Obama swapping out

Looks like some people may have just skipped right past the denial phase and into the anger, Daily Kos: Obama and Fox News, and MoveOn: Obama Got Outfoxed.

And howabout Jeremiah Wright this morning in the Q & A. Oh boy, talk about angry.

Obama, having successfully kicked the secular warriors that jumped on board his 'movement' to the gutter by embracing Fox, probably will follow up by doing some sort of ultra-distancing of Wright-- the kind I said he should have done right at the beginning of this whole fiasco. I imagine the "former pastor" becomes the "disavowed former pastor" and maybe even "former church."

The thing is, Obama is doing this with the conclusion in mind that he's got it all sewn up. He doesn't.



Display:


Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 4)

This primary election is over. Do you really think the Democratic Party is going to select the candidate in 2nd place for delegates, states, and popular vote (in the actually contested races)? Over the first African-American candidate with a real shot at the Presidency, who happens to be leading in all those categories? If so, you really don't understand Democratic Party politics as well as I thought you did.  There is no more loyal, crucial part of the Democratic Party base than African-American voters.  If you believe that a sizeable chunk, enough to cause us a 40 state defeat, won't sit on their hands during this election if the aforementioned happens, then you're smoking something that isn't quite legal. Particularly if Hillary is chosen for the latest metric in her campaign of unending goal post shifts, her better ability to reach white working class voters, the voters that alot of blacks think prefer Hillary, deep down, because she's white.

This is why there is no way in hell the superdelegates are just gonna throw the nomination to her and why they continue to move to Obama.  Choosing Hillary, in these circumstances, would be the Party commiting Hari Kiri on itself.  


by bigdcdem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM EST

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Don't worry. We've been through this phase before. Jerome is trying to provoke with some of the comments he has received himself. Obama has not lost. This is a bump in the road. Look at the diagram I pasted below to see how insignificant it is.

Politics is politics, and there will be another gaffe and another poll, but the trend is unmistakable. Allow Hillary's supporters a brief moment in the sun. History is against them


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you obamacrats are (none / 0)

You haven't even the saving grace of being funny. You know there's a rule against 'contentless' posts?


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you obamacrats are (none / 0)

Yes. I put on my hipwaders this morning and went over to the orange sludge. What a difference! They are all really DOWN. There is a fatalistic tone - Obama is looking weak, he doesn't seem to have any more zip, he looks tired and bored, he is making too many mistakes, and they are finally beginning to wonder if he really can win the nomination.
Maybe some of the glow has come off the Chosen One!
by georgiast on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you obamacrats are (none / 0)

As I said, enjoy your moment in the sun


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol! (none / 0)

A good laugh is much needed these days I agree


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you obamacrats are (none / 0)

I am enjoying it, thoroughly!


by georgiast on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (none / 0)

Well we'll be committing hari kiri with Obama so what's the difference. Essentially what you're suggesting is a sort of racial blackmail. Let Obama run or were taking our ball home. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's clear he can't carry the trad white democratic working class vote. Deny it if you want.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Well we'll be committing hari kiri with Clinton so what's the difference. Essentially what you're suggesting is a sort of racial blackmail. Let Clinton run or were taking our ball home. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's clear she can't carry the trad black democratic working class vote. Deny it if you want.  


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 4)

" Do you really think the Democratic Party is going to select the candidate in 2nd place "

Of course they will select the most electable candidate, Hillary Clinton. That is the purpose of the superdelegates, to vote for the candidate they believe will carry the party to victory, which is exactly what will happen. If Barack Obama does not then rally his supporters to unite with the rest of the party he will be to blame for destroying the Democratic Party chances in November.

I predict Hillary Clinton will win the November election even with a somewhat depressed turn out of AA voters, should that occur. Her supporters are far more committed and devoted and her appeal is broader than is commonly recognized. For the first time the voters are actually getting to know the real Hillary (thanks to the removal of Mark Penn's influence) and they are liking what they are seeing. Watch her negatives go down, her approval ratings go up, and feel the tide turning.


by 07rescue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Her supporters are far more committed and devoted...

