Barack Obama appears to have packaged and delivered an exceptional speech that has done much to at least soothe the concerned voices of the commentariat (as Jonathan Martin adroitly predicted) on matters relating to Obama's controversial, long-time pastor. The problem is he was speaking to the choir.
Here's why. The real story the night of Hillary Clinton's "wins" in Texas and Ohio was that she had reversed the slide of Obama eating into her bases of support as he was able to do in his convincing wins in Maryland, Virgina, and Wisconsin. On March 4th she re-established her hold on downscale white voters, women, older voters, and Latinos.
Thus, the revelations and scrutiny around the controversial behavior and abrasive comments by Jeremiah Wright were a serious problem for Obama, limiting his ability to break back into her coalition. The question then becomes did Obama do what is necessary today to reopen that possibility?
Left-of-center commenters Eli Sanders at the Stranger and Michael Crowley at the New Republic don't believe he did. They fairly note that while Obama's typically lofty and inspiring rhetoric may send young, affluent, and/or urban liberals swooning, it doesn't do much to solve the problems Obama already had with many pro-Clinton voting demographics - and sure doesn't solve the reaction of repulsion many of those same voters have at Wright's publicized remarks.
Interestingly, this actually begins to create a slightly more plausible path to the Democratic nomination for Clinton. A number of the key remaining primaries have large constituencies favorable to Clinton's current electoral strengths: Pennsylvania (4/22), Indiana (5/6), West Virginia (5/13), and Kentucky (5/22) (5/20). If Clinton crushes Obama in the same constituencies through the remaining primaries like she did on March 4th her campaign will be able to spin an obvious narrative that Barrack Obama can't win among the lunch bucket crowd - making him an obvious electoral liability in swing states galore come November.
Ultimately, this nomination battle royale for the ages will come down to Democratic superdelegates and party leaders sorting out a nomination process where no candidate wins a decisive number of pledged delegates. In that paradigm, Obama did himself some good today soothing the party elders who will hear left-of-center pundits declare his big speech a smashing success. Yet, if Clinton continues to defeat Obama handily within her current coalition she'll have a compelling argument to make that the Senator from Illinois is damaged goods against John McCain and the "Republican attack machine" (and if the Wright controversy flares any more she'll really have a case to make).
There's also another twist. Bill Clinton asserted in an interview earlier this week with Fox's Greta Van Susteren that if Democrats were using Republican rules for their primary contests - where more delegates were decided winner-take-all by Congressional District or state - then his wife would have a "prohibitive" lead in pledged delegates. Not exactly, but it makes for worthwhile analysis.
Assuming every state contest thus far in the Democratic nominating process was decided on a winner take all basis, Hillary Clinton would have a 1,335 to 1,277 lead in pledged delegates, rather than the 1,411 to 1,250 lead Obama's campaign currently estimates. Such a formulation includes giving Texas primary delegates to Clinton and Texas caucus delegates to Obama, but excludes any delegates from Florida or Michigan. Absent a re-vote, which seems increasingly unlikely in both states, even a partial seating of those large delegations would be a further boost to Clinton both in numerical and rhetorical terms.
Likewise, Clinton can argue that she has won states totaling 214 electoral votes in November, to Obama's 196. Add Florida and Michigan to Clinton's column and one can see a vigorous attempt at spin in the works. Sure, it's a bit of a stretch. But elastic political arguments aren't exactly known to trouble the Clintons.
Perhaps Obama will still win the nomination. Democratic superdelegates would certainly struggle with the idea of depriving the nomination to an inspiring African-American candidate with a pledged delegate lead. But it is increasingly clear, as even smart liberals are grasping, that Obama has a real weakness with a large constituency critical to Democratic hopes in November. You can bet Hillary Clinton and her campaign will find a way to make that case.
UPDATE: Oh, dear. When I said left-of-center pundits would love Obama's speech, I wasn't expecting the journalistic version of hardcore porn. According to the sages at the New York Times this whole episode is all over now. Obama is a transcendental genius. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. That is all.
Would anyone else like to see what happens with Pennsylvania's voting - and the resulting exit polls - like, now?
UPDATE II: Per chance, Team Clinton might use articles like this to make their point to the superdelegates.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 18, 2008 07:34 PM | Email ThisThe real story of Texas and Ohio is that Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton.
It's as simple as that.
Just like all you talk about is Clinton and Obama rather than Bomb-Bomb McCain, you don't talk about the tricks that are being played in the elections as long as they are tricks and crimes perpetrated by Republicans. Now I know why my parents switched parties from Republican to Democratic after the Watergate affair. They firmly believed honesty and integrity was more important than just winning.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on March 18, 2008 07:30 PMGot it, you still believe in conspiracy theories. Thanks for reminding us.
So, care to make a wager on the outcome in Pennsylvania where the closed primary means you can't rely on "the Republicans did it!" argument if Obama loses?
Pitcher of beer on the loser at Drinking Liberally. Deal?
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 18, 2008 07:46 PMUnfortunately for the Republicans this cycle, the lunch bucket crowd are the ones who have suffered the most under the Bush economy and the ones who have sons and daughters in Iraq. Since both of those issues have been catastrophic failures, it’s pretty hard to think they will flock to McCain for more of the same.
Like if or not, Obama will likely be the next president of the United States. Now, are you going to set about plotting the failure of his administration because you would have no Democrat succeed in office regardless of what’s best for the country, or will you reconcile and find a new path forward?
Pathetic loser.........
Hillary (US Senate-Whiner-Carpetbagger), detested by half of all voters, spews utter pablum blaming everyone elso for whatever ails anyone.
Pathetic loser.........
Carnak says a 49 state rerun of 1984 Reagan/Mondale for Johnny Mac.....
Four decades of class/gender/race envy comes back to haunt 'em, trashes the Party of hate, division, envy.
Good riddance, bad rubbish.
Posted by: Hank on March 18, 2008 08:07 PMIt will be a great pleasure to sign on this November and chide you about your wishful thinking on tonight's blog.
Everyone should read the original "Obama the 'Magic Negro,' piece by David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times--a very insightful piece. Many have heard the controversy over the Limbaugh takeoff of it, but few have read the original column.
The column attributes much of Obama's success to an ability to tap into white guilt. Whether it is by Obama's design or by happenstance Ehrenstein does not really address--it just is.
Fair or not, the Wright controversy is like the opening of the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Once the curtain is opened, it can never really be redrawn.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 18, 2008 08:26 PMI think the ignorant statements made by Michelle Obama recently become all too understandable now in light of their pastors highlight film. Saying she's never been proud of America in here adult life until her husband is doing well in a presidential run speaks volumes to her disdain for her country and is a mirror image of what Wright has spewed at his sermons. To expose your children to same idiocy shows poor judgment and certainly not the judgment necessary for the highest office in the land.
I can't trust a man that claims to signify unity in 'America' when he has a close, trusted advisor/mentor that preaches hatred of that same country, and I think I'm not alone in that thinking. Put a fork in him......he's done!
As for Hillary, She'll get the Democratic nomination and then be defeated in November by the ticket of McCain/Romney.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 18, 2008 08:31 PMThe LA Times piece is very good.
