U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Nice to see Johnny Mac thinking big.

Sen. John McCain "and his aides are already thinking about which states to target in the fall and one tops the list: California." According to USA Today, McCain believes that "his outlook on such issues as the environment" and the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "will be a help in the traditionally blue state."

---

Yeah, another thing to love about McCain- he drinks the global warming kool-aid. That'll help our economy. :no:

Latest on the Drudge Report:
TEXAS
OBAMA 676,553 50%
CLINTON 661,234 49%

Hillary's edging up over the last few updates.

EDIT: Update:
TEXAS
OBAMA 686,166 49%
CLINTON 678,440 49%

The Abyss claws closer to Obama:
TEXAS
OBAMA 701,429 49%
CLINTON 696,635 49%

OHIO
CLINTON 600,801 57%
OBAMA 438,215 41%

The fearsome beast takes the upper hand!
TEXAS
CLINTON 731,235 49%
OBAMA 723,944 49%

CR

Hillary will be the next President of the United States. I have been consistently calling it and I am utterly convinced. She has a pact with Satan and nothing can stop her.

PS - drudge doesn't keep good polls. Fox gets them in more accurately for some reason. Pretty much everything else he gets first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Congratulations to Mr. McCain for officially sewing up the Republican nomination.

---

Take her easy - he didn't so much "win" as conservatives "lost"

It's kind of like saying saying James P Hoffa "Won" the presidency of the teamsters, when in reality Carey was just barred from the post because of his personal failures.

McCain blows. That guy will lose and the G.O.P. will be better for it.

Anyone who is a Huckabee supporter is looking between McCain and Clinton, and would prefer McCain.

Obama supporters dislike Hillary intensely to moderately, and would be willing to embrace McCain more than Hillary.

Besides, the numbers don't really matter in Texas, due to their 'unique' primary system. Obama could lose the popular vote but win the delegates.

So it looks like we'll drag on past tonight, despite the fact that hillary has ~0% chance of winning the pledged delegates. Let's hope the superdelegates aren't stupid.

I wonder if obama really has those 50 superdelegates ready to pledge to him?

The superdelegates will vote in their best interests. If they aren't able to be re-elected, they might vote for the highest bidder. They could vote however they wish, and while they may theoretically be 'accountable to the people', they'll vote in their best interests.

Clinton pulls ahead in Texas:

CLINTON 772,543 50%
OBAMA 753,832 49%

Looks like she'll stay in the race.

CR

So who's the candidate of identity politics? According to the exit polls, people who said that race or gender mattered to them went overwhelmingly for Clinton. People who said that race and gender were not a big deal went for Obama.

Make of it what you will ...

-edit-

And of course, congratulations to McCain for sewing up the Republican nomination!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And of course, congratulations to McCain for sewing up the Republican nomination!

---

Booooooooo

DAD GUMMIT:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Booooooooo

---

:laugh4:

It will be interesting to see who gets the most delegates in Texas, because from what I have read the larger districts are more pro-Obama.

Ohio (141 delegates total):
Clinton 1,080,439 55% 59 Winner
Obama 842,994 43% 35

Texas(193 delegates total):
Clinton 1,302,460 51% 46 Winner
Obama 1,207,222 47% 35

More delegates to come of course.

Overall, Hillary's about 90 delegates behind Obama (out of 1400), with 16 states to go along with super delegates as yet uncommitted.

For updates go here:
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign...corecard.shtml

Odd that Texas counts so much in the democratic primary.

CR

Looking at the precinct maps, it looks like in the Dem primaries of RI, TX and OH, Clinton won pretty much the entire map while Obama won the major cities.

McCain won everything everywhere in the Republican one.

Did anyone else found it funny has hell....that the Jack Nicholson support video for Hilary used a clip from "A few good men" where Col. Jessep is saying that there is nothing sexier than a woman you have to salute...but they cut out right in a moment where Jessep is about to say that if a woman would be elected president he´d get a bj from her???

I just started laughing uncontrollably at that :laugh4: was it just me?

well...anyway congrats to McCain for his 2 victories yesterday.....getting the nomination and having Hilary make a come back....because let´s face it...if Hilary gets the nomination McCain has the presidency locked.

Obama must win at least 77% of the remaining pledged delegates and Clinton must win 94%

I like the idea that the two candidates must now rely on the super delegates to win this.

Chaos. The Dems are definitely keeping this interesting. The convention is going to be must-see TV. :yes:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Mar06.html

No nomination for you Billary!

For those who can't be bothered to read it, Hillary came out with only about 10 more delegates than Obama.

Yeah. Her chances of picking up either a pledged delegate lead or a popular vote lead are basically zilch. Especially since if Michigan does revote it will be a caucus.

I'll be curious to see if the MSM picks up on the deepening (perhaps I should way widening?) of the Rezko business.

