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

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

You're right. The fact that this is even a contest at this point is truly amazing. Historically, (Plug in name of democratic candidate) should be 10 to 15 points ahead of John McCain at this point in the election cycle, but it's a dead heat.

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

The second part of your statement is his exact point. The Democrat always seems to have a massive lead in the polls at this point in the race. During the summer they close down and then things start getting interesting. The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

It might just mean that the typical 15% is "soft support" that isn't there this year because the Dems have yet to pick a nominee. If the Dems had settled on Clinton or Obama, they would be leading by 15% right now, but the underlying reality would actually be the same as it is now--close to a tie.

Or, it might mean that McCain is poised to kick ass Regan Style.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

They don't mean "nothing."

Historically in an incumbent republican administration, the democratic candidate peaks in the spring/early summer. Jimmy Carter had a 25 point lead on Gerald Ford, and he narrowly won in November by 2 points. Mondale was ahead of Ronald Reagan by 6 points, and he lost by 18 points. Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he lost by 8 points. Clinton was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he won by 4 points. Kerry was ahead of GWB by 5 points, and he lost by 3.

The fact that McCain is in a dead heat at this time is very significant. Also, the fact that McCain is running even in democratic strongholds like Michigan and Minnesota, (which means that the democrats are going to have to spend resources to defend them) is problematic.

This is shaping up to be an electoral college landslide for McCain in November.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They don't mean "nothing."

Historically in an incumbent republican administration, the democratic candidate peaks in the spring/early summer. Jimmy Carter had a 25 point lead on Gerald Ford, and he narrowly won in November by 2 points. Mondale was ahead of Ronald Reagan by 6 points, and he lost by 18 points. Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he lost by 8 points. Clinton was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he won by 4 points. Kerry was ahead of GWB by 5 points, and he lost by 3.

The fact that McCain is in a dead heat at this time is very significant. Also, the fact that McCain is running even in democratic strongholds like Michigan and Minnesota, (which means that the democrats are going to have to spend resources to defend them) is problematic.

This is shaping up to be an electoral college landslide for McCain in November.

If the Democrats manage to screw up what should have been an easy win for them, it will be a fuck up of historic proportions.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They don't mean "nothing."

Historically in an incumbent republican administration, the democratic candidate peaks in the spring/early summer. Jimmy Carter had a 25 point lead on Gerald Ford, and he narrowly won in November by 2 points. Mondale was ahead of Ronald Reagan by 6 points, and he lost by 18 points. Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he lost by 8 points. Clinton was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he won by 4 points. Kerry was ahead of GWB by 5 points, and he lost by 3.

The fact that McCain is in a dead heat at this time is very significant. Also, the fact that McCain is running even in democratic strongholds like Michigan and Minnesota, (which means that the democrats are going to have to spend resources to defend them) is problematic.

This is shaping up to be an electoral college landslide for McCain in November.

What are my lottery numbers, Nostradamus?

[JPhillips]

But the fact that the nominee isn't decided has to mean something. It's also different in that every instance you cite had a Republican incumbent or in GHWB's case a previous VP. The fact that there is no incumbent on either side as to mean something. There's also been a trend over the past two decades of fewer and fewer truly independent voters which ma be shown in your numbers as well. They go from 23 points change to 24 to 25 to 13 to 8. How much of the current margin is due to fewer votes being up for grabs?

McCain may win and may win by a lot, but the numbers now aren't particularly relevant other than they would seem to suggest a close race.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The second part of your statement is his exact point. The Democrat always seems to have a massive lead in the polls at this point in the race. During the summer they close down and then things start getting interesting. The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

May potentially mean something and landslide of Reaganesque proportions are two completely different things. What you said makes sense and I have 1) no dog in the hunt and 2) willing to admit that the GOP has a shot at this, running the most modern liberal non-Yankee Republican in history for national office.

But that doesn't distort the facts on the ground, nor does it obscure the fact that if you go back a few pages, there were more than a few folks swearing when national polls showed Obama and Hillary beating McCain soundly a month ago, that "OMG it's too early?!"

But now all of a sudden, things are even and it's the fat lady singing?

