got "Chuck"] Hagee and Pat Robertson, and the media hasn't talked much about it? They may not have said "God Damn America," but they haven't exactly shied away from controversial statements, neither.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You don't find it a little strange at all that McCain's campaign has been endorsed by guys like Chuck Hagee and Pat Robertson, and the media hasn't talked much about it? They may not have said "God Damn America," but they haven't exactly shied away from controversial statements, neither.

Oh, I find it totally strange to some extent, but this is politics. These guys endorse McCain, but you won't find him in any of their church services. Also, McCain has openly stated that he doesn't approve of their behavior/speeches. Translation: he just wants the votes. Politics 101 rears its ugly head again.

In addition, I think McCain would have handled the Wright situation much differently if it was his pastor doing the blasting. He would have completely distanced himself from that pastor, strictly for political posturing. Now, is Obama possibly a better person for standing up for his friend when the opposite would be much more beneficial for his presidential hopes? Maybe. But presidential politics is a blood sport. Nice guys don't win.

[Fighter of Foo]

You don't find it a little strange at all that McCain's campaign has been endorsed by guys like [EDIT: John. Don't know where I got "Chuck"] Hagee and Pat Robertson, and the media hasn't talked much about it? They may not have said "God Damn America," but they haven't exactly shied away from controversial statements, neither.

Oh they are waaaaaaaaay more hate-filled and controversial than Wright, but the media coverage is vastly disproportional.

http://www.catholics-united.org/?q=node/136

[ISiddiqui]

There is a reason... ie, they aren't McCain's pastors or friends for one.

[Toddzilla]

They don't vote Democrat very often, but they were the difference in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton getting elected.Carter won in a sqeaker, Clinton in a near landslide. Which one is it?

[stevew]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uHVEDq6RVXc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uHVEDq6RVXc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Ah, this is what she was talking about.

[BrianD]

This Gallup poll result has to be a nightmare for the Democratic party. There were concerns that this drawn-out battle may have this effect on the electorate..........

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/gallup-poll-shows-many-democratic-voters-ready-to-vote-mccain-if-their-first-choice-doesnt-make-it-to-november/

I find these polls to be meaningless. Republicans were saying the same thing when it became clear that McCain was going to get the nomination. When you get right down to it, Democrats are going to hear McCain speak and the Democratic candidate speak, and they will vote for the Democratic candidate.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.sportspickle.com/features/volume7/2008-0326-clinton.html

[JPhillips]

Great. The first day we hear that McCain's pastor said something like that, we'll dive right in and beat him up about it. My guess is that there have been many media writers that have already dug into that possibility and found nothing. As far as the voters that would listen to crap like that, that's their business unless they run for government office. At that point, scrutiny begins.

Your repeated argument seems to be that 'everybody's doing it'. That's simply not the case. There's many people that go to churches where these kinds of things aren't said and there's also many people that have left churches where they didn't feel comfortable with the pastor. Obama chose not to fully distance himself from those remarks. That's his choice. As a result, he's paying a political price for that decision. Welcome to Politics 101.


No, not everybody, but probably a few million with all sorts of ideologies. You also seem to be saying in your last few points that because it will be used against him validates that it should be used against him. I haven't once said it won't be used against him. My point is that if you're attacking Obama and no one else it's simply a partisan attack that may or may not have much merit behind it. If you want to have an honest discussion you need to broaden your view.

Just because it can be used to destroy Obama doesn't mean the story is that simple.

[BrianD]

Like I said, context is important. But you are correct, those people who just hear he said "God Damn America" and nothing else will believe Obama to be unpatriotic because his pastor said that at the end of a 5 minute speech about the God vs. Government. I actually feel for the future of our country that these people may ultimately decide its direction.

I just listened to that 5 minute speech on a website that is trying to bring "context" to his words. I've got to say that I'm not impressed. This is not a speech about hope and the future...it is a speech that starts with the Supreme Court stealing the 2000 election and ends with America has failed in its dealings with a number of ethnic groups, so God damn America. I don't see a context where this isn't a hate filled speech. It showed promise with the "governments change" section showing that slavery was legal and segregation was legal...but governments change. Ultimately though, it was just a "look at everything that is wrong" speech with no message to fix things or to show any hope for the future. This may not be the kind of speech which shows just how terrible Reverend Wright is, but it certainly doesn't help his cause either.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary's Pastor Rev. Dean Snyder of United Methodist Foundry Church in Washington had this to say about Jeremiah Wright last week (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/26/the-commutative-property.aspx):

"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth."

[BrianD]

Hillary's Pastor Rev. Dean Snyder of United Methodist Foundry Church in Washington had this to say about Jeremiah Wright last week (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/26/the-commutative-property.aspx):

Why do I suspect that Hillary would be unhappy her pastor said this? All of her "I would disassociate myself from a man like that" comments aren't going to look so good now.

[Ksyrup]

The whole problem I have with Wright is that he doesn't just proclaim "perceptions and truths." He proclaims unsubstantiated lies, too, and passes them off to his congregation as facts.

I'm still trying to understand how any of this is appropriate subject matter for a church service, though. I honestly can't wrap my brain around that issue.

[Young Drachma]

Why do I suspect that Hillary would be unhappy her pastor said this? All of her "I would disassociate myself from a man like that" comments aren't going to look so good now.

Hillary doesn't exactly strike me as being an avid churchgoer anymore than I believe that Obama harbors linger race issues.

[panerd]

I think it is sad that this country is more up in arms about what somebody's spiritual advisor says instead just the insane fact that all three canidates who want to lead this country actually have a spiritual advisor.

[Young Drachma]

The whole problem I have with Wright is that he doesn't just proclaim "perceptions and truths." He proclaims unsubstantiated lies, too, and passes them off to his congregation as facts.

I'm still trying to understand how any of this is appropriate subject matter for a church service, though. I honestly can't wrap my brain around that issue.

So does Pat Robertson and he has an entire television network where he does it. It's no different really and the latter has a much larger following. I think the best way to summarize it is "no matter how outside the mainstream otherwise intelligent and well-reasoned people might judge these folks to be, the fact is, they have a following and in the grand scheme of things, they ought be judged on the standard that says "Well, some of those religious folks can be crazy." As opposed to "Gee, that Rev. Wright was advising someone who might become President. I hope Obama's black half doesn't decide to enslave the white half.

But all facetiousness aside, people need to stop trying to understand the context of Wright v. Obama. Either factor it in and say "well, he needs not to be President.." or not. I don't understand the idea of belaboring it. Especially when it's literally ONE sound bite over and over again. It's not a series of presentations or anything of the sort. It'd be like running replays of what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond some ways back. Sure, he lost his gig then. But he kept his seat and was

I mean, seriously. People do realize the guy is the post-racial dream of reconciliation, right? The guy was black in name only until he went to college, because being in Hawaii is a multicultural place to begin with. He was raised entirely by white people.

If Obama gets beaten, the next time there is a politically successful black candidate on the national scene, folks are going to immediate wish for Obama's multi-ethnic coalition of sugar plums and tax increases. Because if he loses, the old civil rights guard wins. That means, the progeny and anointed from that affirmative action induced "leadership" class will continue to dominate the politics of race in this country.

And no one wants that.

The only good thing about Obama winning is that he'll give rise to a whole new class of trans-racial candidates who care more about substance than the same bipolar discussions of black and white and race and all of that. Even if he loses in the general, it'll still advance the conversation. Swiftboated or not, they'll have a chance to "have their say." I don't see the trouncing scenarios by McCain that some of the prognosticators here have supposedly seen, but...that's neither here nor there.

The black "community" is and always has been diverse and multi-faceted. But there are enough folks out there who benefit from propelling themselves to the forefront by purporting to speak for the "masses" in a substantive way.

[Ksyrup]

I agree re Robertson and others like him. Completely. And I want nothing to do with him and wish he wasn't even associated with the same religion I am. But I think that's part of this issue many people have with Obama - how could he not run like hell from those kinds of views?

As far as what it all means in the larger context, I've already said that I don't think it should be the deciding factor in whether he is elected, but it certainly is a consideration of his overall judgment and ability to lead. It just isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO) as significant a part of the consideration as all of this press and all of these posts are making it out to be.

[Young Drachma]

I agree re Robertson and others like him. Completely. And I want nothing to do with him and wish he wasn't even associated with the same religion I am. But I think that's part of this issue many people have with Obama - how could he not run like hell from those kinds of views?

As far as what it all means in the larger context, I've already said that I don't think it should be the deciding factor in whether he is elected, but it certainly is a consideration of his overall judgment and ability to lead. It just isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO) as significant a part of the consideration as all of this press and all of these posts are making it out to be.

Ok, I get what you're saying now.

[BrianD]

Hillary doesn't exactly strike me as being an avid churchgoer anymore than I believe that Obama harbors linger race issues.

No, but a lot of potential voters are avid churchgoers. She seemed to be willing to use the Wright situation for political gain, but having her pastor contradict her won't help.

[Fighter of Foo]

I agree re Robertson and others like him. Completely. And I want nothing to do with him and wish he wasn't even associated with the same religion I am. But I think that's part of this issue many people have with Obama - how could he not run like hell from those kinds of views?

Then those people need to be asking the same questions of any politician remotely associated with any wacko religious figure.