Well, at least for the Dem's this time there will be no whining about "our state primary is in late May so it's already over by the time we can even vote."

If Clinton does not withdraw from the race prior to Pennsyvania, Obama will not achieve enough pledged delegates out of 3253 to win outright.

OTOH, unless Obama concedes TODAY, Clinton cannot either. Clinton cannot win outright among pledged delagates unless BOTH MI and FL are credentialled at the current numbers AND she wins 80% of the remaining delegates (won't happen without an immediate withdrawal by Obama).

THIS IS GOING TO THE CONVENTION.

We're headed into a partially brokered convention where the candidate is likely to be determined on the basis of old-fashioned retail politics among the 796 superdelegates. I think Clinton has a slight advantage in this category -- She and President Clinton have about 20 years worth of connections each with that group, so we may not even get a clear result here.

SO how's this for a thought....

With 26 delegates whom only HE can release --

John Edwards, Kingmaker.


THis year is nothing if not entertaining! :devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clinton

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

---

She think holding a caucus where both candidates can be voted for disenfranchises all the people who voted when she was the only person on the ballot :dizzy2:

She clearly doesn't give a :daisy: :daisy: about the voters she just wants as many delegates as she can get. Very scummy.

A really wonderful piece by Peggy Noonan. She is a great writer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN

Over the Top
March 7, 2008
link


From the first voting in Iowa on Jan. 3 she had to prove that Clintons Are Magic. She wound up losing 11 in a row. Meaning Clintons aren't magic. He had to take her out in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday or Junior Tuesday. He didn't. Meaning Obama isn't magic.

Two nonmagical beings are left.

What the Democrats lost this week was the chance to paint the '08 campaign as a brilliant Napoleonic twinning of strategy and tactics that left history awed. What they have instead is a ticket to Verdun. Trench warfare, and the daily, wearying life of the soldier under siege. The mud, the cold, the dank water rotting the boots, all of it punctuated by mad cries of "Over the top," bayonets fixed.
[Over the Top]
M.E. Cohen

Do I understate? Not according to the bitter officers debating doomed strategy back in HQ. More on that in a minute.

This is slightly good for John McCain. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hemorrhage money, exhaust themselves, bloody each other. He holds barbecues for the press and gets rid of a White House appearance in which the incumbent offers his dread embrace. Do it now, they'll forget by the summer. The president does not understand how unpopular he is and after a year on the trail with the faithful neither does Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush confided to a friend a few months ago, as he predicted a Giuliani win, that he'll eventually come out and campaign for the nominee big time. Talk about throwing the drowning man an anvil.

But it is not good for Mr. McCain that when he officially won this week it barely made page three. The lightning is on the Democratic side. Everything else seems old, like something that happened a year ago that you forgot to notice.

How did Hillary come back? Her own staff doesn't know. They fight over it because if they don't know how she carried Ohio and Texas they can't repeat the strategy.

So they figure backward. She won on Tuesday and did the following things in the weeks before, so . . . it was the kitchen-sink strategy. Or Hispanic outreach. Or the 3 a.m. ad. (The amazing thing was not that they lifted the concept from Walter Mondale's '84 run, but that the answer to the question "Who are you safer with?" was, The Woman. Not that people really view Hillary as a woman, but still: That would not have been the answer even 20 years ago.)

Did she come back because Mr. Obama's speech got a little boring? Was he coasting and playing it safe? Or was it that he didn't hit her hard enough? "He hasn't been able to find a way to be tough with a woman opponent," they say on TV. But that's not it, or is only half the truth. The other half is that it has long been agreed in the Democratic Party that one must not, one cannot, ever, refer to the long caravan of scandals that have followed the Clintons for 15 years. "We don't speak of the Clintons that way."

But why not? Everyone else does. Yes, the Obama sages will respond, that's the point: Everyone knows about cattle futures, etc. Everyone knows that if you Yahoo "Clintons" and "scandals" you get 4,430,000 hits.

But what if they do need to be reminded? What if they need to be told exactly what Mr. Obama means when he speaks of the tired old ways of Washington?

But voicing the facts would violate party politesse. So he loses the No. 1 case against her. But by losing the No. 1 case, he loses the No. 2 case: that she is the most divisive figure in the country, and that this is true because people have reason to view her as dark, dissembling, thuggish.

* * *

One Obama supporter on Root.com apparently didn't get the memo. That is the great threat to the Clintons, the number of young and independent Democrats who haven't received the memo about how Democrats speak of the Clintons. Writer Mark Q. Sawyer: "If Obama won't hit back, I will. Why aren't we talking about impeachment, Whitewater and Osama?"