To me, it's just a lot of shape shifting to try to change the landscape to fit one's own view of the world. In my estimation, we're screwed no matter who wins and the only thing that McCain will do that Clinton or Obama won't do is appoint conservative judges to make the Christian Right happy.

Rush Limbaugh today was talking about how Iowa Republicans are notorious for saying that because ethanol is their cash cow, that GOPers need to support it. But Limbaugh's point was roughly, "at the point the Republican party needs to support something fundamentally unsound to ensure that a particular group will vote for them, they're no better the Democratic party."

And he's dead on. That's the reason why none of this shit matters at all. Call Obama a liberal all you want, ignore the fact that Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than a cemetery does in the ground and that no amount of "leading on Day 1" will solve that. Obscure the fact that McCain's idea of economic policy is "I know Jack Kemp" and understand that no matter who wins this race, we're screwed and more of the same will continue to come out of Washington.

The only thing that Obama offers that the other two don't -- and it's not enough for me to vote for him as I've continually stated -- is that he's from a completely different generation and has a far more contemporary and nuanced view of the world as it is, than either of the two candidates in the race. If you appreciate the American Presidency for being something of a bully pulpit to the world at large, having him in that office sets us further along than either of the other two.

But I don't expect the boomer and post-boomers among us who are naysayers to have any interest in them apples. What's annoying, though wholly unsurprising, is their lack of stating any substantive case rather than experience for why either of the others will actually do something positive to set the country ahead.

The unmitigated disaster of the current administration was developed solely by policy wonks and hacks who used him and his father's connection to get themselves back into power and leveraged the trust they had from GWB and the puppetmaster Dick Cheney to ensure their will was carried out. If that's standard continues, I'd rather the guy who doesn't have all of the nasty connections and links to past blunders, than the two who have deeper roots than a forest there.

But that's just one view of many, many others...

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

willing to admit that the GOP has a shot at this, running the most modern liberal non-Yankee Republican in history for national office.

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

Well that's before the parties shifted. Even the interpretation of liberal back then was different. I mean, black folks were still voting for Republicans at that point. So we're talking post-1960s modern liberal.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well that's before the parties shifted. Even the interpretation of liberal back then was different. I mean, black folks were still voting for Republicans at that point. So we're talking post-1960s modern liberal.

Point taken.

Interestingly, JFK would probably be considered a moderate republican in this era. Tax cuts, a strong national defense and smaller federal government were three of his largest priorities. Brother Ted's philosophy would probably be alien to JFK at this point.

[JPhillips]

This is a little off track, but let's not play the Kennedy would be a Republican game. Given some of the things he tried to pass as President he wouldn't be nearly as alienated from his brother as you'd like. Remember he pushed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a domestic program called the New Frontier that included massive spending for education, medical care and recession relief. He started a massive new government program to get to the moon. He sent federal marshals to Ole Miss. Proposed an overhaul of immigration to let in more immigrants from Latin America. In fact, most of his domestic policies would be seen as heretical in the modern Republican party.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

Bush the Elder, too.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mac: On the 9/11 stuff, it's fairly common to hear conservative evangelicals blame 9/11 on America's lack of morals and/or faith. Why is that not out of bounds but drawing ties between foriegn policy and 9/11 is?

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Wright is occasionally making speeches that would not be out of place from Osama bin Laden. That a man who would be President of the US refuses to disassociate himself from him and even calls him his "spiritual mentor" is political suicide. If Obama gets away with this I look forward to see him walk on water

In another context Obama's speech may well have been a great one but in this context much of it is a smoke screen. His delineation of America's race problem, again in another context would be excellent, but in this context it's a thinly disguised attempt to give some credibility to Wright's rhetoric. His supporters may not see it that way - hell some of them would have been happy with a recitation of Three Blind Mice - but others less inclined to allow him so much rope see it as yet another politician who refuses to admit he got something wrong. It's bad judgement, bad politics and stubborn insistence on righteousness.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Wright is occasionally making speeches that would not be out of place from Osama bin Laden. That a man who would be President of the US refuses to disassociate himself from him and even calls him his "spiritual mentor" is political suicide. If Obama gets away with this I look forward to see him walk on water

John Howard on Line 1.