[st.cronin]

Then those people need to be asking the same questions of any politician remotely associated with any wacko religious figure.

"remotely" lol

[Buccaneer]

Harsh article on 360 Anderson Cooper at cnn.com about Clinton (referencing Bernstien's bio):

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/hillary-clinton-truth-or-consequences/#more-470


Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

“Since her Arkansas years , Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. [I]It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]
As I noted:
“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…


Some people want to look back at the Clinton years with rosy-glasses nostalgia but for those that were paying attention, we had to put with a constant string of lies, half-truths, smarmy lectures, cover-ups, and secrecy. Not saying it was better or worse than Bush2 but it not knowing about Bush2, it was sickening to following all of that at the time.

By the way, since when did alledgedly ducking bullets in another country count as "foreign policy experience".

[Buccaneer]

and from my favorite columnist, Roland Martin


By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor
(CNN) -- Its been an interesting week watching folks analyze the outcry over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments, especially when they try to link them to Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama's supporters say it's wrong to associate his views with those of his pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

His opponents say that surely his views are linked with Wright's, including the pastor's praise of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Conservative talker Sean Hannity -- who incidentally many have accused of associations with white supremacist Hal Turner, which he denies -- was foaming at the mouth. He called Wright a racist and an anti-Semite, and then said we all should assume Obama is also a racist and an anti-Semite.
Talk about a stretch.

Frankly, it's just not plausible to suggest that you always share the same feelings or views as someone you know.

In remarks to a Pittsburgh newspaper, Sen. Hillary Clinton (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/hillary_clinton) responded to a question about the Wright controversy by saying: "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

True. Very true. But there's also some reality that politicians pick and choose who they want to be associated with.

Clinton pressed Obama during a debate this year to repudiate and denounce Farrakhan's unsolicited praise of him at an event the Nation of Islam leader organized for his group in Chicago.

The moderator, NBC's Tim Russert, brought up comments made by Farrakhan 24 years ago in his question to Obama.

Fine, so what do we make of then-President Bill Clinton publicly endorsing the 1995 Million Man March? Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/louis_farrakhan). Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

After he was out of the White House, President Clinton also endorsed the Million Man March. Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

Did Sen. Clinton privately or publicly rebuke her husband for supporting a man whom she has determined to be hateful and divisive?

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is national co-chair of Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, once stood on stage with Farrakhan in 1997 -- at an event the Times said was "called to promote racial reconciliation after several recent high-profile crimes" -- and praised him for his commitment to ending violence in the black community. Rendell was the mayor of Philadelphia at the time.

According to the April 15, 1997, story in The New York Times, Farrakhan praised Rendell before 3,000 people at the anti-violence rally for ''his courage and strength to rise above emotion and differences that might be between us or our communities.''

[/URL]According to the Times, Rendell, who is Jewish, commended the Nation of Islam for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency.

Must Clinton repudiate and denounce Rendell's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

Former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp is a huge supporter of Sen. John McCain, and he also has a Farrakhan story.

In 1996, when Kemp was the vice presidential running mate of Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, he told reporters that he wanted to meet with Farrakhan and praised his organization's focus on economic empowerment, family values and its pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstrap message -- right in line with the GOP talking points. Kemp said he wanted to speak at the Million Man March.

Boy, was he torn apart by Jewish critics, and many in his own party.
Kemp summarily criticized Farrakhan's comments about Jews and whites, but he didn't take his words back. By the way, Hannity pressed every African-American supporter about Farrakhan, but he never got in Kemp's face about his comments. I wonder why?

Must McCain repudiate and denounce Kemp's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

When it comes to homosexuality, no Clinton or Obama supporter should think of criticizing the other campaign's black ministerial supporters because that means most of their own would have to be disassociated from their campaigns.

On CNN's "The Situation Room," Paul Begala mentioned "hateful" things said about gays by the Rev. James Meeks, founder and senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, and an Obama supporter. Meeks has made no bones about his firm opposition to homosexuality (and abortion), which is one of the reasons he's very close to many of the nation's white conservative pastors. (I know him well; I'm a member of Salem).

And then there was the hoopla over gospel singer Donnie McClurkin when the [URL="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/barack_obama"]Obama (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Commentary%3A+Listen+to+the+candidates%2C+not+their+associates+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=27415027&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F03%2F26%2Froland.martin%2F#cnnSTCVideo) campaign recruited him to take part in a gospel concert tour around South Carolina. McClurkin has preached that homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuals. That set off a firestorm.

But Clinton also has her own issues with anti-gay pastoral supporters.
The Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has voiced for years his opposition to homosexuality. In fact, some have said he has compared homosexuality to thievery.

When Mayberry came out in support of Clinton, her campaign touted his endorsement, sans any mention of his anti-gay rants.

She has also received a $1,000 contribution from Bishop Eddie L. Long of the mega-church New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, who previously led an anti-gay marriage march in Atlanta.

Of course, when it comes to McCain, it wouldn't be a story if his ministerial supporters are anti-gay. It would be news if any of them actually supported homosexuality.

The bottom line: Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.


In college, I attended Sinn Fein meetings which were no more than propoganda for the IRA. Does that mean I have terrorist connections?

[path12]

In college, I attended Sinn Fein meetings which were no more than propoganda for the IRA. Does that mean I have terrorist connections?

Bucc, why do you hate America?

[QuikSand]

I agree with those who find this latest foible involving Senator Clinton's description of the Bosnia trip to be wholly illuminating -- and I totally agree with the conclusions of her biographer excerpted above. This is just who she is, and her relationship with truth will never be a comfortable one. Many people will vote for her based on policy, and many based on trust, but there really shouldn't be any doubt that this is the true person underneath it all -- the person who exaggerates the truth, and then essentially lies to cover up or cover over the initial exaggeration. It would be folly to expect anything different were she elected to an executive position.

[cuervo72]

Some people want to look back at the Clinton years with rosy-glasses nostalgia but for those that were paying attention, we had to put with a constant string of lies, half-truths, smarmy lectures, cover-ups, and secrecy. Not saying it was better or worse than Bush2 but it not knowing about Bush2, it was sickening to following all of that at the time.


http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03/to-all-my-conservative-friends.html

(comments aren't bad - "Retarded Weasel." Heh.)

[Ksyrup]

Then those people need to be asking the same questions of any politician remotely associated with any wacko religious figure.

Why "remotely asssociated"? The whole reason I find any of this relevant to Obama at all is the fact that he not only spent 20 years at this guy's church, but he thought so much of him that he included him in the biggest moments of his life and considers him his spiritual advisor...not to mention, a year ago, he acknowledged - way before any of this happened - that he would likely have to distance himself from Wright at some point.

[Ksyrup]

I find it pretty ballsy that one of Hillary's excuses for the "misspoken" Bosnia thing is that she was sleep-deprived...yet she counts as one of her most poignant selling points that she would be a better choice than Obama (and presumably McCain) to answer a 3am phone call from Commissioner Gordon. If being sleep-deprived causes her to re-imagine a trip to include being under attack, then I'm fairly certain I don't want ANYONE waking her ass up at 3am to determine whether we should launch nukes.

[Grammaticus]

They don't vote Democrat very often, but they were the difference in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton getting elected.

I would say Ford's pardon of Nixon and the general fallout from Watergate was the difference in getting Carter elected and Ross Perot was the difference in getting Clinton electon both times.

You don't have anything dominant like that in this election.

[stevew]

I agree with those who find this latest foible involving Senator Clinton's description of the Bosnia trip to be wholly illuminating -- and I totally agree with the conclusions of her biographer excerpted above. This is just who she is, and her relationship with truth will never be a comfortable one. Many people will vote for her based on policy, and many based on trust, but there really shouldn't be any doubt that this is the true person underneath it all -- the person who exaggerates the truth, and then essentially lies to cover up or cover over the initial exaggeration. It would be folly to expect anything different were she elected to an executive position.

Bingo.

[Vegas Vic]

Ross Perot was the difference in getting Clinton electon both times.

You might say that, but all of the post election research and exit polling indicates that Ross Perot only prevented Clinton from getting over 50% of the vote, and that Clinton would have won by comfortable margins in both 1992 and 1996 without Ross Perot in the race.

[Young Drachma]

I would say Ford's pardon of Nixon and the general fallout from Watergate was the difference in getting Carter elected and Ross Perot was the difference in getting Clinton electon both times.

You don't have anything dominant like that in this election.

First black nominee or first woman nominee.

The tsunami is coming. Just you wait. The identity politics of this nation have not gone far enough people won't do anything other than turn John McCain into the representation of everything that America has done wrong in the past...well...the entire past.

He'd be the oldest President ever elected to a first term. The media is going to jump on that like a trampoline in the general. That's just the beginning. And painting him as Bush's third term isn't going to serve him well either.

It's like Bob Dole redux.

[Young Drachma]

Why "remotely asssociated"? The whole reason I find any of this relevant to Obama at all is the fact that he not only spent 20 years at this guy's church, but he thought so much of him that he included him in the biggest moments of his life and considers him his spiritual advisor...not to mention, a year ago, he acknowledged - way before any of this happened - that he would likely have to distance himself from Wright at some point.

Mitt Romney was a member of the LDS church and is seriously considered by some to be a strong VP nominee. He was a member of the LDS church during a time when they said blacks weren't worthy of the priesthood because of the mark of Cain they received in the pre-existence.