What do I think is the biggest reason Mrs. Clinton came back? She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

In any case the Clinton campaign, which has always been more vicious than clever, this week did a very clever thing. They pre-empted any criticism of past scandals by pushing a Democratic Party button called . . . the Monica story. Mr. Obama is "imitating Ken Starr" by speaking of Mrs. Clinton's record, said Howard Wolfson. But Ken Starr documented malfeasance. Mr. Obama can't even mention it.

* * *

Back to Verdun. There a bitter officer corps debated a strategy of pointless carnage—so many deaths, so little seized terrain, all of it barren. In a bark-stripping piece of reportage in the Washington Post, Peter Baker and Anne Kornblut captured "a combustible environment" in Hillary Headquarters. They cannot agree on what to do, or even what has been done in the past. And the dialogue. Blank you. Blank you! No blank you, you blank. Blank all of you. It's like David Mamet rewritten by Joe Pesci.

These are the things that make life worth living.

As for the Clinton surrogates, they are unappealing when winning. My favorite is named Kiki. When Hillary is losing, Kiki is valiant and persevering on the talk shows, and in a way that appeals to one's sympathies. "Go, Kiki!" I want to say as she parries with Tucker. But when Hillary is winning they're all awful, including Kiki. By memory, from Tucker, this week: Q: Why won't Hillary release her tax returns? A: It's February. Taxes are due April 15, are your taxes done? Q: No, no, we're talking past years, returns that have already been prepared. A: Are your taxes done? Mine aren't.

Wicked Kiki! This is my great fear, in a second Clinton era: four, eight years of wicked Kiki.

I end with a deadly, deadpan prediction from Christopher Hitchens. Hillary is the next president, he told radio's Hugh Hewitt, because, "there's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power . . . people who don't want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."

It was like Claude Rains summing up the meaning of everything in the film "Lawrence of Arabia": "One of them's mad and the other is wholly unscrupulous." It's the moment when you realize you just heard the truth, the meaning underlying all the drama. "They win in the end." Gave me a shudder.

It's a good article, for sure.

I find it extraordinary that Democrats are still voting for Hilliary. The raw desire for power at any cost (more acute in her than almost any other politician I have seen - aside perhaps from Charlie Haughey) is utterly repellent. After the division caused under her husband's watch, and then furthered by the Bush years, I would fear for the United States should she be elected - but I am equally sure she will not be.

McCain will eviscerate her, with the very tools she has deployed against Obama and her own side - in the unlikely event of her getting the nomination. The 3 am advert? Just imagine the replay from McCain's side. (I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the ad, when Hilliary went to pick up the phone my first thought was - it's Bill's minder phoning home to make some excuse about "work" while he's out chasing tail at all hours). I am amazed that any Democrat buys the Hilliary experience thing - just what experience are we talking about? She's held no executive position, and been in the Senate barely longer than Obama.

The Democratic Party may not want to mention the Clinton years, but the Republicans sure as hell will. To my mind, the only good thing about the protracted fight is that Obama's team will get toughened up and tested before the real fight.

But it says a lot about the Democrats that they are doing their very level best to throw away what should be the dead cert chance of the White House. I'd even say I'd prefer Bush to stay rather than see Hilliary win the presidency, so much has her campaign sickened and repelled me - at least George has some integrity - albeit a different code from mine, but you can see he believes in some things.

If Sen. Obama loses the nomination, he'd be a fool to run with Hilliary as her Veep. Wait for her to be trashed and stand again when the Clinton fanboys have finally passed away.

Quote:

---

What do I think is the biggest reason Mrs. Clinton came back? She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

---

~:eek: That's the most damning indictment of Hillary I've seen yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's a good article, for sure.

I find it extraordinary that Democrats are still voting for Hilliary. The raw desire for power at any cost (more acute in her than almost any other politician I have seen - aside perhaps from Charlie Haughey) is utterly repellent. After the division caused under her husband's watch, and then furthered by the Bush years, I would fear for the United States should she be elected - but I am equally sure she will not be.

McCain will eviscerate her, with the very tools she has deployed against Obama and her own side - in the unlikely event of her getting the nomination. The 3 am advert? Just imagine the replay from McCain's side. (I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the ad, when Hilliary went to pick up the phone my first thought was - it's Bill's minder phoning home to make some excuse about "work" while he's out chasing tail at all hours). I am amazed that any Democrat buys the Hilliary experience thing - just what experience are we talking about? She's held no executive position, and been in the Senate barely longer than Obama.

The Democratic Party may not want to mention the Clinton years, but the Republicans sure as hell will. To my mind, the only good thing about the protracted fight is that Obama's team will get toughened up and tested before the real fight.

But it says a lot about the Democrats that they are doing their very level best to throw away what should be the dead cert chance of the White House. I'd even say I'd prefer Bush to stay rather than see Hilliary win the presidency, so much has her campaign sickened and repelled me - at least George has some integrity - albeit a different code from mine, but you can see he believes in some things.