Unk is right, don't butter the popcorn just yet.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 08:40 PMIf somehow Hillary wins out over Obama in the steel cage match that the Democrats are setting up, then she is vulnerable (as we all know) and McCain probably still has a better shot at defeating her in November. She may win, but she will be exposed more for what she is really about. She will never want to appear on O'Reilly, whereas McCain will and she probably will minimize her appearance on Fox News - because the puppetmaster Soros and the moveon.org crowd will wield their influence. This plays right into the hands of rational thinking Americans, who in spite of the more blatant idiocy of the media these days and idealism of the 60's that has given way to the age of stupidity.
The question is; who will Sen. McCain select as Vice President. He is out there making hay while the Demos battle it out and will likely wait until his opponent is decided. It will be a close election, but for the good of this country, there sorely needs to be a balance of power. That's why I believe that McCain will prevail.
Posted by: KS on March 18, 2008 08:47 PMQuestion answered in post @ 11, last sentence.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 18, 2008 08:52 PMGore would only run in there was a deadlock and he cut a deal with Senator Obama. There would be a deadlock if some of the superdelegates instead of voting for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama voted for favorite sons or daughters to force a deadlock or brokered convention. The feeling would probably be that both candidates had beaten each up other too badly. This really is a brokered convention theory and puts the emphasis on a clear choice of political philosophies in the general. One may not like Global Warming, but you can't say Gore lacks experience.
On the republican side, I do not see Romney as the veep. Probably, Charlie Crist or another Southerner.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 09:01 PMI bet you can find out the answer to your question if you used the Google button. But, since the Rev. Wright has been kicked to the curb, isn't the question how Senator Obama feels about reparations? I bet you can use the Google Button for that as well.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 09:39 PMI usually get Liberty at Bulldog news in U district. It is also carried at some Barnes & Nobles. Ramsey, as you may know is Libertarian, or at least libertarian-oriented.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 18, 2008 09:40 PMIt would be no surpise that I think the speech was excellent. The bigger thing, however, is it doesn't matter now what the rantings of the people who don't care to actually research and read information care. In my mind, Obama has won. For you see, his campaign isn't about winning an election. His campaign is about changing the tone of politics and addressing the issues that those in Washington have been silent too long on. Today, he changed the tone. Win or lose, his speech today will change the future. Just like the people in the 60's that hear Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and JFK were moved into action, so today a new generation of young people have their MLK. It may take an election or two, but the old Clinton/Bush politics of divide and tear down was put out to pasture. No longer can politicians get by with side stepping the issues. They will be faced to meet the challenge head on. The young generation will not tolerate the intolerance and bigotry.
I do not care to get into a pissing contest with those who disagree with me here. It is perfectly fine with me that you don't care one bit for Obama and will continue to call him names. To me it is meaningless jibberish. Where does it get you? Does it do a bit of good in solving the tough problems of today? Feel free to vent. Get it out of your system. Once you have, the only thing that I ask is that you think about what you can do yourself to help your fellow brother or sister. I don't care what it is, but reach out and help someone. Would you at least do that?
Posted by: tc on March 18, 2008 09:51 PMI appreciate your thoughtful commentary and the guts you show coming here and supporting Senator Obama. I don't know the stats for this particular site, but a lot of people read sites and never post. There are a lot of good people of all political persuasions and some that are "mainstreamers." Me, I like people who follow their passion. I don't know what the eventual outcome will be, but I think this campaign has been good for most people. There are some that will forever be stuck in the 1850s, but the majority of the young are willing to move ahead. What we are seeing is generational change. Maybe this is the year of generational change, maybe not, but at least we are moving the ball down the field toward a better society. Keep doing what you think is right.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 10:06 PMI am an indie and I wouldn't vote for Senator Clinton, if you paid me. The what if scenarios are valid because the math does compute that neither candidate will have sufficient delegates without the superdelegates. So, unless some one withdraws, the hope is the supers will go with the greater popular vote and greater number of states. They don't have to. So, how do you propose to make them vote a certain way? The honor system.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 10:12 PMIn my book, your response makes no sense to me. I'm against all tricks and crimes when it comes to elections.
Eric seems to think Republican cross-over voting is some big conspiracy. Yea, Eric, it IS a big conspiracy as most crimes are. Rush Limbaugh for one, was all over the radio telling his dittoheads to vote for Hillary Clinton. Conspiracy? Yes, exactly.
Regarding the tricks of Dan Savage and others, I certainly don't claim Dan Savage or any of his media-starved stunts.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on March 19, 2008 12:02 AMRFK, the man who used the FBI to not only tap MLK phones calls, but followed him everywhere to find and dirt on him.
Yeah moved to action alright.
And far as rev Wright. Everyone notice as he made these outlandish remarkes, the people in his church were enjoying it.(cheering) Don't tell me Obama didn't know what was going on.
Please. People talk!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 06:27 AMThere is no middle ground to claim, Senator.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 06:51 AMOne is, and rightfully should be, known by the company one keeps. Obama was under no obligation to accept this Wright idiot into his inner circle, but he did just that and he has remained there for two decades with Obama knowing full well what the man stands for.
Furthermore similar sentiments to those uttered by Wright flow Copiously from Michelle Obama's mouth and are in the public record. It is obvious that she is comfortable with the Wright's hate and vitriol. What the Democrats are giving short shrift is that 527s can and will be running clips on National TV that will highlight the consistencies between Obama's wife's rhetoric and that of Wright. There isn't a thing anybody can do about that.
I expect that the real fun and games will start just prior to the Democrat's National Convention and Hillary's henchmen will have done with Obama in short order.
Posted by: JDH on March 19, 2008 07:14 AM
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I am glad they are still hunting each other and not McCain.
Obama chose that church and rhetoric as a political expedient. He chose Rezko as an expedient.
I don't see how he is head-and-shoulders above Clinton in the 'integrity' column. I think his con games in Ohio and everywhere he goes is very disingenuous.
Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2008 07:27 AM"Yea, Eric, it IS a big conspiracy as most crimes are. Rush Limbaugh for one, was all over the radio telling his dittoheads to vote for Hillary Clinton. Conspiracy? Yes, exactly."
Richard, apparently you feel it is alright for Democrats to cross over and vote in Republican primaries, but then you cry like a stuck pig when it happens to you.
For your information, long before Rush Limbaugh even said anything to Republicans to vote for Hillary, prominant liberals, like Peter Jackson (Son of the late Dem. Sen Henry Jackson) publicly stated he was going to crossover and vote for McCain. Likewise, famous liberal Ken Schramm of KOMO said as much on his web site.
Why is it liberals always whine when people use the same tactics on them that they themselves use???
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 07:29 AMObama has been fatally wounded, and yet the Democratic party superdelegates, who exist solely to prevent such a catastrophe in a close primary battle, can do nothing about it. If they hand the nomination to Clinton, the party loses the black vote, and Clinton cannot win without those votes.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/reality_check.asp
Posted by: JDH on March 19, 2008 07:45 AM"Democratic party superdelegates, who exist solely to prevent such a catastrophe in a close primary battle, can do nothing about it. If they hand the nomination to Clinton, the party loses the black vote, and Clinton cannot win without those votes."