He's said he "wept" when it happened, when blacks were granted the priesthood. But why wasn't he raked over the coals for stuff some of the elders of the LDS church have said in the past 25-30 years?

It's no different.

[Ksyrup]

I don't even know what LDS Church stands for (apparently I'm not as up on my fringe church attendees as I should be), but he probably wasn't raked over the coals about it because he never got to the point of being a real contender for the nomination...ever think that stuff was "on hold" until he was in a 1-on-1 battle with someone else, or had secured the nomination? If you're going to hurt someone, make it count, right? The Obama thing has been out there and acknowledged by Obama/Wright for over a year, and it's only coming out now because Obama's standing in the race matters.

[Fighter of Foo]

Why "remotely asssociated"? The whole reason I find any of this relevant to Obama at all is the fact that he not only spent 20 years at this guy's church, but he thought so much of him that he included him in the biggest moments of his life and considers him his spiritual advisor...not to mention, a year ago, he acknowledged - way before any of this happened - that he would likely have to distance himself from Wright at some point.

Before Wright it was some finance guy. Tim Russert was going on last month about Louis Farrakhan. There's a lengthy list of crazy and/or corrupt people closely associated with the Republican party. It's been those people, and the giant double fucking standards applied to them, that caused my disillusionment with Republicans. Let's hear all of those stories first without any context and then we can get back to the manufactured Obama controversies.

[Fighter of Foo]

Oh and here's some context on Democratic primary voters crossing over:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/some_context_on_the_democratic.php

"t may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate."

"Of course, the larger point of the eight year old Pew numbers is that [I]snapshots from March have a short half-life, so speculate with caution."

[Arles]

He'd be the oldest President ever elected to a first term. The media is going to jump on that like a trampoline in the general. That's just the beginning. And painting him as Bush's third term isn't going to serve him well either.

It's like Bob Dole redux.
The problem is that the media's spent the last 5-6 years fawning over McCain and the "maverick" that he was because he often went against Bush on policy. Dole was the republican establishment and was taken to the woodshed by the media. Now, if it's McCain against Obama, McCain will get strongly attacked for a good 2-3 month period. But people will already be jaded against the election media from fatigue and they will be going off 5-6 years of being told what a standup guy McCain was by not supporting Bush on economic issues. Dole was the enemy from day 1.

He's said he "wept" when it happened, when blacks were granted the priesthood. But why wasn't he raked over the coals for stuff some of the elders of the LDS church have said in the past 25-30 years?

It's no different.
Mitt Romney lost the primary because of fears on him being Mormon. After Huckabee's comments in Iowa and the intense media scrutiny on his mormon beliefs in Iowa, NH and the southern states, Romney was done for. If Obama got 1/5th the media scrutiny Romney did in those 2-3 months, Hillary would be the nominee now.

Just imagine if Hillary or Bill came out today and stated how dangerous it would be if someone from the Trinity church was president because "Don't Trinity worshipers believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?". I highly doubt the media response would be to say "Interesting point, what's your response Obama?" - like they did with Romney when Huckabee said it.

[Ksyrup]

Let's hear all of those stories first without any context and then we can get back to the manufactured Obama controversies.

What's manufactured about it? Those are the facts, aren't they? This guy said some batshit insane stuff, Obama's been going to his church for 20+ years, and the guy has been Obama's spiritual advisor and overseen some of the most important moments of Obama's life. Those are the facts in a nutshell, right?

Your comment reminds me of Pats fans trying to defend Belichick's cheating by saying "but others were obviously doing it too." Well, that might be, but it doesn't absolve Belichick.

[Ksyrup]

Dola. And holy shit I just realized you're from Boston. The Pats comment was just off the cuff, not directed to you if you take it that way. Kinda funny, actually.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't even know what LDS Church stands for......

Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. RLDS is the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, which has since been renamed to the 'Community of Christ'.

[ISiddiqui]

He's said he "wept" when it happened, when blacks were granted the priesthood. But why wasn't he raked over the coals for stuff some of the elders of the LDS church have said in the past 25-30 years?

Um... you do realize that one of the major reasons that Romney isn't still in the race (or leading it) is because people were voting against him for his Mormonism, right? Look at what happened with Huckabee started really railing against him for it.

And Romney was repeated asked about Mormonism. I remember him having to deal with a question on polygamy, which the LDS has had banned for longer than Romney was alive!

[albionmoonlight]

Romney should have run as an economic guru. Then, to temper fears about his religion, just indicated that "Religion is important to me as it is to most Americans. And, because of that, I will appoint judges who understand the important and historic role that religion has played in our society and who do not misuse the Constitution in such as way as to frustrate the will of the people. For a long time, the American people have worked to get the right judges on the bench. I am committed to continuing that work as one of my top priorities. As Americans, we deserve a Constitution that defends our natural rights to worship, to life and to property."

That would have, in my mind, have sent the signal to the religious right that, "hey, you might think Mormons are nutjobs, but I'll get you your judges. That's a fair tradeoff, right?"

[Young Drachma]

Romney should have run as an economic guru. Then, to temper fears about his religion, just indicated that "Religion is important to me as it is to most Americans. And, because of that, I will appoint judges who understand the important and historic role that religion has played in our society and who do not misuse the Constitution in such as way as to frustrate the will of the people. For a long time, the American people have worked to get the right judges on the bench. I am committed to continuing that work as one of my top priorities. As Americans, we deserve a Constitution that defends our natural rights to worship, to life and to property."

That would have, in my mind, have sent the signal to the religious right that, "hey, you might think Mormons are nutjobs, but I'll get you your judges. That's a fair tradeoff, right?"

+1

[Fighter of Foo]

What's manufactured about it? Those are the facts, aren't they? This guy said some batshit insane stuff, Obama's been going to his church for 20+ years, and the guy has been Obama's spiritual advisor and overseen some of the most important moments of Obama's life. Those are the facts in a nutshell, right?

Your comment reminds me of Pats fans trying to defend Belichick's cheating by saying "but others were obviously doing it too." Well, that might be, but it doesn't absolve Belichick.

It's a really good analogy and what's funny is while I live in Boston I didn't grow up here and hate the Pats. That said, I'm about as big a defender as you'll find of Belichick regarding the spygate thing.

The question to ask is who's driving the story? It's obviously someone or a group of someones with an agenda. With the Pats, it was a division rival/disgruntled ex-employee. With Obama, it's Hillary and the R's. That's what's manufactured about it. As I mentioned, Wright was the third attempt.

So if anyone pushing an agenda wants to discuss specifics that's fine, but they get to subject themselves to the same standards. That's obviously not happening here with McCain and until it does, fuck everyone who wants to promote it.

In NY, Spitzer had to resign because he spent time as AG prosecuting various people for prostitution. Good riddance.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The question to ask is who's driving the story? It's obviously someone or a group of someones with an agenda. With the Pats, it was a division rival/disgruntled ex-employee. With Obama, it's Hillary and the R's. That's what's manufactured about it. As I mentioned, Wright was the third attempt.

So if anyone pushing an agenda wants to discuss specifics that's fine, but they get to subject themselves to the same standards. That's obviously not happening here with McCain and until it does, **bleep** everyone who wants to promote it.

Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.

No one should pretend that Obama didn't know this (people with an agenda might dig through his past) was coming. If he was oblivious to the fact that this would eventually come out, he would have invited Wright show his face at his presidential bid announcement over a year ago. If Obama didn't want this kind of scrutiny, he shouldn't have run for president.

[miked]

Interestingly, the CNN ticker has an article about Hillary's polls going in the wrong direction, probably due to the fact that she's trying to get pledged delegates to switch and her whole lying (misspeaking, thanks Roger) stuff.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent — the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton — down from 45 percent two weeks ago.

The new poll comes at the end of one of the most hostile months in the Democratic presidential primary race, during which surrogates for both campaigns resigned after uttering controversial statements, and controversy swirled around Obama over past statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

But despite fears by some of Obama's backers that the Wright controversy would take a toll on the Illinois senator and his presidential hopes, the new poll shows his approval rating has remained virtually unchanged at 49 percent. Only 32 percent of Americans give him a negative approval rating.

I think her win-at-all-costs attitude is probably wearing thin on people. Doesn't help to have Bill Clinton blabbering about how:

Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn’t trouble him. "I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her,” he said. “Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl."

[Ksyrup]

Similar to the other polls mentioned earlier....



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New polls show many Democratic voters could swing their support to Sen. John McCain in the general election if their candidate isn't nominated.

A poll shows 44 percent of Democrats said they like Sen. John McCain, and 42 percent don't.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, taken March 14-16, shows the percentage of Sen. Barack Obama supporters who said they'd be dissatisfied or upset if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination has gone up -- from 26 percent in January, just after Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, to 41 percent now.

The poll suggests if Obama wins, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 51 percent -- would be dissatisfied or upset. The number was 35 percent in January.

The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 7.5 percentage points.

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

According to a Gallup Poll taken March 7-22, about one in five Obama supporters -- or 19 percent -- said they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

If Obama's the nominee, more than one in four Clinton supporters -- or 28 percent -- said they'd vote for McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

Crack analysis there by the party chairman. That's obviously why they pay him the big bucks to help win places like New Hampshire......and Iowa.......and Michigan......and Virginia........and New York......and Ohio.........and Pennsylvania......AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! :)

[Ksyrup]

Paul Begala this morning used the Wayne's World "when monkeys fly out of my butt" line when asked whether he thought Hillary would step aside before the primaries ended.