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

[Buccaneer]

Regarding the polls for the general, why don't they do it by electoral votes?

[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?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Regarding the polls for the general, why don't they do it by electoral votes?

They don't do it implicitly, but if you break down the state polls, McCain has a substantial lead in the electoral college right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

Umm ... wouldn't that be "apparently isn't a big deal to those who were planning to or will vote for him"?

Point being, just because it doesn't bother some doesn't mean that it isn't a serious concern for others.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Remember he pushed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a domestic program called the New Frontier that included massive spending for education, medical care and recession relief. He started a massive new government program to get to the moon. He sent federal marshals to Ole Miss. Proposed an overhaul of immigration to let in more immigrants from Latin America.

The only thing heretical to the Republican Party is the medical care part. Other than that, Republicans have espoused at different times.

I am a die hard Republican and my big thing with immigration is that none of the current laws on the books are enforced. If we aren't going to enforce the law, why pass new ones?

Also, Nixon was for the SALT II treaty I believe.

[Buccaneer]

If we aren't going to enforce the law, why pass new ones?

Because 1) you have to keep the politicians busy so they can get re-elected and 2) you have the keep the bureacrats busy so you can justify non-zero-based budgeting.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

John Howard on Line 1.

You should worry because:

1) I voted against John Howard just a few months ago
2) I would be voting Democrat at the next Presidential election if I were American

ie I am politically and temperamentally on Obama's side.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

That is astonishingly self delusional. It's not going away - McCain is recording every minute of this

What Obama needs from his supporters now is not blind sycophancy but wise counsel about really putting this to bed before it finishes him.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

What Obama needs from his supporters now is not blind sycophancy but wise counsel about really putting this to bed before it finishes him.

Well, he certainly didn't help his cause today in Philadelphia:

Obama Helpfully Clarifies That His Grandmother Is a "Typical White Person"

In Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama confronted the remains of the Jeremiah Wright brushfire, the smoldering embers of this anecdote of his grandmother using racial stereotypes that made him cringe... and promptly spilled gasoline on those embers.

610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

National Review Online

[JPhillips]

Buc: They don't do electoral college polls because the error in many states would be so high as to invalidate the results. The most recent pol I saw was a Fox poll released today that had a polling size of 900. If they divided it by fifty you'd get 18 per state. Doing a nationwide state by state poll would be much more expensive and time consuming.

Survey USA released one of these a couple of weeks ago, and while interesting, there were a lot of head scratchers like ND going to Obama that are products of a very small sample size.

Vic: Where are these state polls that show McCain with a substantial electorl college lead? There are plenty of states that haven't been polled in weeks or months outside of the previously mentioned SUSA poll and that poll showed both Obama and Clinton beating McCain.

[JPhillips]

Well I'm sure this is nothing at all.

Two State Department employees have been fired and one more disciplined for illegally accessing Obama's passport file. Once the day after the NH primary. Once the day after the Texas debate and once the day after Wright broke. I'm sure we'll find out this was innocent just like when the exact same thing happened to Clinton in 1992.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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

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

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

When you said this, I thought that thankfully it wasn't too likely. Now I am not sure.

[Young Drachma]

Bill Richardson is going to endorse Obama today at a rally in Oregon. He needed this bad. I wonder what John Edwards is doing. Maybe he's getting a haircut. Will Hillary get Edwards to combat this pick? Or will Edwards put the nail in the coffin in a week or three with moving towards Obama too? Or is he going to continue to sit on the fence and wait for the best deal?



Story

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well I'm sure this is nothing at all.

Two State Department employees have been fired and one more disciplined for illegally accessing Obama's passport file. Once the day after the NH primary. Once the day after the Texas debate and once the day after Wright broke. I'm sure we'll find out this was innocent just like when the exact same thing happened to Clinton in 1992.

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of information is in these files and why they would be helpful to someone. What is the significance, apart from people who shouldn't have had access being able ot view them?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of information is in these files and why they would be helpful to someone. What is the significance, apart from people who shouldn't have had access being able ot view them?