That is why a Gore/Obama ticket is not so farfetched.
LOL.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 08:24 AMI know you don't believe in Global Warming, but a lot of folks will be wearing parkas when they vote for Gore/Obama. Global warming may not be big at this site, but Gore has plenty of followers. You might not be LOL if the grandees pull this off.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 08:34 AM___Barack Obama had been a presidential candidate for more than a year before he outright repudiated his long-time pastor for racially charged, anti-U.S. sermons. But when talk show host Don Imus was in hot water 11 months ago for racially insensitive comments, Obama was the first candidate to call for his firing.
When asked about the different responses to his pastor and to Imus, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor questioned the premise of the comparison and defended Obama's response in each case.
"He spoke out both times, so it's entirely consistent," he told FOXNews.com Tuesday.
Obama -- who in a major speech Tuesday decried controversial remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. dating back to 2001 -- called for Imus to be fired just one week after Imus made the remarks in April 2007, two months after Obama had announced his candidacy.
"There's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude," Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview.
______________________
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 08:38 AMAre you comparing bad behavior? So, the point is what, Senator Obama is a hypocrite? Is what Imus said appropriate? Is what Rev. Wright said appropriate?
What is the real issue here, the fact that pols are hypocrites, that is well documented. The issue really is the behavior of both Imus and Rev Wright and the fact that remarks should not be tolerated. Do you think that Senator Mc Cain might have just a tiny issue with Rev. Hagee calling the Catholic Church a whore and waiting a couple of weeks to disavow that comment?
I suspect the grandees of the dem party will come up with a solution which will mean that there will be a spirited contest between the parties on the issues and that the republican party will not be able to run a campaign against Rev. Wright as the sole issue.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 08:48 AMYou may get your dream ticket. Folks here think the blood in the water is Senator Obama's because of the Rev Wright mess. The real blood in the water is that we are in recession and Bear Stearns is just the tip of the iceberg. People will be wearing their parkas to vote for Gore/Obama.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 08:52 AMHe wanted Imus fired, but won't do zip about his Rev.
You should know be by now. I can't stand anyone who is racist!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 09:00 AMI think I made this point in another post that pols do not operate on principle, they operate on voting blocs.
a. Dr. Paul has David Duke associates, they bring votes to him.
b. Senator Obama selected Rev. Wright's church because it gave him his political base as a launching pad. Many progressives have the same philosophy as Rev. Wright. The issue is Senator Obama has to move beyond the ranks of the progressives and into the ranks of indies so Rev. Wright is now a liability.
c. Senator Mc Cain accepted an endorsement from Rev. Hagee and he is now a liability.
All three are politicians and chose to accept endorsements for political advantage. Senator Obama, my best guess, stayed in Rev. Wright's Church for 20 years for political advantage in Chicago. It must be fairly high profile, because at one time Oprah went there, but left.
My point is this, pols do not honor principle and it gets them into trouble.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 09:16 AMThe History Channel recently showed a fine program about famous 17th and 18th century European composers and architecture. I asked myself what my African ancestors were doing during that time and had an epiphany: they were living in mud huts, and they still live in mud huts!
My fellow Africans have never risen to the level of white civilization, but we have always been the beneficiaries of that civilization. Even our slavery in the US was liberating compared to the African slavery we came from, and that still exists.
I have been able to contribute to that civilization as a black man, but have seen most of my people fail to contribute. Many simply prefer to perpetuate their victim/slave heritage and whine for free stuff from the dominant white civilization, but most simply don't have the mental equipment to survive or meaningfully contribute in any civilization so they rationalize their inferiorities by attacking the civilization.
White civilization should be viewed as black people's salvation. We certainly can't hold up Africa as an alternative.
Posted by: The Pirate on March 19, 2008 09:27 AM
You're not going to pull out that old BS urban legend Nixon loosing Illinois because of ballot stuffing in Chicago are you?
Here is a the Electoral College Map from the 1960 election, put Illinois into Nixon's camp and he still looses 276 to 246.
Gore not wanting to count military votes?
Oh, you mean the ones without US Military postmarks signifying they voted before/on election day and not after the fact?
How about slashing tires on GOP "get out and vote" vans?
How about the GOP flooding of the the Dem's get "get out the vote" phone banks to get John Sununu elected?
I'm betting the same happened with Ellen Craswell thats happening with the so called "Operation Chaos"
Do you even remember who she was running against for the GOP nomination? Was there a better candidate other than Craswell?
Playing fair has never been part of politics, why do you think people distrust politicians?
1. Do you live at Pacific Beach?
2. If so, must be interesting. Is that area diverse, are there many folks of color out that way?
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 09:33 AMThe "I Have an Excuse!" speech.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 09:35 AMAccording to unofficial tallies, 1,547 overseas absentee ballots -- about 40 percent of the total Florida received -- were thrown out by county elections workers, mostly because they lacked either a date or a signature, or in some cases because they were not filed by registered voters.
According to the order, Collier said the ballots should not have been discarded simply because they had no postmark. Furthermore, he ruled that federal write-in ballots must be accepted, even if there was no formal request for a write-in ballot.
"It is truly an unfortunate circumstance when a citizen of the United States is denied the fundamental right to vote, whether residing in one of the several states or residing overseas," Collier wrote in his ruling. "It is even more unfortunate when a vote cast by a member of the armed forces serving abroad is rejected for no legitimate or compelling reason."
"It is unfortunate that Florida will accept an overseas absentee ballot with an unsworn, handwritten date, yet questions the oath, under penalty of perjury, of many of its service men and women," Collier said.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 10:02 AMThese are some mighty big mud huts made out of steel and concrete.
Posted by: Cato on March 19, 2008 10:12 AMThe issue is not his base. They are enamoured with him. He could be eating dead white babaies for breakfast and they'd toast him for his diverse chice of foods.
The issue is if he has blown his chances to attract enough white votes in the general election to win.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 10:20 AMAgain, they should have had postmarks. The military issues postmarks on all letters/packages from servicemen & women overseas. Before the election declaring that ballots without postmarks are invalid and then changing the rules after the fact is a convenient way to win a close election.
If the roles were reversed (like say the 2004 WA Gubernatorial race) you would be screaming up and down about advocate judges changing the rules after the fact.
Anyway the ballots were counted, Bush won, all water under the bridge.
Sorry, that should be activist judges not advocate judges.
Pirate is a faux Black person. He, like, Steve and atheist are "mainstreamers." There is a concerted effort among the Duke types to go to web sites and "mainstream" in hopes of attracting recruits. I have ID'd myself as Black and you support the rights of gay people. We are targets.
This person wants to compare and contrast his hopefully viewed by the public views as that of an "authentic" Black in contrast with a phony Black. Look for more attacks on both of us.
Do you have poll numbers?
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 10:29 AM"What is the real issue here, the fact that pols are hypocrites, that is well documented."