If Sen. Obama loses the nomination, he'd be a fool to run with Hilliary as her Veep. Wait for her to be trashed and stand again when the Clinton fanboys have finally passed away.

---

I agree - Obama would need merely to have ANY woman on the ticket to disarm the feminist criticism that would ensue from his victory.

I would disagree that Clinton is a sure loss and would also disagree with any notion that Obama is a sure win. Clinton, if nothing else, has experience when it comes to arm-twisting and putting up tough political fights. On the other hand, Obama has only endured light criticism thus far and it remains to be seen how well he'll hold up under the stronger attacks that he would undoubtedly see from the GOP.

My prediction is that he'll crumble... but as I've said, it remains to be seen. :juggle2:

Also, as cool as conservatives are to McCain, that's likely to be nothing compared to the upset Democrats who will result from whoever eventually wins a drawn out primary fight that's likely to go all the way to the convention and be decided in stereotypical back room deals. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

She clearly doesn't give a :daisy: :daisy: about the voters she just wants as many delegates as she can get. Very scummy.

---

With that phrasing, Sasaki-san, I almost expected you to finish with VOTE: Hilary Clinton -- but I guess that would be the opposite of your point. :devilish:

The idea that he'll crumble from attacks by the GOP is ridiculous. Hillary has dug up every single bad thing about him. In fact, her entire strategy since New Hamphire seems to be that of a playground bully. Throw sand in his face and punch him continuosly until he finally gets sick of it and hits back once, then run to a teacher(superdelegates) and tell on him. I don't know about y'all but I don't want that kind of person in charge of our country.

The 'Pubs have nothing left to throw at him.

Great article, Tuff. I think that summarizes the campaign very nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

The idea that he'll crumble from attacks by the GOP is ridiculous.

---

Indeed, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that John McCain is a more dangerous political opponent than the Clintons. Just roll that thought around for a while and you'll see how absurd it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I would disagree that Clinton is a sure loss and would also disagree with any notion that Obama is a sure win. Clinton, if nothing else, has experience when it comes to arm-twisting and putting up tough political fights. On the other hand, Obama has only endured light criticism thus far and it remains to be seen how well he'll hold up under the stronger attacks that he would undoubtedly see from the GOP.

My prediction is that he'll crumble... but as I've said, it remains to be seen. :juggle2:

Also, as cool as conservatives are to McCain, that's likely to be nothing compared to the upset Democrats who will result from whoever eventually wins a drawn out primary fight that's likely to go all the way to the convention and be decided in stereotypical back room deals. :yes:

---

That's exactly why it won't be decided by back room deals. The superdelegates aren't stupid. Obama will have a lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Michigan is going to have a caucus which clinton will lose badly.

Quote:

---

With that phrasing, Sasaki-san, I almost expected you to finish with VOTE: Hilary Clinton -- but I guess that would be the opposite of your point.

---

Well I'm certainly not going to select her...

Especially given the fact that I've seen the error of my ways and become a republican

Both Obama and McCain have the advantage of presenting themselves as politically somewhat clean, and to be honest by and large they are. The problem for Obama is that where McCain is clean through consistent views and a long track-record as an experienced honest politician, Obama is clean because thus far, he has nothing to his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Indeed, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that John McCain is a more dangerous political opponent than the Clintons. Just roll that thought around for a while and you'll see how absurd it is.

---

:dizzy2:
Obama and Hillary have little to criticize each other on. Neither is going to attack their policy positions when both of them are pushing similar platforms. This will not be the case in the general election. One of the reasons Clinton is taking a beating is because of her more moderate (past) positions on free trade, Iraq, and others. Obama's consistently liberal positions are an asset to him in the primaries, but that strength will become a weakness in the general election when his opponents set out to paint him as the far left liberal candidate.

Seeing how absurd your statement is yet? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's exactly why it won't be decided by back room deals. The superdelegates aren't stupid. Obama will have a lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Michigan is going to have a caucus which clinton will lose badly.

---

This still isn't changing the fact that the super delegates will decide the outcome and it's going to leave roughly half the Democrat primary voters unhappy with the result.

Where are you hearing that Michigan is going to have a caucus? I don't see that happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Seeing how absurd your statement is yet?

---

Not in the slightest. Of course the lines of differentiation will be different in the general; that does nothing to change the fact that the Clintons are skilled, dangerous, and never give up. They're like zombies, except that removing the head or destroying the brain will not necessarily stop them.

As far as attack lines for the general, there will be plenty for both sides to play with. Whatever extremist poses the Dems have struck in the primary will need to be weighed against where and how McCain will distance himself from a supremely unpopular President. You're a True Believer, so I expect you only see the debits on the Dem side, but if you can't take the blinders off, just try to widen them a little. The general will be competitive, with plenty of baggage on both sides.