[Buccaneer]

I and others brought up Hillary's negatives when this started last year. Some discounted that but I still believe there is (and always have been) a good reason for the high negatives, which is playing a factor in the race.

[Fighter of Foo]

[quote=Mizzou B-ball fan;1693155]Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.
/quote]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Am I missing some sarcasm here?

[Mac Howard]

Frankly, it's just not plausible to suggest that you always share the same feelings or views as someone you know.

This is astonishing from a man who would be a journalist (Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor)

1) I am not standing as a unifying candidate for President of the USA

2) feelings and views? - rabid hatred for the country Obama would lead

3) know? Obama describes him as his "spritual mentor".

Give me a break, guys. The guy is either blind as a bat politically or this is an unbelievably fawning attempt to sanitise this matter. If you don't believe that Obama is getting the mother and father of all sycophantic deals from some of the media then the above should change your mind. If Clinton or McCain had sat and listened to white supremacy speeches for 20 years without walking out and finding another church do you think the above sentence would have been written to sanitise it.

I agree with those who find this latest foible involving Senator Clinton's description of the Bosnia trip to be wholly illuminating -- and I totally agree with the conclusions of her biographer excerpted above. This is just who she is, and her relationship with truth will never be a comfortable one. Many people will vote for her based on policy, and many based on trust, but there really shouldn't be any doubt that this is the true person underneath it all -- the person who exaggerates the truth, and then essentially lies to cover up or cover over the initial exaggeration. It would be folly to expect anything different were she elected to an executive position.

This was stupid beyond belief from Clinton clearly trying for a little of the kudos of the kind that McCain rightly gets for his Vietnam experiences. But it's not unique to Clinton. Obama wasn't a professor, he was a mere lecturer. he didn't meet his wife at a significant event - he was married to her 4 years before the event took place. And so on.

I really don't know why they do it. But they all do it. They don't seem to be able to resist the temptation to puff themselves up even when it's pretty certain they'll be found out. There's always a compulsion to gild the lilly.

But Clinton has lost a lot of the advantage that the Wright affair gave her and aren't these guys (the Clintons) supposed to be the past masters at political campaigning? :rolleyes:

[Grammaticus]

You might say that, but all of the post election research and exit polling indicates that Ross Perot only prevented Clinton from getting over 50% of the vote, and that Clinton would have won by comfortable margins in both 1992 and 1996 without Ross Perot in the race.


I would pretty much have to agree the 1996 results would have stood as is. But the 8% margin would have probably been about 4%, not much of a landslide.

In 1992, the breakdown of RP voters was a huge Republican percentage. I think that could have made the difference in the outcome. The best would have been if Perot had not pulled out of the race, then jumped back in. He may have actually had a shot at winning. I believe he was neck in neck or leading in most polls at the time.

[ISiddiqui]

I think VV is correct that Perot pulled equally from both sides. I saw polls to suggest that potential Clinton voters voted for Perot in relatively equal numbers as Bush voters. It was mostly union members who weren't all that happy with Clinton's pro-NAFTA stance that flocked to Perot's protectionism.

[Ksyrup]

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

[QuikSand]

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

I agree, that is really some disappointing posturing to see.

[rkmsuf]

The View? That disqualifies him right there from being elected.

[Buccaneer]

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

[ISiddiqui]

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

Yep, and here's where experience would come in. He needs to stop talking NOW. Give his speech on race and just shut up... but everytime he feels has to explain himself, yikes.

[albionmoonlight]

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

It also smacks of typical Dem defensiveness, which comes off as fake and never works.

When Wright came up, I felt that the typical (John Kerry) type Dem response would have been a half-hearted "I reject that and I actually like white people almost as much as John McCain does."

Instead, Obama said "Here's what I think. Here's why I think it. And here's why its good that I think that." He lost some votes that way, but most of those votes he was going to lose anyway. And it reminded people who liked him of why they liked him. And, if it ended up failing, it was because voters rejected Obama's actual choices--not because they rejected some insincere and yellow-bellied apology for who he was and what he believed.

This View thing totally turns that on its head. And, it is just stupid politics because it interjects something new into the Wright situation, which might give Wright new news cycle life. He should have just told them to watch his speech and denied them any new soundbite.

I fear that Obama is trying to chase those voters who say that they were thinking of voting for him until his response to the Wright thing. He should not chase them. He will never catch them. Regardless of what they say and what they may actually believe about themselves, they were never going to vote for Obama. They were just waiting for an excuse not to do it. They were "considering" Obama in the same way that I would consider Jeb Bush. It is a costless lie to tell yourself in March to make you feel more open to the other party than you are.

[Young Drachma]

Yep, and here's where experience would come in. He needs to stop talking NOW. Give his speech on race and just shut up... but everytime he feels has to explain himself, yikes.

His team of neophytes are going to kill him before he gets a chance to get elected, with the way they're failing to manage him.

I was playing tennis on the PS2 last night against the #1 in this match when I was ranked 90th or something and I was ahead early, then he came back and I finally won...but it reminded me of the Clinton/Obama race. Obama is the upstart and when you're coming into a match as an unknown quantity, your best best is to find early where you can win points and then hit on all cylinders to get up on your opponent early.

You want to beat them before they know what hit them or before they have a chance to respond.

Like it or not, the Clinton campaign has successful FORCED him to play in the mud with them and aren't allowing Obama's team to alter the conversation AT. ALL. His people need to be aware of this and find ways to his high minded rhetoric and prose that he's been so accused of flaunting and get people to swoon again, because he's becoming more and more ordinary by the day. Transforming himself from "Inspirational candidate" to "Typical Politician" is going to torpedo his campaign.

We all know that kids don't necessarily vote in November and so, banking on them isn't a sure thing. Other than black voters and oft-derided 'latte liberals' he doesn't really have a coalition that are used to playing nice together.

He better realize he needs to find some way to galvanize Americans into action. All of this sniping back and forth with Team Clinton is just wearing people down and will get them more and more polarized going forward...and no way it convinced independents to consider sampling the Kool-Aid.

But maybe he just wants to lose now, so he can make more money after it's over. I mean, it's far more lucrative to get Tonya Harding clubbed by the Clinton team than to just lose to John McCain because then "hope loses" and it's not quite as compelling until another decade. And being Governor of Illinois won't really substitute for it and I really just doubt Michelle is going to let him run again in four years...or eight.

This is his shot. Dems don't let losers come back, so...I think his people probably have to realize that this is their watershed moment and they'd be getter straight the horse for the stretch run.

[albionmoonlight]

But it's not unique to Clinton. Obama wasn't a professor, he was a mere lecturer.

Not to nitpick, but that's one of those base untruths that is just thrown out there by the other side to see if it sticks. According to the University of Chicago, Obama was a professor.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

not to take away from your overall point, which is that puffery is an essential part of politics.

[Mac Howard]

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

I very much agree with your interpretation of this explanation. In fact I'm surprised that he believed he could answer the criticisms with this. His speech was excellent - but in another context. It too failed to answer the question "Why the hell did you listen to this crap for 20 years?"

But I disagree with your opening comment - for me he still has to address the perception that he tolerates or even has some sympathy with Wright's views and remaining quiet, while perhaps better than half-assed answers like The View interview, will not have the matter go away - unless Clinton comes up with a howler even worse than her "ducking the bullets". And even then he will have McCain, or to be more exact McCain's supporters, to deal with as they throw away the kid gloves the Clinton campaign (in fear of a Democrat backlash) has worn so far. If he thinks he's having it rough at the moment he's got a surprise coming and his current behaviour feeds the perception that he wll not be very good under pressure.

This interview, which highlights the real problem as you indicate, suggests he hasn't yet realised what that problem is.

[CamEdwards]

Mac,

I agree with Ksyrup that Obama's best bet is to just shut up about it. He's given his "major speech", he's addressed the issue (badly) several times since then, and every time he keeps the story going.

Yes, this story will hurt Obama. But every time he opens his yap and tries to explain away his decisions, it only hurts him more. Politically speaking, it's probably best to just take your lumps and move on, especially since Obama's position doesn't seem to be changing. He just keeps coming up with new excuses to justify his behavior.

[JPhillips]

Some interesting comments on Obama and race by Condi. From the Washington Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.

"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," she said.




Race has become an issue in this year's presidential campaign, which prompted a much-discussed speech last week by Sen. Barack Obama, one of the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Miss Rice declined to comment on the campaign, saying only that it was "important" that Mr. Obama "gave it for a whole host of reasons."

But she spoke forcefully on the subject, citing personal and family experience to illustrate "a paradox and contradiction in this country," which "we still haven't resolved."

On the one hand, she said, race in the U.S. "continues to have effects" on public discussions and "the deepest thoughts that people hold." On the other, "enormous progress" has been made, which allowed her to become the nation's chief diplomat.

"America doesn't have an easy time dealing with race," Miss Rice said, adding that members of her family have "endured terrible humiliations."

"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy," she said.

[Dutch]

"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy," she said.


A pretty powerful legacy at that, I think.

[GrantDawg]

A pretty powerful legacy at that, I think.



That is a great quote.