But we have all been told Obama is a different kind of politician. Just look at tc gushing about this above. In reality, Obama is you garen variety pandering politician. THough he is slicker about it than Slick Willie.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 10:32 AMThe imagined scenario in which the white man invented the AIDS virus as a means to keep the black man down vs the documented acceptance of monetary donations to be used for the express purpose of racial cleansing.
In the first Wright was outspoken and indignant, on the second he was silent.
What I am alluding to is that when an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better." Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho laughed nervously and said: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out." This was not an isolated event by any means, in the summer of 2007 it was repeated at seven (7) Planned Parenthood offices from all across the United States.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html
So, if this Wright clown is so bent out of shape over the former, why is it we have heard nothing of the latter? Hmmmmm.
Well, if you want my take on it - it is because he really couldn't give two hoots and a holler about blatant racism, even when it is manifest in racial cleansing, if his concern were to come into conflict with the greater liberal agenda.
Furthermore, does the rhetoric of someone like Don Imus rise to the level that the actions of Planned Parenthood do? Seems to me Mr Obama had something to say regarding one of these.
Is Condoleeza Rice a "faux Black Person" too? What about Clarence Thomas? You are beginning to sound like the hate preachers.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 10:44 AM1) You are reading way to much into this sort of thing. Going around calling every faux poster who has issues with race a Duke type is a stretch.
2) Think of all those idiots in the Aryan Nation groups who want a pure-white state. Guess what, it's all talk and never going to happen. It's sort of like that here, people post to rile other people up.
3) The anonymity here gives people free reign to post whatever they want. Don't expect a serious debate on here.
4) If someone wanted to recruit KKK types I doubt they'd come here. All of the regular posters here are quality people. It's the newbie posters like Steve and Pirate (who could be the same person for all we know) usually spout their ignorance and then vanish. The people who want to join organizations like the KKK will, nothing posted here is going to help or change that.
So PBJ, you agree with Pirate that all African people live in mud huts? You sound like a racist to me.
Yesterday you proved yourself to be an anti-Semite. Looks like you are trying give more testament to your general all around ignorance.
"Do you have poll numbers?"
According to this article, :
"The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories."
"McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.
That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.
"The last couple of weeks have taken a toll on Obama and in a general election match-up, on both Democrats," said pollster John Zogby."
What I do know are the demographics of America. Whites are the largest ethnic group in the nation. Do you think he can win if they all vote against him?
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 11:00 AMI never said that. Oh my, here we go with the epithets again.
This is the internet, we don't know if Pirate is or is not black or even if WVH does have a PhD or that you are not posting from your prison cell on McNeil Island.
Who is she to say he is "faux black"? How do we even know SHE is in fact black?
That was my point. You can attack what Pirate says, but unless you have met the poster, no one here knows if he is black, white or yellow.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 11:05 AM
And in reality, on the internet it doesn't matter anyway. No one can tell what color you are, not even WVH. Your words are the only thing they can go by.
First off, WVH state that "...the fact that pols are hypocrites, that is well documented." This is not a false statement because it doesn't say all or none. To prove her statement correct, one only has to find two or more cases (e.g., the plural form of pols was used). If she had used the all qualifier, then to prove the statement false, all you would need is one case. Therefore, to use her statement a proof that Obama is a hypocrite does not support your argument.
Second, can you state unequivocally that you have never been hypocritical in your actions through your entire life? If not, then the statement could be stated that you are a hypocrite, correct?
Finally, you state that it is your belief that Obama is a pandering politician and slicker than Slick Willie. Interesting opinion.
Let's look at pandering. Do you realize the definition? You may want to go to here. What evidence do you have that Obama fits this definition?
Let's look at slicker than Slick Willie. I assume you mean Bill Clinton here and not Willie Sutton, the bank robber, Willie Brown from California/San Francisco, or a Texas Holdem hand (consisting of an ace and jack). Bill Clinton got this nickname during his Arkansas Governor years. Here is a refresher on the subject. Now you state that Obama is slicker than Slick Willy. I am not sure how you can get "slicker." Did you really mean to state that Obama is as slick as Slick Willy? This would be a more correct statement of the opinion. If that is the case, how is Obama as slick? Obama hasn't faced the nation and stated that He did not have sex with that woman. It has not been demonstrated in any sense that Obama has provided special priviledges while in office to his friends, like Bill Clinton has a long history of performing (like the pardons). What is your factual basis that you are using to come up with this opinion?
Come on pbj. Instead of repeating the same line over and over, where is your evidence? How do you arrive at your opinion?
PBJ can't even do basic math, changes his statements when he's made to look like a fool, and has proven himself to be an Anti-Semite. It's asking to much of PBJ to actually form an original opinion that is backed up by real evidence. That's too high a standard for such a low-quality individual.
Can't do basic math? This from a guy who thinks .0060 is greater than .0065??? This from a guy who lies about the fact that the 1995 Democrat majority Washington State Government forced safeco field on the people even after they had expressed their will against it at the ballot box??
From the same poster who throws out knee jersk epithets in place of factual argument??
That's rich.
Simple. On Sundays, Obama sits in church with a paster saying the white man invented aids to kill the balck man and Obama doesn't have the deceny of Oprah Winfrey to walk out.
Then when out amongst white folk he pretends he doesn't believe those things. He makes speech in which he tries to please both the haters of the black color and the objects of their hate, the white people. He says that his pastor is family and he cannot disassociate himself from him (to please black radicals) but that his pastor say hateful things he doesn't support (to please the whites without which he cannot be president). He is slick because he wants you to ignore the fact that in a similar situation for others, such as Don Imus, he has called for the dismissl of the offender.
I am using pandering, not in the sexual meaning that you threw out as a diversion to my point, but more in the meaning that one says what they think people like to hear, in which what one says is diffent depending upon the audience. Like (verb - bolded) 1 in the definition below, to gratify the ego of that particular audience they happen to be addressing.
That Obama is able to do this so well with such a believable facade, until you reread the words, is why he is slick.
pander
noun
1. someone who procures customers for whores (in England they call a pimp a ponce) [syn: pimp]
verb
1. yield (to); give satisfaction to [syn: gratify]
Yes, that's what I said. I look forward you to telling us all how the following statement is false: 0.60% > 0.014%
1995 Democrat majority Washington State Government
A single seat majority in one chamber of the legislature is not a Democrat Majority in Washington State. Get a clue.
From the same poster who throws out knee jersk epithets in place of factual argument??
Coming from a man who makes crude associations between Sen. Obama (a US Senator) and Hitler (perhaps the greatest mass murder of the 20th Century) and defends a poster who says that all African's live in mud huts.
I make factual arguments, when I prove those facts to be correct you dismiss me as some sort of token liberal. You obviously haven't got a clue or a leg to stand on.
A majority Senate and the Governorship IS the majority of Washington State Governemnt. Again, you are trying to say up is down, wrong is right and red is blue, but you haven't a clue.
"Coming from a man who makes crude associations between Sen. Obama (a US Senator) and Hitler (perhaps the greatest mass murder of the 20th Century) and defends a poster who says that all African's live in mud huts."