All of which does nothing to negate the sheer ferocity with which a Clinton will seek, gain and hold power. I expect that Hillary is fully aware that her chance at the nomination is an outside shot now; she's looking at 2012. Damage Obama as much as possible in key states such as Pennsylvannia, hand McCain as many tested lines of attack as possible, then sweep into power in four years.

-edit-

I guess my thoughts above aren't exactly original. Others are drawing the same conclusions:

Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried. [...]

She and her numerous supporters will view this as a repudiation of Obama, not Clinton. If he loses the general election as a result of this, it will prove her right all along—that the only way to further the Democratic agenda is to beat the Republicans at their game.

Ok, so now you're agreeing with me? Like I said, I think Obama's campaign will come apart in the general election. There's no doubt that he'll come under stronger attacks- all Hillary has managed are some pathetic gotchyas. If you really think that Hillary is undermining Obama on the left, then he'll fall all the harder once his policies are contrasted with the more conservative McCain.

And no, I still don't like any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Where are you hearing that Michigan is going to have a caucus? I don't see that happening.

---

Yeah, I don't either, and I live in Michigan (well, my home is there, and I'm currently there right now).

Anyway, i keep hearing on the radio that the only way Michigan will redo its primary is if someone donates 10 mil to the state.

Obama Wins Wyoming

18 Delegates hey? They must be the only Democrats in all of Wyoming :laugh4:

Good article about the Dem race: Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac.

Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac

March 7, 2008

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

Interesting side-story about the "3 a.m. Telephone" ad. Seems it was shot as stock footage 9 years ago, originally for use with a railroad company commercial.

And the "sleeping" 8-year old girl portrayed, is now, in real-life, a 17-soon-to-be-18 year old Obama supporter.

8 more months of this. It's crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Interesting side-story about the "3 a.m. Telephone" ad. Seems it was shot as stock footage 9 years ago, originally for use with a railroad company commercial.

And the "sleeping" 8-year old girl portrayed, is now, in real-life, a 17-soon-to-be-18 year old Obama supporter.

8 more months of this. It's crazy.

---

Haha, that's awesome!

If you HOPE for CHANGE (regardless of apparent absence of substance):

Barack should be the choice of the pivotal superdelegate votes because he's won more states, won more pledged delegates, raised more money, and just comes over more charming.

If you don't want Barack, WHY DO YOU HATE HOPE?! :devilish:



If you're "hot for Hil" than you want Hilary to be the choice of the pivotal superdelegate votes because she's won the races in the states the DEMS must take from the GOP to win in November, demonstrated enough resolve for 3 presidencies, and clearly is not afraid of taking a punch politically. Woman doesn't understand "quit" unless its in reference to a dominant military strategy.


If you're not "hot for Hil," vote for her anyway, because Bill needs her away from Chapaqua....:wiseguy:

I'm really loving all of the articles coming out attacking the Clintons as monsters and "a Horror film that never ends"

notably Noonan, Hitchens, Sullivan, Dowd, etc.

FINALLY the people are talking about how absurd it is.


PS - MITT ROMNEY VP '08!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

PS - MITT ROMNEY VP '08!!!!!!!!!!

---

Don't think so TSM. Florida's governor or that lass from Ohio. Those are the swing states Johnny MUST have to win and Romney doesn't poll particularly strongly in either.

Add in the degree of loathing many of the establishment have for him -- which perplexes me, personally -- and I think your lad is out of contention.

This is pretty hilarious. So first Hillary bangs the drum that Obama is not ready for executive power. Then she screams that she wants him for her VP, even though I guess he's not ready for it. Then this:

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesman, said during a conference call with reporters that Clinton would not pick a running mate who has not met the “national security threshold” — as Clinton’s military advisers and Wolfson put it on the call — but that it is possible Obama could meet that threshold by this summer's Democratic convention.

In other words, once Hillary has the nomination, in three months Obama will magically be able to pass the "national security threshold." I guess he'll have to go to night classes or something.

These campaign ads are just getting trippier. Here's McCain's latest -- it's pretty good, but I'm unclear on what the images of galaxies and nebulae have to do with being POTUS. And the Churchill comparison isn't as apt as could be -- I'm sure if Al Qaeda wanted to fight us on the streets, we'd be overjoyed. And we'd win in about one hour. The whole problem of a terrorist opponent is that he does not want to fight you on the beaches, in the hills, on the streets, etc.

will.i.am has another Obama video, rather less interesting than the first one. Boring, in fact. The whole thing looks and feels like a testimonial to the power of the Gap. Or Axe Body Spray, but then, the Axe ads are much funnier.