[Arles]

I would change this slightly:

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience with a critical media is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.
Before 2008, Obama had pretty much a 4-5 year honeymoon with the national media. Nearly every story was positive and he could simply let the media fight his battles. IMO, people that haven't been forced to deal with strong criticism tend to struggle when put on a stage with it. Obama probably felt that it would all go away after his initial speech (with help from the media), but when it didn't he started going "on his own" to deal with it - something he doesn't have the experience to do.

For his own benefit, it's good that he takes some lumps now as most will be forgotten by the fall election. It's better to learn how to handle criticism now (even some that isn't legit), than suddenly get put in a trial by fire with it in September for the first time.

[Mac Howard]

Mac,

I agree with Ksyrup that Obama's best bet is to just shut up about it. He's given his "major speech", he's addressed the issue (badly) several times since then, and every time he keeps the story going.

Yes, this story will hurt Obama. But every time he opens his yap and tries to explain away his decisions, it only hurts him more. Politically speaking, it's probably best to just take your lumps and move on, especially since Obama's position doesn't seem to be changing. He just keeps coming up with new excuses to justify his behavior.

You guys may well be right on this because I don't know what he can say that would get him off the hook. But it isn't going to go away. Even if the Clinton Gang let up on this (which I doubt) the Republicans are not going to in a Presidential campaign. This is with Obama right the way to the White House and beyond if he makes it that far - and it may be the reason he doesn't.

[JPhillips]

So how far do we take things? Does the fact that Charlie Black, long time McCain friend and advisor, served on the host committee for Moon's coronation at the Dirksen Building matter? Can we really trust McCain when perhaps his closest advisor is in bed with a man who called for the destruction of America?

Why not?

[Noop]

Condi Rice gets some cool points from me for that statement.

[TroyF]

This continues to play out like I thought it would. The dem friends I have are getting more and more divided by the day. I see it in the national polls as well. The nastier the stories get (and by nasty I'm not saying untrue or unfounded), the worse this gets for the dems.

With Hillary's high negative numbers, she was going to have a tough time getting elected to begin with. Now? I can't see it. She's not even going to be the dem nominee. (she's the only one who can't see this at this point)

now Obama is making idiotic quotes all over the place and showing his inexperience. He's going to be the nominee, but I don't see how he wins in November.

The scary thing for the dems? The fun is just beginning. Wait til you see how brutal this is going to get one week ahead of PA.

[Greyroofoo]

So apparently Mike Gravel quit the undemocratic party and is gunning for running under the Libertarian banner.

[JPhillips]

That's after he flirted with the Green Party. He's just an egotistical guy looking to find exposure.

[IMetTrentGreen]

He's going to be the nominee, but I don't see how he wins in November.

You could replace Dem with PS3 and you'd be right back to 6 months ago, as incorrect as ever.

Either democrat would roll McCain. Eventually the media giant will turn it's attention to McCain, and they will damage him. There is a lot for them to chew on out there.

He's completely flipped from everything he said as a "maverick" in 2000-2001. He's sold out to the neo-cons to get elected and he's left an enormous trail of contradictions in his wake. He's admitted to not knowing a thing about the economy, which will easily be the #1 factor in the election, just like it is ever 4 years.

For instance, this just came out today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/

His plan to curb AIDS in Africa is abstinence, he doesn't know if condoms stop the spread of disease, and he forgot what they told him to say. There are mountains of stories like this that the mainstream media hasn't focused on yet.

If he wins, it will be because someone found out Obama really is a muslim, or something. Obama's numbers have already rebounded from the Wright thing. Clinton is the only one who can win it for McCain at this point. The longer she stays in, the shorter amount of time we have to shift the lumbering attention of the media to form it's narrative on McCain. That takes time, but as the Wright/Tuzla stories showed, it doesn't take long to damage a candidate.

I think Obama wins because the media narrative will shift. If it doesn't, which is possible, Obama will have a fight. But eventually, someone will do their homework and the anchors will stop using words like "maverick" and "straight talk."

[ISiddiqui]

For instance, this just came out today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/


March 16, 2007 is today?

[Arles]

McCain is McCain, most know what they are getting (for better or worse). Age is a concern, as is his willingness to sell out the base in his party to look good. The problem for the democrats is that his biggest flaw to republicans (willingness to to work with dems) is a big draw for independents. it seems like most on the right have come to terms with this so I don't really see what's going to come out to knock him down. He's run for president multiple times (even as a front-runner) and most of his dirt has been aired out for a while. Some of his hawk talk might put people off and you could focus on his inconsistent statements. Still, seeing him go to a proactive approach to global warming and becoming more liberal on some social issues is hardly going to turn off democrats and independents looking to jump ship from someone else.

In the end, if most on the right hold their nose and vote for him (as I expect they will - for the judges issue alone), he should win.

[Buccaneer]

My view, Arles, is that McCain will not appoint the social con judges (as some here are fearful of) but that he will not appoint liberal judges. Sort of a cost avoidance issue. This makes it an issue but not in the way people think.

[JPhillips]

McCain's problems with conservatives don't mater in votes, but in money. In February he raised a paltry 11 million. He'll need to generate excitement with the base if he wants to raise money. He'll attract a lot of independent votes, but those folks generally don't donate.

He's also going to have problems with the FEC over the spending cap. In the end he won't be legally hampered as the FEC is non-functional right now, but the way he played fast and loose with campaign spending regulations will hurt him for a bit.

[Arles]

To switch topics a bit, I'm really at a loss to see why Dean, the dem party and parts of both campaigns are against the Breseden plan to have a "superdelegate conference" in June and figure this thing out then. I don't see anyway that either candidate will get the votes needed by the convention and atleast this way involves debate and an overall decision process in the open. I could easily see the winning candidate from this in June (prob Obama) using the next 3 months to reunite the party and get ready for the fall election.

This seems to be an infinitely better option than waiting until the delegates individually report in the convention and make a decision late in the summer.

[Young Drachma]

To switch topics a bit, I'm really at a loss to see why Dean, the dem party and parts of both campaigns are against the Breseden plan to have a "superdelegate conference" in June and figure this thing out then. I don't see anyway that either candidate will get the votes needed by the convention and atleast this way involves debate and an overall decision process in the open. I could easily see the winning candidate from this in June (prob Obama) using the next 3 months to reunite the party and get ready for the fall election.

This seems to be an infinitely better option than waiting until the delegates individually report in the convention and make a decision late in the summer.

Dean has already said that by July 1st, the superdelegates will have decided.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/28/dean-s-july-1-deadline.aspx

[Young Drachma]

My view, Arles, is that McCain will not appoint the social con judges (as some here are fearful of) but that he will not appoint liberal judges. Sort of a cost avoidance issue. This makes it an issue but not in the way people think.

We thought Bush wouldn't either. See how well that worked out. He will pander to them and he will appoint judges that are "highly qualified" and willing to be conservative soup de jour. That's fine, but...when court nominations boil down to who will be appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade or not, the whole apparatus is a little silly.

[Arles]

Dean has already said that by July 1st, the superdelegates will have decided.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/28/dean-s-july-1-deadline.aspx
The problem here is that they may be split and still not "officially" nominate a winner. By having them all together, you could give the winner enough delegates to be an official winner. Even if all the supers decide by July 1, they may not reach the magic number for one candidate - so I'm guessing the loser will hang on until the convention (while trying desperately to get a few to change votes).

[Young Drachma]

Last year, after this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html) story ran about Obama not inviting Rev. Wright to give the invocation at his announcement for President. Rev. Wright wrote this letter in response last March:

March 11, 2007

Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

[Young Drachma]

Hillary's campaign isn't paying its bills. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html) That's not news for political campaigns, especially losing ones. But...it does prove her campaign is having a devil of a time raising cash.

Netroots will come through in big ways for Obama were he to find a way to seal the deal on this and I think that's going to make the task facing McCain and the GOP base having an even more difficult time. He might convince the right wing he'll appoint their judges in return for big fundraising bucks, but...Obama has been breaking records left and right and even in the shadows of all of this stuff going on now, he's still awash with cash.

No way he takes public funding in the general, even though he said he would before.

[Toddzilla]

About 1/2 down the page, the author notes that Michael Bloomberg is introducing Obama in a high-profile speech.

hxxp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/825803.aspx

Is this serious? Could Obama run Bloomberg on his ticket?

[albionmoonlight]

Hillary's campaign isn't paying its bills. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html) That's not news for political campaigns, especially losing ones.

One of the interesting things that is happening now that so many more people are paying attention to the primary than before is that stuff that isn't news and happens all of the time is seen by some people as news.

You are right that it isn't newsworthy at all that a campaign, like any business, waits as long as possible to pay its bills--letting some of them get behind. That's just smart (and normal) operating procedure.

But some people are latching onto this story, trying to use it as evidence that Clinton does not understand money, or that she does not support small business. It is, of course, neither of these things.

It interests me to see campaigns having to positively spin actions that, in any other primary election, would not even be noticed--let alone need to be spun.

[Young Drachma]

About 1/2 down the page, the author notes that Michael Bloomberg is introducing Obama in a high-profile speech.

hxxp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/825803.aspx

Is this serious? Could Obama run Bloomberg on his ticket?

Very unlikely. Though a Jewish RINO might be an interesting idea, I doubt he'd do it. Bloomberg doesn't need to be Veep and it'd just make Obama easier to bump off by some crazy.