Again, another of your lies. Like your lie that .006>.0065, like your lie that the Dem,ocrat Governor was not responsible for convening a special session to overrule the will of the people for the 1995 Safeco Field debacle.
"I make factual arguments, when I prove those facts to be correct you dismiss me as some sort of token liberal. You obviously haven't got a clue or a leg to stand on."
Please tell us all the facts behind you argument that .0060 is more than .0065.
This ought to be rich.
[I see the 7th graders are at it again]
Posted by: Duffman on March 19, 2008 11:58 AMAnother of your lies. I never said such a thing. Provide the link where I said such a thing.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 12:03 PM"But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/19/obamas_speech?page=full&comments=true
Posted by: JDH on March 19, 2008 12:05 PMPost 164 of this thread Cato said:
"You would be an idiot to argue that 0.60% is somehow a smaller number than 0.0065. "
And he has the temerity to say I cannot do basic math.
Your statement has two points. First, Obama sits in church when a pastor states that white man invented aids to kill the balck [sic] man. Second, that Obama doesn't have the decency of Oprah to walk out.
On the first, it is perfectly correct that Rev. Wright was wrong on this statement. Obama has never stated he was right and has stated he doesn't agree with it. If you go to church, are the things your pastor states 100% correct all the time? I know my pastor makes mistakes at time. Heck, McCain made a doosy yesterday and had to have his buddy Joe Lieberman whisper in his ear to correct him. People do make mistakes and do often repeat unproven theories. Should Rev. Wright, who is intelligent, have realized that the conspiracy theory that many in the black community believe is false. I would hold him to that standard. Is it enough for me to leave a church? Probably not. Catholics don't leave their church over their disagreement with the Pope. Mitt Romney didn't leave his church, even though it for years didn't allow blacks to join. Sometimes one has to stay in order to bring about change. Staying doesn't mean agreeing. Staying means abiding by God's calling to stay and minister to the people one has been called to minister to, and it means going someplace else if God call's you elsewhere.
On your second fact, it has not been demonstrated that (a) Oprah left the church (just because she doesn't worship their regularly anymore doesn't mean much, she may not have even been a member), and (b) even if she was a member and left, the reason for leaving has not been made public by her. You are assuming that she was a member and that she left over Rev. Wright's sermons.
I could go on with the rest of your comments, but it really wouldn't make much difference. Just think about the above dissection. You may feel your need to leave a church due to disagreement with a pastor, but what evidence do you have that others agree that this is a primary reason to leave a church? Do you think others may feel a need to stay in order to change things? What evidence do you have that Oprah was a member (not just someone who visited on occassion) and left because of Pastor Wright's sermons?
Posted by: tc on March 19, 2008 12:13 PMDo I have to rehash this for you? Go back to this thread where you said it was less dangerous to be a soldier in Iraq than to drive in America. I told you you were full of crap and proved it to you.
Hence the numbers:
Chance of dying serving in Iraq: 0.60%
Chance of dying in automobile accident in US: 0.014%
The following statement is true 0.60% > 0.014%, therefore your argument is full of crap much like most of your arguments (my personal fav was when you said an AWAC could stop a suicide bomber walking around NYC).
In this thread, post 82 Cato said:
"A driver in a nation of 3.3 MILLION..."
In reference to the US, whose population is approx 300 million, not 3.3 million.
When this was pointed out to him in in this thread, post 133 our resident math genius had this to say:
PBJ: Oh and there are approximately 300 million people in the US, not 3.3 million
CATO RESPONSE: According to the US US Census Bureau there are 303,655,947 people in the US and climbing.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 12:18 PMThe location of the decimal point makes all the difference. Lets see if 0.0065 becomes 0.65 is true than 0.60 becomes 60.
So if 60% > .65% is true then your still wrong and a moron.
Doubt it, she didn't get FL & MI seated at the Dem. convention. If we're going to play the guilt by association card Clinton is going to loose that battle big time.
Posted by: Cato on March 19, 2008 12:28 PMI wouldn';t sit and listen to that garbage for 20 years. Such a pastor would never baptize my children or wed me to my wife. Obama himself called for the firing of Don Imus for one infraction. Imus wasn;t saying "knappy headed" over for 20 years. Why is it unreasonable to expect Obama to be consistent with his calls for termination of people that make offending statements? Are you arguing that "knappy headed hoes" is a much more temination worthy statement than "USA of KKKA", "White men invented AIDs to kill the black race"??
I am not advocating for Mitt Romney. If Mitt Romney were the nominee, I'd hold him to the same standard. Do you think MItt Romney will be the Republican nominee or were you just throwing out a red herring?
If the 20 years Obama spent in his church, if for the reason of changing it as you put forth, he has done a miserable job. Apparently change isn;t one of his strongest suits then because as recently as last year the reverend was spewing his bile. And all the congregation was jumping up in agreement. If Obama cannot change his church, a small organization, how in blazes can we expect him to change America??
As to Oprah leaving, you do not know that she didn't leace due to his racist remarks. What we do know is that 1) Oprah left that church and 2) The reverend made racist remarks.
I propose that Oprah left due to the racist remarks. In order to disprove it, you need a counterexample.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 12:30 PM...it ain't over yet..
Posted by: Duffman on March 19, 2008 12:34 PM
And by what magic of mathematics does 0.0065 become 0.65?? Please Einstein, do tell?
So if 60% > .65% is true then your still wrong and a moron.
Ha ha ha ROFLMAO!!!!
You really didn't graduate grade school did you???
Your original statement:
"You would be an idiot to argue that 0.60% is somehow a smaller number than 0.0065."
0.6% (THAT IS PERCENT IDIOT) is 0.0060
Now is 0.0060 LESS THAN or MORE THAN 0.0065??
You just keep repeating gibberish over and over because you cannot admit you were wrong, moron.
Hmmm, which is a bigger math mistake, you not being able to figure out what a decimal point does or me making a typo.
What about you not being able to figure out that the numbers you quoted "House: 66-24; Senate: 25-16" are greater than Half +1 which is needed to control a branch of the Legislature?
Or how about the part where you blamed the start and continuation of the 15 year 1975 Lebanese Civil War on President Ford being "a bumbler"?
Your so called facts that you use to make your argument are clearly as delusional as your math skills.
Another lie. I challenge you to provide the link to this assertion. You won't because you are a liar.
Unlike you, I provided the links so the independent intelligent reader could verify for themselves.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 12:41 PMWhen a party only controlls the House, they do not control the legislature. You nee to take a civics course so you can learn how the government works.
Or how about the part where you blamed the start and continuation of the 15 year 1975 Lebanese Civil War on President Ford being "a bumbler"?
LIE. I neved said that. Provide the link liar.
You may have the correct number making you the 'big whoop' winner of your argument with pbj about which is more dangerous, but that does not make his other arguments full of crap like yours typically are.
Posted by: REBEL on March 19, 2008 12:50 PMDecimal Points:
0.60% > 0.014%
I challenge you to provide the link to this assertion.
Blah blah blah, go look at the thread. Stop living in denial of all the ridiculous assertions that you have claimed as fact.
You MORON! There is so much worng with that I don't know where to begin.