No interesting videos from Hillary this week. I assume everybody's seen the unspeakably creepy Jack Nicholson video ...

so it looks like Obama won mississippi tonight, no surprise there.

What i thought was interesting is the the other results that cnn is projecting Obama won the most delegates in Texas with the caucus results added to the primary results. link - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ign/index.html

They said he won 99 delegates to the 94 that Clinton won. Interesting, i wonder how this will get spun by the media? Did Clinton lose Texas, or did Obama reap the benefits of the wacky Texas system?


I think it's great, it's just karma kicking Billary's butt once again, this time for that use of the dirty 3 a.m. add.

Congratulations Barack.

PS - Romney's page is back up at www.mittromney.com

There has been a bit of jabber about him being picked for VP - I'm gonna put my money on him. I'M TOTALLY PSYCHED!

I'll campaign hard for him and McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Congratulations Barack.

PS - Romney's page is back up at www.mittromney.com

There has been a bit of jabber about him being picked for VP - I'm gonna put my money on him. I'M TOTALLY PSYCHED!

I'll campaign hard for him and McCain.

---

Just out of interest how do you think Romney as VP would improve McCain ? would there be a change of McCain's policys with Romney or is it just someone you trust share some values with being in influence ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Just out of interest how do you think Romney as VP would improve McCain ? would there be a change of McCain's policys with Romney or is it just someone you trust share some values with being in influence ?

---

They are very different people.

Romney has had executive experience in both the private and public sectors - McCain is lacking there. (so are the 2 dem candidates)

Romney fundamentally understands Economics - McCain has literally said he isn't too great with it. (neither are the 2 dem candidates)

Romney has a more traditional political style and has made quite a few friends in a short period of time - McCain is a bit gruff.

Romney is observant of his religious obligations and has been married to the same woman for his entire married life - McCain may hurt from the past divorce with traditionalists. (Obama has only been married once)

Romney is young and healthy looking with a consummate speaking style - McCain looks like a codger and seems like he is reading off of cue cards. (Obama is charismatic and pleasant looking)

Both are moderate Republicans who want to conserve what works and discard what doesn't in favor of true progression. Romney is better at reaching out to grassroots conservatives and McCain is better at reaching out to Independents.

Independents tend to be the deciding factor in elections - but only if you have your house in order. Romney has shown himself to be pretty good at uniting conservatives after 8 years of an unpopular "conservative" in the white house.

I think that Romney has serious skills that would be a huge benefit to McCain. Supposedly Romney is very likable face to face, so I think that their past difficulties would be more political than personal. My ire over McCain has died down since he became the nominee.

Who knows - the G.O.P. seems to have a shot as of this moment - tables have turned a bit.

Interesting tidbit from the most recent primary:

With McCain's nomination secure, Republicans are increasingly voting in the Democratic primaries ... for the Clintons. Without Republicans, Obama would have won last night by 68 - 28. Who would have thought that Dixiecrats would be revived by Clintons? It could have made a bigger difference in delegates, perhaps up to ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I assume everybody's seen the unspeakably creepy Jack Nicholson video ...

---

I had noticed.....check out my post on the previous page...

post nº 335

A more in-depth look at the Republicans-for-Hillary phenomenon ...

Now that their nomination race is over, Republicans will feel freed up to vote in Democrat contests, meaning that the summons to cross party lines by Mr Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of at least 14 million, could play a significant part in deciding the next US president.

Exit polls in Texas and Ohio show that nine per cent of voters in both were self-declared Republicans.

Last week Mrs Clinton's share of that vote more than doubled. In nine previous open primaries, no more than six per cent of voters were Republicans, and Mr Obama won overwhelmingly each time, with one exception.

Laura Kreissl, an accounting professor who was volunteering at precinct 307 in Canyon, a town 20 miles south of Amarillo, said she was "stunned" when the first person she checked in said "Rush Limbaugh sent me".

"He said: 'I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode'. As I sat there for 12 hours you hear people rattling on, and a great many mentioned Rush Limbaugh," she said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A more in-depth look at the Republicans-for-Hillary phenomenon ...

Now that their nomination race is over, Republicans will feel freed up to vote in Democrat contests, meaning that the summons to cross party lines by Mr Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of at least 14 million, could play a significant part in deciding the next US president.

Exit polls in Texas and Ohio show that nine per cent of voters in both were self-declared Republicans.

Last week Mrs Clinton's share of that vote more than doubled. In nine previous open primaries, no more than six per cent of voters were Republicans, and Mr Obama won overwhelmingly each time, with one exception.

Laura Kreissl, an accounting professor who was volunteering at precinct 307 in Canyon, a town 20 miles south of Amarillo, said she was "stunned" when the first person she checked in said "Rush Limbaugh sent me".

"He said: 'I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode'. As I sat there for 12 hours you hear people rattling on, and a great many mentioned Rush Limbaugh," she said.