With all of the sore feelings that'll come together after this nomination process, they'll have to pick a white woman to assuage the idea that this is another "business as usual" election where "change wasn't allowed to happen" by rejection Hillary.

By getting a woman on board who doesn't infringe on Obama's "stature" or deflect attention too much -- maybe a red state woman Governor -- it'll make people sorta forget about Hillary and start to think ahead.

Without that addition, they're just going to be haunted by the ghosts o' Clinton.

[Young Drachma]

One of the interesting things that is happening now that so many more people are paying attention to the primary than before is that stuff that isn't news and happens all of the time is seen by some people as news.

You are right that it isn't newsworthy at all that a campaign, like any business, waits as long as possible to pay its bills--letting some of them get behind. That's just smart (and normal) operating procedure.

But some people are latching onto this story, trying to use it as evidence that Clinton does not understand money, or that she does not support small business. It is, of course, neither of these things.

It interests me to see campaigns having to positively spin actions that, in any other primary election, would not even be noticed--let alone need to be spun.

I think the media has a vested interest in 1) keeping the Rev. Wright story near the front page. If it bleeds it leads and 2) stoking the fires of the "Hillary Go Home" crusade, because it makes for good drama since they obviously know that she won't quit because people tell her to.

I think this entire primary season and election as a whole has been crafted by media partisans who are trying to tailor the news cycle, rather than report it. Not a shock, but...I think the sensationalism is far more accepted as fact now, than it used to be.

[Young Drachma]

<embed allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/47f11f9c22979d34" width="384" height="316" quality="high" wmode="transparent" id="W47f11f9c22979d34" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

[JPhillips]

This is really the relevant part of the article:

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $11 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.

We'll see what her numbers look like for March, which should be a good month for her. She is, though, well behind in primary funds and that's going to have an effect. Here in IN Obama has already started a heavy media campaign and Clinton hasn't done anything. She's paying for her campaign's early habit of throwing money at everything.

[Vegas Vic]

I think the media has a vested interest in 1) keeping the Rev. Wright story near the front page.

The press has actually gone fairly easy on the Obama/Wright affair. Here are some salient questions that haven't really been answered yet:

1. In early March you said your church was not “particularly controversial.” Later in the month, after video clips of Jeremiah Wright had been repeatedly played on television, you admitted that you had heard Wright make statements in church that qualified him as a “fierce critic” of U.S. domestic and foreign policy and that “could be considered controversial.” You also said you “strongly disagree[d]” with some of Wright’s political views. Can you tell us what you specifically heard Wright say that you considered fiercely critical of U.S. policy, controversial, and with which you strongly disagreed?

2. During the approximately 20 years you attended Trinity United Church of Christ, did you hear Wright make comments or read things published in the “Pastor’s Page” of the church bulletin that could be fairly deemed to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and/or a “profoundly distorted view of this country” (to quote from your speech on race)?

3. When did you first become aware of the fact that in 1984 Reverend Wright traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to visit Muammar Qadhafi? Similarly, when did you become aware of Wright's role in giving Farrakhan a lifetime-achievement award and that Wright referred to the Nation of Islam leader as a man of “integrity and honesty?” Did those things trouble you when you learned of them?

4. Did you ever, even once, have a conversation with Reverend Wright in which you expressed your concern about his rhetoric and worldview? If not, do you now wish you had? What ought to have triggered that conversation with Wright?

5. In the speech on race you delivered a couple of weeks ago, you said you could “no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” Does that mean you believe Wright is synonymous with the embodiment of the black community, that they are one in the same? Is it your view that to disown any person who is black means you would therefore disown the black community? If so, does that mean you would be unable to “disown” someone like Louis Farrakhan? Are there any grounds on which you would disown Wright? If so, wouldn’t that (by your own logic) mean that you would disown the whole of the black community?

6. On ABC’s The View you said “had the Reverend [Wright] not retired and had he not acknowledged what he had said had deeply offended people and [was] inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.” Had you done so, how would that be different from “disowning” Wright?

7. Can you cite a single public statement in which Reverend Wright acknowledges that what he said deeply offended people, and was both inappropriate and a mischaracterization of what you believe is the greatness of this country? To what evidence of Wright’s public contrition can you point?

8. When you/those on your campaign cancelled Reverend Wright’s delivery of the invocation when you formally announced your run for the presidency in February 2007, what were the grounds for the cancellation? What did you know about Wright then that moved you to cancel his appearance?

9. With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist? Are they consistent with, or fundamentally at odds with, your expressed desire to end racial divisions in this country?

10. Is there anything Reverend Wright has said in your presence that you fear will be made public and that your campaign is working to keep from coming out?

11. You have complained that America has been presented with an incomplete picture of Reverend Wright. Would you therefore urge Wright and Trinity United to make public all the sermons of Wright, as well as things he has written in the church bulletin and elsewhere, so we can see the full body of his work? And will you let us know, to the best of your ability, the dates you attended church services during the last 20 years?

12. Since the Wright story broke there seems to have been a concerted effort to keep Reverend Wright from speaking to the press or in public. If he is the man you says he is — if the soundbites we have all seen are anomalous and the portrait of him is a caricature — then why not encourage him to do interviews in order to set the record straight?

13. Do you think it was surprising or out of character for Reverend Wright to reprint an oped by a leading Hamas figure, Mousa Abu Mazook, in the “Pastor’s Page” of Trinity United’s church bulletin?

14. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-Semitic? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

15. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-American? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

16. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be racist? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

17. Whom do you consider to be a more admirable and impressive figure and whose public words do you more closely associate yourself with: Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. or Justice Clarence Thomas?

18. If the GOP candidate for president had a close, intimate relationship of almost two decades with a pastor whose church provided shelter to homeless people, provided day care and marriage counseling but who was himself a white supremacist, asked God to damn rather than bless America, said that the United States got what was coming to it on 9/11, advocated conspiracy theories about genocidal policies being promoted by the American government, said that Israel is a “dirty word,” believed it was a terrorist state and promoted the views of Hamas leaders, would that trouble you? And would you accept the word of the GOP candidate if he insisted that he was not sitting in the pews when those things were said and therefore claimed he ought not be tarnished by the association?

19. Have you ever heard things contemporaneously said by Reverend Wright that you considered as offensive, or more offensive, than what Don Imus said about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (something you considered to be a firing offense at the time)?

20. In looking back on this whole matter, do you think you have made any significant errors in judgment regarding your relationship with Reverend Wright? To what degree are you responsible for this controversy? And have you been completely forthcoming in telling Americans about what you heard from Wright and when you heard it?

21. When Reverend Wright told the New York Times last year that if you got past the primaries he thought you might have well have to publicly distance yourself from him — and your reaction was that you agreed — what did both of you know at the time?

22. Will you answer the questions posed above? If so, when? And if not, why?

National Review Online Article - Wright Questions (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGVkY2NhYTkzZjIyYzRkYTIxNTU3MjBiMDVmZmE2Y2Y=&w=MA==)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

22. Will you answer the questions posed above? If so, when? And if not, why?

National Review Online Article - Wright Questions (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGVkY2NhYTkzZjIyYzRkYTIxNTU3MjBiMDVmZmE2Y2Y=&w=MA==)

I don't even think that the media is the main reason that this story continues to progress. Obama's continuing need to keep adressing the situation and provide statements that seem to conflict with previous statements are the main reason that this story continues. The media has to ask further questions when the contradictory comments appear. Obama's mistake was when he decided to be defensive and provide half-truth statements about the situation rather than immediately distance himself from the situation and then shut up.

[Young Drachma]

NPR did a story on black liberation theology (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116).

Black liberation preaching can be a loud, passionate, physical affair. Linda Thomas, who teaches at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, says the whole point of it is to challenge the powerful and to raise questions for society to think about. Thomas says if white people are surprised by the rhetoric, it's because most have never visited a black church.

"I think that many black people would know what white worship is like," Thomas says. "Why is it that white people don't know what black worship is about? And I think that is because there is this centrality with white culture that says we don't have to know about that."

[Passacaglia]

I don't think it's that white people "don't know" are "are surprised by" about the idea of this -- I thought the issue is that Obama shouldn't be supporting it. Also, detailing the differences between "black worship" and "white worship" is the most divisive thing I've heard in a while. Before you know it, someone will come in and say they're not talking about the same God. :p

[Young Drachma]

I don't think it's that white people "don't know" are "are surprised by" about the idea of this -- I thought the issue is that Obama shouldn't be supporting it. Also, detailing the differences between "black worship" and "white worship" is the most divisive thing I've heard in a while. Before you know it, someone will come in and say they're not talking about the same God. :p

It might be divisive, but..it's still pretty true even today.

From MLK in 1963:

"We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation. This is tragic. Nobody of honesty can overlook this."

[Passacaglia]

It just comes off to me as saying: "You don't understand. That's just how black people are."

[Passacaglia]

And while MLK's speech calls it a tragedy, here it's being used as an excuse.

[cuervo72]

Heh, it's funny. In church last Sunday, one of the praise band singers (this is in the "contemporary" worship) was remarking on the up-tempo songs for the week and said something to the effect of "we're still somewhere between the conservative churches and the African-American churches...but we're getting there!" This is to a primarily (oh, say 98%) white audience, where maybe a smattering of the crowd is comfortable clapping to a song, and even fewer will raise a hand up. I think that "getting there" is going to take a long time.