At a minimum, it has his application for a passport, so that will contain personal information. I honestly forget how much in on that application--but it will contain his SS#, etc., which might make it easier to find out other stuff about him. Otherwise, I am not really sure.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Um, that's what preachers do....

Mildly related, considering I haven't heard or read anyone refute what Huckabee had to say that I quoted above, he must be right.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Um, that's what preachers do....

I have never heard a preacher discuss their views on politics or government at all, much less in "soaring rhetoric" from the pulpit.

[miked]

Man, on the way to work I was listening to V103 here in the A and they had a clip from a sermon in Harlem somewhere where the preacher basically called Obama a piece of trash and a lot of other bad things. Basically saying he wasn't really calling Obama a piece of trash, because Obama was born trash having a white mother and all. All this and he was praising Bill Clinton because of all the money he put in to rebuilding Harlem. He said he wasn't "for" the Clintons, but it was silly for all the black people to turn their backs on him considering all he had done, and openly embrace Obama considering he had done nothing for his people. It was sort of surreal if you took it in the context of a church sermon.

[miked]

Dola...link to the speech is here:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=related

[Ksyrup]

That's the Mac Daddy sermon. He said two things I can guarantee I've never heard in a church - '54 double-D' and 'tits.'

Joking aside, though, it saddens me to see that something like that is the norm for certain churches. How that guy has any credibility to preach the word of God after calling someone a pimp and piece of trash, is beyond me. And why people would sit there and listen to it, too. Again, that goes back to the Obama thing. If the next Obama is sitting in that guy's congregation, how does he explain sitting there and listening to that 10-20 years from now? I don't care how much good that guy does in the community, there's no justification for using the pulpit to say things, in the name of God, that would probably get someone boxed on a messageboard.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by miked

Dola...link to the speech is here:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=related

That guy isn't a real preacher. The reason you never see his congregation is because he doesn't really have one. He's one of those internet inventions who create sermons and post them on the internet for one reason or another, for reasons that one can't quite put a finger on. He's not the only one, there are lots of them out there.

It's not anything to take seriously anymore than you'd take a Pauly Shore movie as indicative of the average person's life.
This is some guy who decided to call himself a pastor and be done with it. He's not a scholar, he's never been to school to study nary a thing and it'd be no different if we made our own YouTube video doing the same thing.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I have never heard a preacher discuss their views on politics or government at all, much less in "soaring rhetoric" from the pulpit.

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.

If that's considered boring to you, then it sounds like we've got differing views on what a church service is supposed to focus on. I don't want or care about a minister's opinions on who I should or shouldn't vote for, or what legislation is or is not proper, or whether a war is or is not justified. I go to church to worship, not be told how God thinks I should vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

It's actually quite dangerous to do that from a financial standpoint. A church leader could ruin his church's tax exempt status if he were to go too far in a political diatribe.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.

If that's considered boring to you, then it sounds like we've got differing views on what a church service is supposed to focus on. I don't want or care about a minister's opinions on who I should or shouldn't vote for, or what legislation is or is not proper, or whether a war is or is not justified. I go to church to worship, not be told how God thinks I should vote.

And I'm not talking current events per se. You can't have a conversation about say, the book of Romans without delving into the proper role of government. Not possible.

In my experience, the stories are never so specific like the examples you cite. It's like every other church; you should live this way, here's why. The difference is, our esteemed politicians will get name dropped here and there and sometimes offered the chance to say a few words to the congregation. At least in the south, that's common throughout the larger churches, black and white alike.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

When you said this, I thought that thankfully it wasn't too likely. Now I am not sure.

Yup, he's going off the dep end. That said, I'm not sure it's enough. I don't think it's enough to sway OR or NC voters at all. Which means my end game scenario still exists. Obama will win the popular vote, the state vote and the standard delegate vote. If Hillary takes it from him by the supers, many african american voters will feel they have been wronged. At best they'll stay home and not vote. At worst they'll cast a vote for Nader, Green Party or even McCain.