---

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Any Republican who would consider Hillary is the worst kind of Republican. Good Riddance.

But, cross-voting in the primaries could be to set up a more likely win in November; many Repubs think Johhny Mac can defeat Hil more easily than Barrie in the General, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

But, cross-voting in the primaries could be to set up a more likely win in November; many Repubs think Johhny Mac can defeat Hil more easily than Barrie in the General, yes?

---

yeah...I think that the republicans have something on Hilary that they haven´t brought up yet....they have some broad Bill slept with or something, and if they go against Hilary they are gonna swift-boat her with it...

Barrack scares the republicans I think, especially with the whole youth-movement thing the guy has behind him.

I think it's abundantly clear why some Republicans are supporting Clinton. But are they going the final distance and giving her money, as they did with Nader in 2000?

[A friend] passed along a brand new poll of an important mid-sized swing state. It shows McCain and Obama essentially tied, with both in the low 40's. But McCain leads HRC in the same state by 7 points. Go Hillary, go!

Going back to the whole Republicans for Hillary thing, I thought you guys might find this interesting:

Quote:

---

Here are some additional results shared by CBS News that did not make it into the column, among the roughly 9% of the Mississippi Democratic primary electorate that voted for Clinton but identify as Republicans (n=147):

* 99% are white
* 56% are female
* 47% have a college degree
* 65% report incomes of more than $50,000 a year; 17% report incomes of more than $100,000 a year
* 68% describe themselves as conservative; only 8% describe themselves as liberal

Some addtional substantive items for the same subgroup of Clinton Republicans:

* 54% said Clinton would be more likely than Obama to beat McCain, 37% said Obama would be more likely to beat McCain
* 67% rate the economy as the most important issue facing the country, 22% name the war in Iraq and 8% name the health care as most important issues
* 38% said "has the right experience" was the candidate quality that mattered most when they voted, 20% said "has the best chance to win in November," 15% said "can bring about needed change" and 14% said "cares about people like me"
* 61% thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly; 55% thought Obama attacked Clinton unfairly.
* 43% decided how they would vote in the last three days or the last week; 55% decided in the last month or before that

---

Forgot the Link

From the same poll:

• 85% find Senator McCain favorable or very favorable
• 72% find Senator Clinton not "honest and trustworthy"

Somehow I don't think they're crossing over because they really, really want to see Hillary in the White House.

-edit-

Excellent analysis of HRC's end-term strategy:

She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

And one of them is running for president!

Hussein

Bloody hell! Can someone eliminate the apostrophe from the title?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

And one of them is running for president!

Hussein

Bloody hell! Can someone eliminate the apostrophe from the title?

---

That guy, Obama's "spiritual mentor", is a huge liability for him.

Quote:

---

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

---

Unbelievable really. That meshes very nicely with Obama's hope and change rhetoric. The video of it is plays even better. :dizzy2:

Another bit of dirt that I look forward to hearing more about is Obama's million dollar earmarks that he allegedly requested in 2006 for his wife's employer.

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.

---

That's what 527s are for. McCain can publicly condemn them while they do his dirty work for him. I'm sure he knows all about it- he wrote our ridiculous campaign finance laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's what 527s are for. McCain can publicly condemn them while they do his dirty work for him. I'm sure he knows all about it- he wrote our ridiculous campaign finance laws.

---

True. The plot thickens. :holmes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.

---

How is a negative campaign EVER good for an election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

How is a negative campaign EVER good for an election?

---

Because it gets you the win.

Just listening to the news. Apparently this Obama's mentor also blamed America's moral state for the 9/11 attacks. When Falwell used the God's wrath line and blamed homosexuals, leftists gnashed their teeth and tore at their clothes until he apologized.

I don't care about some European socialist who trash talks the country (you're supposed to rag on the other team, right?) but when someone who isn't proud of their country, in less they're trying to control it, or attends these kinds of services, or does a handful of other things to show contempt for this country, then it's personal.

Truly the most liberal senator.

:gah2:

Obama said we should sing "god damn america"? That's pretty bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Obama said we should sing "god damn america"? That's pretty bad.

---

It was his spiritual mentor. The guy he took his time in distancing himself from some of the remarks he made.

Not him, his pastor.

and yeah, the fact that he still attends that church creeps me out a bit.

Here's some more Rev Jeremiah gems from a 2006 speech, as pointed out in a recent WSJ editorial:

Quote:

---

"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

---

There you go. America started the AIDS virus. Is if fair to say Obama's "spiritual mentor" has an irrational hatred of his country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Not him, his pastor.

---

Oh...

I don't care about what his pastor said. If you listen to what the special interest group leaders say, Wright's comments really don't mean much. MoveOn supports Obama fer craps sake.