0.60 % (PERCENT) never equals 60% (PERCENT) except perhaps in CATO land.
0.60 = 60%
0.60% = 0.0060
Your original statement:
"You would be an idiot to argue that 0.60% is somehow a smaller number than 0.0065."
Now is 0.0060 MORE THAN or LESS THAN 0.0065?
Perhaps this children's math link will help.
"Blah blah blah, go look at the thread. Stop living in denial of all the ridiculous assertions that you have claimed as fact."
Translation: Cato cannot provide any evidence to back up his lie. Typical liberal.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 01:07 PM901 deaths last year out of 150,000 US Troops in Iraq is 0.60%
Actual Automobile deaths = 42,636
42,636 out of 303,655,947 I get 0.014%
0.60 vs 0.0065 = 9130% increase
0.60 vs 0.014 = 4185% increase
When you deal with a large number (3 mil+) vs small numbers (150k) even a 7th Grader can figure out that when someone makes a statement like "it's safer to be a soldier in Iraq than to drive in the US" is likely talking out his ass. Turns out you were just like the rest of the s**t that you claim to be facts.
Ummm no it's not. Once again, you do not know the differencce between PERCENTAGE and a DECIMAL VALUE.
20,000 divided by 303,655,947 does NOT equal 0.006586%
Again, go to the children's math link I provieded. When you figure out what a percentage is, then come back and practice.
Dr. Rice is NO faux Black person as she accepts the fact that she is Black, identifies with Black culture, and has Black parents. Mr. Pacific Beach
is in all likelyhood not Black:
98571 zip code Pacific Beach
Zip Code: 98571
State: Washington
Population: 478
Housing Units: 317
City Name: Pacific Beach
Post Office Name: Pacific Beach
County: Grays Harbor
General Characteristics Number Percent U.S.
Total population 478 100.0 100%
Male 247 51.7 49.1%
Female 231 48.3 50.9%
Median Age 40.9 (X) 35.3
Under 5 years 31 6.5 6.8%
18 years and over 361 75.5 74.3%
65 years and over 60 12.6 12.4%
One race 455 95.2 97.6%
White 320 66.9 75.1%
Black or African American 1 0.2 12.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 114 23.8 0.9%
Asian 5 1.0 3.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3 0.6 0.1%
Some other race 12 2.5 5.5%
Two or more races 23 4.8 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 30 6.3 12.5%
http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes/98/98571.html
Sorry, dude, you can't do that dance that all conservative Blacks are faux. Faux means just what I said, not Black.
First off, do you know for a fact that is a real email address?
Secondly, Do you know for a fact it is his or her address?
Also, you have presumed the email address corrolates to a physical address. If I put mars@hotmail as my email address, would you be quoting me stats about how I was a martian?
As for "Faux" black, are you trying to say that poster's skin is physically not black or that poster's attitude is not "black"?
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 03:29 PMHmm. Interesting criteria. So by your criteria, Barak Obama is a "Faux Black" because he only has one black parent.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 03:33 PMSo now that we have established Ms Rice is black to your standards, is it acceptable for me to admire her as a well educated person, well experienced person who has the balls to defend this nation, or am I a racist for thinking that?
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 03:39 PMI really feel sorry for your brother-in-law. No, Obama is Black, because you failed to read what I wrote about Dr. Rice. The tests are as follows:
Dr. Rice is NO faux Black person as she accepts the fact that she is Black, identifies with Black culture, and has Black parents.
Senator Obama:
1. Accepts the fact that he is Black
2. Identifies with Black culture, gosh isn't that what you folks are screaming about, the man is a Black Panther or something.
3. He has a Black parent
So, he is Black.
Now regarding Pacific Beach, you are correct that I can't be 100% that Pacific Beach isn't Black, just as you can't be 100% right that they. Someone like Pirate would surely help your hate cause, wouldn't it?
Your brother-in-law has to be one of the most tolerant people to have ever walked the face of this earth.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 03:41 PM"106. WVH,
So now that we have established Ms Rice is black to your standards, is it acceptable for me to admire her as a well educated person, well experienced person who has the balls to defend this nation, or am I a racist for thinking that?
Absolutely not. If it weren't for the fact that you lame republicans are probably going to lose Congress and the poor woman will be mired in investigations, she would probably be a contender for the veep slot. I understand Bin Idiot is threatening the European Union over the cartoons and is threatening the Pope. Eventually, I believe that the Iraq policy NOT the execution of that policy will prove correct.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 03:46 PM20,000 out of 303,655,947 is 0.006586%
You going to quibble over words or accept the fact you can't do math and full of s**t?
Your brother-in-law has to be one of the most tolerant people to have ever walked the face of this earth.
No kidding, I think PBJ should show him the post where he compared Sen. Obama to Hitler (who killed 6 million Jewish people and possibly some of his brother-in-law's relations). PBJ is a fine example of why minorities should not vote for Conservatives.
Using PBJ's brand of logic we can see that the GOP takes pride in electing racists and anti-semites to positions of power.
Oh look, we have another knee-jerk epithet thrower. I suppose this helps your hate crusade doesn't it? Brand any white person as racist before they have a chance to respond? I call it "preempting". It is the tactic of choice for those who wish to stifle any frank discussions of race in this country. If you preemptively brand someone a racists, then you don't have to anwer pesky questions. Preempting is a favorite tactic the radical leftists.
It is typical of you liberals that you cannot see the facts through your dogma. In fact it is you and the other liberals here that are prejudiced and you are knee-jerk to condemn.
Debating whether "Pirate" is black or not doesn't equate to agreeing with him. Black pertains to the amount of melenin in one's skin. And you have know way of knowing that via an internet message board posting. But to preempters like yourself, who spead out on the internet to stifle discussion, truth and facts mean nothing to your twisted ideaologcial crusade. Only indoctrination matters to you. Free thought is to be cruashed.
You are the modern day equivalent of the 16th century church that prosecuted scientists like Copernicus for daring to apply the scientific method to discovery of the Copernican soloar system.
So how about you just drop all the code wordes and go straight to blashpemere?
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:06 PMSo if we get to automatically assume Pirate is not black, then why should we believe you are black? How do we even know you hae a PhD? Perhaps you never graduated college?
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:08 PMNo it is not. You are dense. You do not understand what the % means at all, do you??
You going to quibble over words or accept the fact you can't do math and full of s**t?"
Words have meaning. Just because you haven't a clue about their meaning, doesn't give you a pass to misuse them.
So if Hitler wore a green sweater and Obama also did, pointing that out is racist? What is bith Hitler and Obama were left handed?
Unlike you, my brother in law can see through such silly crap as infering racism through such things. He recognizes race baiting when he sees it.
HAHA, you as a conservative would never spout some knee-jerk statement condemning a whole groups of people.
Oh wait, you just did. Do you even think before you post?
You are the modern day equivalent of the 16th century church that prosecuted scientists like Copernicus for daring to apply the scientific method to discovery of the Copernican soloar system.
Ummm, hate to tell ya but that would be you. As soon as someone proves something you said to be less than truthful you lash out at them and brand them a liberal and start using outlandish arguments defend your incoherent postings.