On the other side, I'm not sure I'd put five bucks on Obama winning the GE. This is an issue that will fester and won't go away. McCain is going to hammer home the experience card. He won't even have to work this story in because the media and right wingers will not let it go. That means Obama has to run the PERFECT campaign to win. No more scandals. He can't afford anymore stupid comments (ummm, Mr. Obama, I strongly suggest you keep your mouth shut about "typical white people")

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

And I'm not talking current events per se. You can't have a conversation about say, the book of Romans without delving into the proper role of government. Not possible.

In my experience, the stories are never so specific like the examples you cite. It's like every other church; you should live this way, here's why. The difference is, our esteemed politicians will get name dropped here and there and sometimes offered the chance to say a few words to the congregation. At least in the south, that's common throughout the larger churches, black and white alike.

That's why I specifically mentioned government in the general sense as opposed to specifics. The examples I cite are relevant because that's what we're talking about here. Wright, the Mac Daddy dude, and others apparently think it is appropriate to discuss these things. I do not.

I've lived most of my life in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and now Kentucky. Rarely, if ever, (I can't think of any, but I'm only waffling because I don't know for sure), has a politician's name ever come up at a church function I have attended, let alone in the preacher's sermon.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Yup, he's going off the dep end. That said, I'm not sure it's enough. I don't think it's enough to sway OR or NC voters at all. Which means my end game scenario still exists. Obama will win the popular vote, the state vote and the standard delegate vote. If Hillary takes it from him by the supers, many african american voters will feel they have been wronged. At best they'll stay home and not vote. At worst they'll cast a vote for Nader, Green Party or even McCain.

On the other side, I'm not sure I'd put five bucks on Obama winning the GE. This is an issue that will fester and won't go away. McCain is going to hammer home the experience card. He won't even have to work this story in because the media and right wingers will not let it go. That means Obama has to run the PERFECT campaign to win. No more scandals. He can't afford anymore stupid comments (ummm, Mr. Obama, I strongly suggest you keep your mouth shut about "typical white people")

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

In the general, Obama gets the benefit of getting to bring the war back into focus again. It has been pushed aside as the two democrats fight it out. But in the general, Obama (or Hillary) gets to remind everyone of how much they hate the Bush administration and how much McCain should remind them of the Bush administration, especially when it comes to the war. That will balance things out.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

I'd be happy to take any bet on that that you'd like to place

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well I'm sure this is nothing at all.

Two State Department employees have been fired and one more disciplined for illegally accessing Obama's passport file. Once the day after the NH primary. Once the day after the Texas debate and once the day after Wright broke. I'm sure we'll find out this was innocent just like when the exact same thing happened to Clinton in 1992.

I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.

I'm in the same boat. I attend church less than I did a while back, but I've been to churches in the "Bible belt", other areas of the midwest and a number out here in Arizona. Never once have I heard a political leader mentioned, voting preferences, ballot initiatives or even comments on abortion. It seems to me that the quickest way to have congregations walk out on you and go to the church down the street would be to expound heavy political ideology in your sermons. Most non-angry people don't want to go to church to be told how terrible everyone else is, they want to go to hear better ways to live their lives and improve upon the lives of their children.

[JPhillips]

Cam: I'd agree that it could be Hillary supporters. My guess is that it was generally independent folks hoping to find something embarassing or catch Obama in a lie that they could post about. It's just very hard for me to trust this admin given the multitude of incidences where they've used the apparatuses of the government for partisan advantage.

In the end what's probably more worrisome is how it wasn't reported properly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.

I agree here. If you look at a vast majority of "anti-Bush" leaks, they come from the state department. Of all the areas within the administration to see a republican-based spying effort, the state department would be the last place I would look.

[Grammaticus]

Apparently, the two that got fired were contractors.

[Ksyrup]

Not to mention, if it was some sort of organized effort, why would they need to go back multiple times?

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup and Arles: I'm in no way doubting your experiences, but you have to know that pastors both left and right are talking politics every Sunday. The Christian Coalition has been using churches for a couple of decades. Black churches have been mixing in politics prominently since at least the civil rights era. A lot of megachurches with TV minitries attached, Hagee, World Harvest, etc. mix in politics and they have millions of attendees/viewers.