When other people say things I don't tend to hold it against anyone but the one who said it. If Barack said that he agreed with him, then it would be another story.

I'm concerned about the Ferraro fiasco. She stated that Obama would not be where he is today were it not for the color of his skin just as she would have never been on the Mondale ticket were it not for her gender. On the one hand I agree with her. I'm sure that he agrees with her on some level as well.

On the other hand the statement is race baiting. It is equally true that Hillary Clinton would not be where she is were she not a woman who was married to a former President of the United States. Here accomplishments on her own steam are not really much to talk about.

It is also true that McCain being part of a family tree in the admiralty and being married to a wealthy woman with family connections would probably not be where he is today either. Not to mention the POW status.

(But McCain has more success stories in Federal government than Obama and Clinton combined.)

In other words, Ferraro's statements on behalf of Hillary Clinton (don't kid yourselves) were not fair. Obama is much more "deserving" of the top spot due to hard work under his own power and successful elected government service. He's a nominee for the presidency as a black man in a white man's country (don't kid yourselves). He should be proud of himself.

It isn't that hard to be married and use your gender to brow beat everyone. Good riddance to Ferraro - Clinton's lynch mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't care about what his pastor said. If you listen to what the special interest group leaders say, Wright's comments really don't mean much.

---

I think if McCain's lifelong religious mentor and adviser was a racist, people would care about the comments. It's not like this guy is just some crackpot who's endorsing Obama- that would be one thing. Wright is repeatedly referenced as a source of inspiration for Obama. He's gone to his church and listened to his sermons for 20yrs. He claims that Wright was the one who helped him find his faith.

You don't think people should be concerned that the guy who, according Obama himself, had tremendous influence on the his life and views is a bigoted hate-monger? :shrug:

For the sake of balance, I'll point out that McCain's "spiritual advisor" is not exactly light and sunshine:

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

Not that I really care. I don't hold McCain responsible for Rod Parsley's yearning for Wolrd War 3, 'cause I believe McCain is a sensible man.

Here's the relevant segment from Obama's book, where he discusses the influence of the church:

And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of the ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had been spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until the black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.

Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shamed about, memories more accessible than those of ancient Egypt, memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild. And if part of me continued to feel that this Sunday communion sometimes simplified our condition, that it could sometimes disguise or suppress the very real conflicts among us and would fulfill its promise only through action, I also felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.

Doesn't exactly sound like Malcolm X.

-edit-

Well, I see the man himself is addressing this kerfluffle. Why attack him secondhand when you can snipe at his own words? Enjoy.

On My Faith and My Church

by Barack Obama
Posted March 14, 2008 | 04:28 PM (EST)

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

For the sake of balance, I'll point out that McCain's "spiritual advisor" is not exactly light and sunshine:

---

It's quite a different relationship. Presumably McCain knew little of the man before accepting his endorsement and I believe McCain should have and did, condemn the comments.

It's good to see Obama finally address his pastor problem with something more than a dismissive crazy old uncle comment, but he's still being a tad disingenuous imo. He claims these statements first came to his attention during his presidential campaign- Wright's 9/11 comments were made almost 7yrs ago on the very Sunday after 9/11 and Obama never heard about it til now? He claims these deplorable comments(that were cheered by the congregation) were actually the rare exception- yet he apparently wasn't there that Sunday and never heard about such controversial remarks from fellow church-goers. Like I said, it's a tad disingenuous. We'll see if the voters buy it. :shrug:

Either way, you know someone is going to make hay with this should Obama get the nomination.

I can see an obvious upside to this business for Obama: It's impossible to simultaneously believe that he's in the thrall of a hatemongering black Christian preacher and a muslim. So who knows? This may be net positive.

From his response you could almost think that it was him who leaked that info to the press and had such a release prepared. That release seems well prepared in advance and puts his church and pastor in a positive light and indirectly himself too.

On the other hand he is very careful and vague regarding which of those statements he actually denounces. He doesn't even mention them directly, saying only "that are at issue"

Video of Obama discussing Rev. Wright on Fox news. Unfortunately, his interviewer does not look like a porn star.

-edit-

Also of interest, a colleague from the University of Chicago Law School discusses the "empty suit" in some detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I can see an obvious upside to this business for Obama: It's impossible to simultaneously believe that he's in the thrall of a hatemongering black Christian preacher and a muslim. So who knows? This may be net positive.

---

Well, they still might tie him to the Nation of Islam. Not really the same as a muslim though.:beam:

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, his interviewer does not look like a porn star.

---

Major Garrett doesn't look like a porn star?

So it seems that without dopamine we wouldn't even be talking about all of this:

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

Obama's speech about Rev. Wright.

-edit-

In the interest of balance, check out another crazy dude who was sought for support of a candidate. Have a little anti-Semitism with your lunch.