So how about you just drop all the code words and go straight to blashpemere?
You already did that, see your first paragraph at 110.
Awww, you are still sore because you don't know how to calculate a percentage? If you go to that math for children link I rpovided, I think it will help you out.
"You already did that, see your first paragraph at 110."
Whatever you pastor or the high church of liberalism, whatever you say...
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:29 PMYes, yes...keep going. Cato, sit up straight in class. Kataomar is going to teach you something!
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:31 PMPlease please keep going. Go up to POST 109 and do the math for Cato.
He simply won't believe me if I tell him.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:35 PMI just question your motives, why Hitler? Why not Reagan, Kennedy, Winston Churchill or someone positive rather than the greatest mass murder of the 20th Century.
Obviously you have some pent up feelings about Jewish people you would like to let out.
He recognizes race baiting when he sees it.
Race bating my ass, you were the one posting white guilt/two-fer-one comments about black people that got the other thread shut down. The moderators clearly knew that if you were allowed to go on you would continue with your ignorant and subtly racist/sexist rants.
I seriously hope you're not the face of modern conservatism, because if you are the GOP is in big trouble. No minority should ever vote for a party that accepts a person such as you. A person who proudly displays their supreme level of ignorance here on a daily basis.
Well if you actually go back and look at my response, after everyone took offense, I suggested Elvis as another possibility. But once that horse let the barn, you all were sure you had another racist. Frankly , being called eipthets by small minded folks such as yourself is a badge of honor for me. What you think matters not one bit to me.
You are just some nut on the internet as far as I am concerned.
Obviously you have some pent up feelings about Jewish people you would like to let out.
Yes I do now that you mention it. Let me express them here. I think the socialist left in America take the side of the Palistins and all their terorist affiliates in knee-jerk style. A good example of liberals aiding the terorrists attacking Jews in Israel is Racheal Corrie, a radical nut job from Evergreen State (terrorist U) College who went over to be a patsy for Hamas.
"Race bating my ass, you were the one posting white guilt/two-fer-one comments about black people that got the other thread shut down. The moderators clearly knew that if you were allowed to go on you would continue with your ignorant and subtly racist/sexist rants."
It was your race baitng that got it shut down. And as one who doesn't understand how to calculate a percentage, after 50 messages and a children's link to help you out, you are not one to speak of ignorance except to tell us of your own.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 04:47 PMGod your dense at times.
You say this stuff, get prove your wrong, then your answer is.. ( Ahhh heck it's water under the bridge)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 04:57 PMAt times??? More like every other post.
Can you please go up to POST 109 and do the math for Cato? He would never believe me if I told him.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 05:10 PMThe site gurus here are well aware of who I am, including the one who banned me for life and even uses my first name. Putting people at danger is the preferred method of dealing with people you don't like for this one. So, this person would have outed me in a New York minute. Answer your question?
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 05:23 PM
Do this calculation:
20,000 divided by 303,655,947
What DECIMAL value do you get???
That result is not the percentage. The percentage is found by multiplying by 100. It is incorrect to simply take the result of the division and simply slap a % sign after it, as CATO did.
See this link, factsheet number 8
Example:
1/10 = .1 DECIMAL
It is not correct to say the PERCENTAGE is .1% as .1%=.001 a factor of 100.
Posted by: pbj on March 19, 2008 05:25 PM
Not really. You story doesn't make sense. It is illogical.
If you had been banned for life, you wouldn't be posting now. Does not compute.
And who are the "site gurus"? I have no idea what that means.
I suspect that "Joe Sixpack" was never Senator Obama's demographic. pbj was never Senator Obama's demographic, but surprisingly some of the children and relatives of some of the most viralent anti-Obamans are.
There is a generational change coming in this country and no, I am not talking about "change" as a political slogan. I am talking about the way some younger folks think and that is miles apart in distance from some of their elders. The only thing threads like this do is bump up hits for this site. A lot of fire, but very little light.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 05:37 PMI bet your just wetting your pants now that Obama has BLOWN his cover. Maybe Hillary will make it after all. But Duff, if I was you good buddy. I would see about being a guard at the convention.
HEHEHE it's going to be a RIOT!!!! LOL
PBJ... good buddy, let it go with Cato. You win. He loses, but he will never quit. Feel happy in your glory. I know sure do. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 19, 2008 05:39 PMYou might want to look at the public blog. See this listing:
On the Public Blog JeffB.: "Obama's Speech: Why he is still wrong."
thcase: "Supreme Court Upholds Washington State's Open Primary Election System"
tpahl: "Paul takes Whatcom County"
mjcostello: "America's real domestic enemies"
RagnarDanneskold: "Help!"
Banned: "NOT BANNED IN BOSTON, BANNED RIGHT HERE"
ccwt: "March 18 election: property rights protection"
Cydney: "DRUDGE: "Major Political Bombshell""
John425: "Does Oprah Attend Obama's Church Too?"
LeCerveau: "NeoCons always said they could do it!"
If you will note, "NOT BANNED IN BOSTON, BANNED RIGHT HERE"
Now does the discussion make sense?
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 05:42 PMOK, you and I have gone back and forth on many things. Some we agree, some''''' ok forget it.
I could really care less if Obama was what ever color. WE ARE ALL ONE RACE.
I don't like his ideas. (or lack of them)
I see you fighting with way to many on this site and sometimes I wonder why? No really. You seam to slip left then right... with no real center to hang onto.
I don't dislike you, heck I bet you and I could have a drink and laught the whole night together.
You have hit it upon the head. There are plenty of ISSUES to challenge both Senators Obama and Clinton on. The problem is that frankly, we don't get to the issues, because the issue of race gets in the way.
I'm sorry, neither Senators Clinton or Obama are "empty suits" when you have their achievments. Saying you don't like their policies is a disagreement based upon issues. Calling people "empty suits" makes me wonder if something else is going on?
Senator Obama is rightfully in the situation that he is in because of his adherence to this particular church. I have an inkling that it was more about shoring up his position in his particular Chicago ward than a committment to this particular theology. The point is many of those who were shocked, I tell you shocked that Senator Obama consorted with a bigot seem to have lost any memory of Dr. Paul's twenty year association with bigots. Senator Mc Cain's staff had to have known that Rev. Hagee was going to be trouble.
The problem is that many politicians use expediency over principle. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't.
If the REAL issue is Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's positions on the Iraq war, Economy, Education, Outsourcing, Role of the Federal Government and a host of issues, why aren't those issues being discussed? That is the point. Differ on the issues. Few pols are really focused on principle and that is too bad. Just don't try and say the disagreement is on issues when something else is going on.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 06:03 PMDespite all the bed wetting and panty knotting done by the Obama supporters, most here at SP are anti-Obama on issues and ideology, and not the aspect of his race. We are equally anti-Hillary based on the principles of conservatism which we espouse because we believe these are the ethos that our forefathers would want us, as a nation, to uphold and defend.