[CamEdwards]

From Alice Walker:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/barackobama.uselections2008


I have come home from a long stay in Mexico to find - because of the presidential campaign, and especially because of the Obama-Clinton race for the Democratic nomination - a new country existing alongside the old. On any given day we, collectively, become the goddess of the three directions and can look back into the past, look at ourselves just where we are, and take a glance, as well, into the future. It is a space with which I am familiar.

When I joined the freedom movement in Mississippi in my early 20s, it was to come to the aid of sharecroppers, like my parents, who had been thrown off the land they'd always known - the plantations - because they attempted to exercise their "democratic" right to vote. I wish I could say white women treated me and other black people a lot better than the men did, but I cannot. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that white women have copied all too often the behaviour of their fathers and their brothers. In the south, especially in Mississippi, and before that, when I worked to register voters in Georgia, the broken bottles thrown at my head were gender-free.

I made my first white women friends in college; they loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered.

I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the United States at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him, cannot hear the fresh choices toward movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

When I have supported white people, it was because I thought them the best to do the job. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

True to my inner goddess of the three directions, however, this does not mean I agree with everything Obama stands for. We differ on important points, probably because I am older; I am a woman and person of three colours (African, Native American, European); I was raised in the south; and, when I look at the world after 64 years of life, there is not one person I wish to see suffer.

I want a grown-up attitude to Cuba, for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq. I want the Israeli government to be made accountable for its behaviour to the Palestinians, and I want the people of the US to cease acting as if they don't understand what is going on. But most of all I want someone with the confidence to talk to anyone, "enemy" or "friend", and this Obama has shown he can do.

It is hard to relate what it feels like to see Mrs Clinton (I wish she felt self-assured enough to use her own name) referred to as "a woman" while Barack Obama is always referred to as "a black man". One would think she is just any woman, but she is not. She carries all the history of white womanhood in the US in her person; it would be a miracle if we, and the world, did not react to this fact. How dishonest it is, to try to make her innocent of her racial inheritance.

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader - or any person - in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into 21st-century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others' lives that has so marred the country's contacts with the rest of the world. But because Clinton is a woman and may be very good at what she does, many people (some in my own family) originally favoured her. I understand this, almost. It is because there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of colour and poor whites.

When I offered the word "womanism" many years ago, it was to give us a tool to use, as feminist women of colour, in times like these. These are the moments we can see clearly, and must honour devotedly, our singular path as women of colour in the US. We are not white women, and this truth has been ground into us for centuries. But neither are we inclined to follow a black person, man or woman, unless they demonstrate considerable courage, intelligence, compassion and substance.

We have come a long way, sisters, and we are up to the challenges of our time, one of which is to build alliances based not on race, ethnicity, colour, nationality, sexual preference or gender, but on truth. Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may be beyond his power to lead us to rehabilitation. If he is elected, however, we must, as citizens of the planet, insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us. And remember, as poet June Jordan and Sweet Honey in the Rock never tired of telling us: We are the ones we have been waiting for.

[Young Drachma]

It just comes off to me as saying: "You don't understand. That's just how black people are."

But it was NPR. So the person they interviewed was probably some liberal apologist. To quote James Baldwin:

"A liberal: someone who thinks he knows more about your experience than you do."

The stuff some of those folks do is almost more indefensible than the folks on the right that they revile with such disdain as "not understanding" the so-called plight of colored folks. Because if those folks were so progressive minded, they'd be living in communities and practicing what they preach. But in reality, they're just visiting and making themselves feel good and then going back to their suburban tracts and privately wondering the same stuff the folks in "less enlightened" areas, just they'd never say it out loud except with their well-meaning friends.

[CamEdwards]

Saw this at Instapundit. It's an op/ed from GayWired.com.

hxxp://www.gaywired.com/print_this_article.cfm?ArticlePage=3&Section=67&id=18614


Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Anti-Gay Rev. James T. Meeks
Op-Ed
03.31.08

By Duane Wells

Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

The problem for Obama is that Rev. James Meeks, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preaches a message that appears to be directly at odds with the promise of hope, unity and bridging social, racial and political divisions upon which his campaign is built.

Over the years, Rev. Meeks has garnered significant media attention as a result of a number of racially charged remarks he's made from both behind and out in front of the pulpit. Most notably, in 2006, Meeks came under fire for an inflammatory sermon he gave in which he savaged Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others, including African-Americans who were Daley allies.

In the course of July 5, 2006 attack, Rev. James Meeks ranted:

"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated."

"You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.

Perhaps of even more concern than race-baiting diatribes like these is Rev. Meeks disturbing history of antagonism towards the LGBT community.

A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… [who]… has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'”

The SPLC newsletter also noted that, "Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that ‘fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.’"

On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."

And so here we are again confronted with a situation in which Barack Obama’s choice of allies is likely to confound voters. Though his relationship with Rev. Meeks is not nearly as significant as his affiliation with “spiritual mentor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Obama’s ties to Meeks are nonetheless disconcerting, particularly in the wake of his recent address on race in America and his campaign’s early fumble surrounding the decision to invite homophobic gospel artist Donnie McClurkin to perform at a campaign Faith and Family Values fundraiser in South Carolina.

Some, like CNN contributor Roland S. Martin (who, for the record, is a member of Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church), say, as he did in a recent commentary on the cable news network: “Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.”

But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?

Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can’t.

Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband’s administration that suit her campaign, neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his relatively short political career.

Put even more plainly... Barack Obama can’t have it both ways, which increasingly seems to be his campaign’s modus operandi.

While it is altogether plausible that, in the spirit of bringing hope and unity, a civil rights leader might sit down with members of white supremacist groups to address racial differences, it is another thing entirely to propose that the same civil rights leader could count any of those white supremacists among his closest friends because he finds them to be inspirational people if, you know, you take that pesky race thing out of the equation.

Similarly, while potentially capable of co-existing peacefully in an environment of mutual respect, the homophobe and the LGBT rights advocate aren’t likely to be found cooing at or canoodling with one another in private because they share so many other common interests. Yet these are precisely the kinds of scenarios that Barack Obama asks the American people to accept on faith each and every time unsavory questions arise about the associates with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Ultimately, it is this porous type of reaction that may be Sen. Obama’s undoing. But, then again, perhaps not.

Obama’s critically well-received speech on race in response to the Jeremiah Wright scandal seems to have quieted mainstream concern over the senator’s views about race while simultaneously forcing the media to tip toe around discussing race as it pertains to his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee. So maybe talk about Rev. James Meek and Barack Obama will summarily disappear from the political radar, but one thing is for sure —it shouldn’t.

Growing up, my octogenarian grandmother always told me, “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.” Life and experience have taught me she was right, which says to me that in light of his cozy relationship with anti-gay poster child, Rev. James Meeks, Barack Obama ought to be feeling awfully itchy right about now.


Identity politics is such a wonderful thing. :p

[Greyroofoo]

Hillary Clinton has challenged Obama to a bowling match to decide the primaries, even spotting him 2 frames. If they actually went through with this I would vote for the winner in the GE.

But sadly she had to issue the challenge April 1st.

[miked]

Who cares about Iraq and the economy, let's focus on analyzing every speech given by a person Obama said hi to in the last 20 years. Yay!

[CamEdwards]

Who cares about Iraq and the economy, let's focus on analyzing every speech given by a person Obama said hi to in the last 20 years. Yay!


You may think it's foolish to spend so much time and energy looking at the people that Barack Obama is close to, but you don't help your case when you create a strawman argument.


James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.


Hardly someone that Obama's just said "hi" to. Plus, are you saying that members of the GLBT community shouldn't be concerned about someone like Meeks having a place in an Obama presidency? This isn't some "retired reverend" we're talking about. This is an Illinois State Senator who's closely involved in Obama's campaign.

[lungs]

yawn

[Passacaglia]

But it was NPR. So the person they interviewed was probably some liberal apologist. To quote James Baldwin:



The stuff some of those folks do is almost more indefensible than the folks on the right that they revile with such disdain as "not understanding" the so-called plight of colored folks. Because if those folks were so progressive minded, they'd be living in communities and practicing what they preach. But in reality, they're just visiting and making themselves feel good and then going back to their suburban tracts and privately wondering the same stuff the folks in "less enlightened" areas, just they'd never say it out loud except with their well-meaning friends.

Right. So he's a bigot...but for the left. (name the movie!)

[miked]

Like I said, McCain, Clinton, Obama all have people they are in some way associated with that would be considered "evil" by one faction. Point is, if this is all they have to bring to the game, they lose. The American people have shown over the past few weeks that they don't really care about this. People who supported him still do, people that supported McCain and Hillary don't like Obama regardless. Polls show that most Americans are concerned with Iraq and the economy. I'd even be willing to bet more care about global warming. So instead of trying to constantly dig up something negative that somebody said along the way (old politics) maybe it's time to actually pay attention to the voting public.

But then, you'd have nothing to hem and haw over while your candidate figures out who to attack.

[Young Drachma]

Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with 5 in Pennsylvania. But the Real Clear Politics average is still at about 14%

[flere-imsaho]

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?

[Buccaneer]

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?

Dude, your partisan hackery is really showing. It really must bother you that this story has legs as oppose to the millions of crappy things the federal govt has done the past 40 years.

[st.cronin]

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?