This is why I will, in November, vote for the only qualified individual still in this race and that is John McCain.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are ready to lead on day one and if you don't believe me, just listen to what Dr.Susan Rice, Obama's foreign policy advisor, thinks with regard to answering that dreaded 3a.m. phone call about an emergency happening somewhere in the world...sometimes the truth slips out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumIz2bajus&feature=related
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 06:44 PMApparently the issue of the military and whether Senator Obama is prepared to be Commander in Chief is an issue with you. Have you ever considered just asking the question of Obama supporters without dissing Mr. Obama? Here is a thought, just listing issues you want answers to without character assassination. I am sure that tc would love to debate you on behalf of Senator Obama and Duffman on behalf of Senator Clinton.
The problem is most here really don't want to discuss the issues, they just need to vent.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 08:01 PMMost conservatives don't really give a damn about the periphery of the candidates like sex, race, gender, sexual proclivity, hair color, eye color, boxers/briefs, etc......we care about the conservative ideals they propagate and put forth.
The Democratic party is now experiencing the pitfalls of their tendency to place the focus on superficial attributes when there appears to be no discernible difference in the candidates.........does gender trump race? or does race trump gender?
Meanwhile, we conservatives get to be on the outside looking in while this "paralysis of analysis" plays out amongst the "party faithful". The question to be asked is, will there be a unified party left for the Republicans to run against when the political bloodletting comes to a resolution?
...now, back to my buttered popcorn.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 09:12 PMAs you know, the role of senator is legislative and on many votes, people of all parties do what it takes to keep getting elected in their district. The theory is that the executive sets the direction for the country. You seem to be a big fan of Reagan. As I understand it, Reagan's philosophy evolved from that of a dem who was President of the Screen Actors Guild. Now, the question is not so much their legislative experience, but how Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would handle the executive job.
I wouldn't butter that popcorn just yet as I mentioned to Russell. The only thing I would bet on is a pol's instinct for survival and desire to perserve their own a$$ets. I could be wrong, but a lot of superdelegates don't plan to go down with any ship. Neither Senators Clinton or Obama is out of it at this point. If it looks like it will get really bloody, neither is Gore.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 09:23 PMSo you are reduced to arguing that neither Obama nor Clinton is a conservative. How insightful.
Posted by: Bruce on March 19, 2008 09:36 PMAs for Gore (the wildcard), I don't think his mental health could possibly take another defeat in 2008 -nor does he-...which is why the Dems are stuck with which ideological poker hand is higher? Gender or Race?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 09:56 PMI'll check back tomorrow and see if you can prove it was only a snippet and taken out of context.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 10:07 PMA phrase for why Gore would "accept" if the party "begged" for the good of the party -messiah complex. Don't butter that popcorn yet.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 10:07 PM...the popcorn is buttered and being consumed, but it's only the coming attractions playing on the screen...the movie doesn't start for a couple of months now.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 19, 2008 10:15 PM
This is hilarious, here is another black pastor, this time calling Obama a "Mac Daddy" - what ever a Mac Daddy is he sure has himself worked up over it.
Rick D.,
I will admit your last few posts have been more tempored in tone. You don't like Hillary or Obama because they aren't conservative. This is fine. I challenge you however, what are the particular conservative values that you place the highest. How do each of the candidates meet these values? What if none of your top values are met, then how do you decide? Do you take WVH's approach and decide who is the best of the worst (pardon me WVH, if this is not your approach, but it does seem to be in what you have talked about previously)?
You see for me, I do come at this election and am trying to decide based on my values, which have at their root a midwestern (Wisconsin), farm-boy, from a almost purely white small town, who went away to the area's college (UW-Platteville), and who also am evangelical in nature (with religious experiences of growing up in UCC church, being involved with Inter-Varsity and Fellowship of Christian Athletes at College, attending an Evangelical Free church in college, and being involved with the Presbyterian Church USA out here after college). I find Jim Wallis' call for a broader evangelical agenda to best fit the core values I seek out. Ones that not only are concerned about life (all life, both birth and death issues, like the death penalty). Ones that are concerned about the aliens living among use (referencing back to God's call to Isreal to care for the aliens amongst them). Ones dealing with the Just War philosophy that has long been a part of Christian theology. Ones calling for caring for our environment. Over on God Politics blog there is a very good video with Jim Wallis, Tony Perkins, and others outlining a coming together of the evangelical community to address a common whole agenda. One that is not behoden to a particular party, for both parties have not adequately addressed our concerns.
I stated originally several months ago, that my first cut on the candidates that I felt best address my values were Obama and Edwards for the Democrats and McCain and Huckabee for the Republicans. I do desire an Obama and McCain general so that they can debate the issues and not focus on the politics of division. They both have good points. It is unfortunate that the media is obsessed with the politics of gotcha. They point out Obama's pastor. They point out McCain's gaffes. This is getting ridiculous.
I do like Obama because of his transparancy. I like his work in ethics reform. I like what he did in Illinios with regrads to Death Penalty reform. He is my age, my generation. He is post-Vietnam. Most of all, his judgement on Iraq has been correct from day one. We took our eye off the enemy in Afgahnistan and here five years later Bin Laden is still around. This is not a partisan issue, read what Chuck Hagel has written about how dumb a decision Bush/Cheney made. This is probably the number one reason why I like Barack.
I have reservations on Barack's Abortion stand, although per the Christianity Today article, he did appear to agree with banning third trimester abortions if the law had an exception for the life of the mother. I also have some reservations on his gay stances, although he has been firm in his commitment to not approve gay marriage.
I like McCain for his straight talk. I like the fact that he goes after earmarks, in the same legacy that Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin is famous for. I like that he has tried to address campaign and ethics reform after his conversion of the Keating scandel. I think he is concerned about the environment and saving national forest and recreation areas. I like that he was trying to do something about immigration.
I don't like it when McCain started sucking up to Bush in 2004 in order to be the defacto frontrunner in 2008. I don't like McCain's stance on continuance in Iraq, but did think his surge push was a correct one at the time and think he would know a lot better how to finish the war right. I don't like it that McCain is having to pander to the conservative right. He has been conservative all his career. Who cares if those on the so-called conservative right don't like the fact that he has called it how it is when he as had to. They aren't correct all the time.
So, that is where I am at.
Posted by: tc on March 20, 2008 08:16 AMI saw that too. Funny as can be, So Obama started his campain with big busted women.... Gud that's funny!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2008 08:17 AMhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc
This represents a ~ 20 to 30 point swing. This is not statistically significant, it is statistically compelling evidence of a meltdown. Here lies the conundrum that the Democrats are faced with 1) Obama is the candidate and the videos of wright plus those of the New Black Panther Party (featured and linked to on Obama's own website) plus those of a half dozen more hate mongers with close ties to Obama get national attention for three months this fall. Remember there isn't a damn thing that the candidates can do to reign in 527s even if they wanted to. 2) If they toss Obama at the convention and go with Hillary, they can kiss off the black vote for a long time. Am I enjoying this? You bet your @$$ I am, Seing the Party of race baiting hoisted on it's own pitard is wonderful entertainment.
So now your associating Sen. Obama with overweight drug addicts. Why would you do that?
BTW, Elvis never ran for public office nor was he a great orator. Great singer maybe, great orator not so much.