This is like, in the NFL, asking how one of the wild card teams matches up with a team that got a bye. Of course those questions will come up; but first you've got to beat the opponent in front of you.

[Arles]

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?
Keating has been a part of every campaign McCain has been in since 1988. There will undoubtedly be more in the fall, but here's some for you to check out in the meantime:

"Is John McCain a crook?" - Feb, 2000
http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

and one from last week from the AP:
"Lessons from Keating scandal applied to McCain presidential campaign" - March, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/23/america/NA-POL-US-McCain-Keating.php

But the NY Times alone has run between 7 and 12 stories on it over the past 10 years. Here's a beauty back in Feb of 2008 that was later corrected for numerous smears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Column by Dowd in Jan 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE6DD1F3FF930A35752C0A96F958260

Another story in Nov 1999:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E7D9123CF932A15752C1A96F958260

October 7, 1993:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D71E3FF934A35753C1A965958260

There's numerous more if you Google McCain and Keating.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I seriously doubt the Keating 5 thing will have much legs, especially since to McCain it was his "wake up call" and when he decided to take on the special interests in Washington. It's almost a strength for him, ie, the thing that got him "born again" (so to speak).

[Noop]

I to a certain degree can understand where Obama is coming from, inexperience is a killer. Hopeful he can get pass this and make his way toward the white house.

"Yes We Can"

:)

[Neon_Chaos]

I was hoping for Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact.

Barrack will do.

If you smell what Barrack is cooking.

[Ksyrup]

http://<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1809483&fullscreen=1" width="480" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1809483&fullscreen=1" /></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:480px;">See more <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/videos">funny videos</a> at CollegeHumor</div> (http://<object type=)

[CamEdwards]

LOL, that's awesome.

[Grammaticus]

She's no Sara Silverman.

[JPhillips]

Obama raised 40 million in March with an incredible 218000 first time donors. Hillary's campaign says they won't release totals until they are legally required to do so on April 20. She's expected to be below 20 million.

McCain is expected to come in around 13 million.

[JPhillips]

dola

Obama has raised over 130 million just in 2008.

[Ksyrup]

You know what bothers me about Obama, though? It's that his entire campaign is centered on how it's time for "change" and he's not "politics as usual"...and then you see something like this. It's not that he's doing something others aren't doing; they all do it. The problem is that he's built his entire campaign on not being "politics as usual." But isn't the misleading advertising, the splitting hairs, the claiming to not do something that no one is allowed to do and playing word games to suggest he's acting in a way the other candidates are not... isn't that the very definition of "politics as usual"?

hxxp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html



Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:


Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

Only Legal Contributions, Please


Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02oil.html) ever recorded by any company.
Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changedhttp://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2008_3_31_obama_ad/obama_changed_front.jpg (http://www.factcheck.org/video/obamanothingschanged.wmv)


Obama: Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm), was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:


Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907 (http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm).

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2008_3_31_obama_ad/obama_oil_contrib_final(1).jpg


When the Clinton campaign criticized (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6803) Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than (http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp) $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_George-Kaiser_OXNB.html) of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site (http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=130&p_created=1176309944&p_sid=qu6dkS_i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MiwyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9YnVuZGxlcg**&p_li=&p_topview=1) as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC (http://www.milagroexploration.com/team/), an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?


We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/democratic_candidates_debate.html). It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.



Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.



– by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank




Sources
Kornblut, Anne E., and Perry Bacon Jr. "Clinton Resists Calls to Drop Out." The Washington Post, 29 March 2008.

Mouawad, Jad. "Exxon Sets Record Profit Last Year (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02oil.html)." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2008.

"Open Secrets" Database. Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 31 March 2008.

Hillary for President. “False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money from Oil Companies (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6803).” 28 March 2008.

Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)," accessed 31 March 2008.

[miked]

So let me guess this straight...if a guy who is some employee (one of 100,000s) and donates money to a campaign, in this article's judgement that's the same as taking money from the oil company? I work with stats for a living and this data is funky. There are much better ways to figure this out.

[Ksyrup]

Well first, somewhere around 50% of that "oil money" has come from bundlers, so it's pretty obvious there's a concerted effort from top execs in the oil industry to collect money for Obama. Second, all of the candidates' contributions are compared the same way in this regard, Obama's not being singled out (other than in the context of his ad claim).

The big issue is Obama's claim that HE does not take money from oil companies (insinuating that others do). NO candidate can. And then he claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists...but he takes it from their spouses and others at their firms. That's the kind of two-faced political crap that he's supposed to be the alternative to, isn't it?

[miked]

I agree, I just like my stats and numbers a little more detailed in the breakdown. Personally, I think you would be a better president than anyone running.

[albionmoonlight]

That's the kind of two-faced political crap that he's supposed to be the alternative to, isn't it?

If you (or anyone else) is planning to vote for Obama because he is some sort of weird post-partisan Jesus figure, then I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote. Obama is a politician. He is nothing more and nothing less.

[Ksyrup]

Try telling him that.

[Buccaneer]

Wow. It was hard today to follow the regular news with all of the outrage against Randi Rhodes' vulgar, sexist, anit-semitic rant.

Or not.

[CamEdwards]

Wow. It was hard today to follow the regular news with all of the outrage against Randi Rhodes' vulgar, sexist, anit-semitic rant.

Or not.

I missed the anti-Semitic part. I've only heard about Hillary and Ferraro being "f***ing whores". What else did she say?

[Buccaneer]

Guess I read that wrong. Sorry.


At the performance, Rhodes also joked that if Clinton doesn’t get her way, “she’s going all Lieberman on you.” Joe Lieberman won re-election to his Senate seat in 2006 after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary. Though he still caucuses with Democrats, he identifies himself as an “independent Democrat” and offered his endorsement to expected Republican nominee John McCain.

Rhodes went on a rant about having “an anti-Semite racist in the White House like Nixon or Ronald Reagan or Dick Cheney.” Recently scandalized New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer also faced Rhodes’ wrath.

[Toddzilla]

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

[Grammaticus]

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

They already have Al Franken, Michael Moore and that dogs and cats chick. Oh yeah and Rosie. They don't need Rhodes.

[Dutch]

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

There are two kinds of people who can't recognize that there are left-wing wackos. Left-wing wackos and the duped.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't get the "anti-Semite racist" comment. Nixon, ok, was anti-Semitic. And an argument can be made that Reagan's attack on "welfare queens" and some of his speeches appealed to racism somewhat. Cheney, perhaps there is something there somewhere.

But, how exactly were Reagan and Cheney "anti-Semitic"? You'd think anti-Semites wouldn't be all that fond of Israel for one.

[Ksyrup]

Randi spent too much time in South Florida half-baked out of her mind while spinning Eagles records. Everybody's an anti-Semite.

[flere-imsaho]

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?

Look, Obama's a politician. For some (possibly many) he's an inspiring person as well. He has my support because, for a number of reasons I've detailed before, I think he could be a very good President, and certainly better than the two other current alternatives. But he's not JFK. Of course, JFK wasn't JFK either, if you really look at it.

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest. Woo hoo.

[ISiddiqui]

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest.

It's like you've never followed politics before.

[flere-imsaho]

It's like you've never followed politics before.

Actually, it's like I've followed politics for a long time. Both races have been pretty exciting and interesting this year until lately, when they've reverted to ugly, boring, presidential-politics-as-usual.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, it's like I've followed politics for a long time. Both races have been pretty exciting and interesting this year until lately, when they've reverted to ugly, boring, presidential-politics-as-usual.

I was half-joking. However, every race turns into a "Oh, Gotcha!". It was only a matter of time.

[flere-imsaho]

I was half-joking. However, every race turns into a "Oh, Gotcha!". It was only a matter of time.

Oh, I agree 100%. Mostly I just think I'm grumpy. I wonder if it's Bucc's influence.

[ISiddiqui]

I enjoy how we (FOFC posters as a whole) always blame our grumpiness on Bucc's influence :).

[Ksyrup]

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?

Look, Obama's a politician. For some (possibly many) he's an inspiring person as well. He has my support because, for a number of reasons I've detailed before, I think he could be a very good President, and certainly better than the two other current alternatives. But he's not JFK. Of course, JFK wasn't JFK either, if you really look at it.

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest. Woo hoo.

Nice spin. Gotcha! for misleading people. Great. Look, he brought this on himself. No one told him to make a big deal about not taking money from oil companies. That he would go out of his way to state as a "fact" something that, by law, NO candidate can do, smacks of "politics as usual." That's the issue.

And then there's the lobbyist thing...again, making a point to tell people he doesn't take money from lobbyists - but hey, if their spouses want to give me money (wink, wink), then that's A-OK!

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit. That's his campaign's overriding mantra, and he's demonstrating that he's not any different. I know he's a politician, but you can't tell me he's not campaigning as if he's not the usual candidate.

And BTW, I have no agenda here. I'm likely not voting for any of the 3 remaining candidates. I'm just calling it like I see it.

[Ksyrup]

Actually, it's like I've followed politics for a long time. Both races have been pretty exciting and interesting this year until lately, when they've reverted to ugly, boring, presidential-politics-as-usual.

Factcheck.org analyzes all candidate ads, statements, etc., regardless of party. Hard to see how an unaffiliated organization pointing out misleading statements or outright lies to aid citizens in determining what they can or should believe is "politics as usual."