Her performance in caucuses indicate otherwise.
by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hardly (2.00 / 2)

There are no caucuses in November to intimidate, cheat and disenfranchise voters.  Hillary wins where it's fair and where it counts.

***A


by adrienne4dean on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Hillary Clinton has TERRIBLE electability problems - all the guilty-by-association things that are snagging Barack Obama, plus a whole lot more, plus the fact that she can't win without having perceived to have overturned the will of the voters.  If she does that she loses the general election.

If the superdelegates are given a choice between losing and keeping the party intact, and losing and destroying the party, I think you know what they'll choose.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (none / 0)

how did Hillary won all those biggest States?? electability problem, sure Barack has one.


by SHIBAM8P on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where is Sista Souljah when you need her? (none / 0)

It is time for Obama to pull a Sista Souljah moment.  

I don't know who the victim needs to be but he needs to pick some left wing moonbat liberal carnival freak and cut them off at the knees.

If it was me I would pick Al Sharpton. He is useless anyways.


by dMarx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Second thought ... (none / 0)

On second thought, I would pick Jeremiah Wright.  It is his fault anyways, he has brought it on himself, the glory hog.

Damn I'm smart.  Obama should hire me for his campaign.


by dMarx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Jerome, I'm not entirely sure what your point is.  The people that long ago wrote Hillary Clinton off are annoyed with Obama for appearing on Fox.  They probably knew it was going to happen anyway though.

They're not going to switch to the candidate whose turned Fox into a virtual sanctuary.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (none / 0)

Jerome's point is pretty simple to grasp. He's trying to incite Obama supporters.

I can't blame the guy seeing he doesn't have much else to grasp onto. Therefore he doesn't talk about policy or even Hillary in detail that much anymore.


!
by alex100 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe it's time (2.00 / 1)

When I look at the size and strength of the Democratic National Committee that raised and spent about $50 million last year and the size and stength of Obama for America which is about 4 or 5 times the size and strength of the DNC, I wonder.  Is it time for a new party?

If DNC superdelegates step in and give the nomination to Clinton, I think I'd be ready.


by smoker1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: riot is imminent (2.00 / 1)

politics by intimidation...
and Obama has to convince those remaining superdelegates because he won't get the 2025 needed to win.  

So who will be cheating???


by SHIBAM8P on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good thing Hillary and her people haven't (none / 0)

sucked up to Fox.

/snark


by Pragmatic Left on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking, Jerome (2.00 / 2)

Sorry...but this African-American, under 45 woman has been waiting for a candidate who has made the interests of women and children a centerpiece of her activism. I'm proudly supporting HRC and I believe all the votes should be cast and counted.  


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're in the 8% (none / 0)

still voting for Hillary lol.  Haven't run into one of you for a while.  That's ok, sometimes its good to be different (just not this time).


by bigdcdem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're in the 8% (none / 0)

I support my candidate because I believe she is the better one.  It is insulting to me that some seem to believe that blacks will only vote for black people--the people I know vote for the person they deem to be working for their broad interests--although I will say that sometimes that does include voting for people with whom they identify.  I define myself as an American, and want to see all Americans rise, and I feel HRC can lead us to that.  Mocking someone is crass.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're a strange one there. (none / 0)

Good luck with that (I don't think too many blacks find that argument convincing).  Like Chris Rock said, if this is going to be the first Black President, do you really want to have to tell your grandkids one day "yeah, but I was supporting the white lady." LOL

Imagine the look on their faces as their image of you is forever shattered.


by bigdcdem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:45:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a strange one there. (none / 0)

This isn't strange at all.  I am looking at the candidate I deem better.  She has worked tirelessly for the constituencies I care about the most, women and children. They are the ones dispoportionately affected by poverty and violence. Her work ifor them is absolutely indisputable.  Granted, Senator Obama has done some work as an organizer, but she's done much more, and that sways my vote.  I don't think it's funny that every President since Washington has been male, just as I don't think it's funny that women candidates are constantly railroaded out of races (Chisholm, Schroeder, Braun, Benjamin et al).


by TinaH1963 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a strange one there. (none / 0)

...typing too fast, can't spell.


by TinaH1963 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

According to grief management theory then they haven't actually suffered a major loss.

Just to stress my point on this particular false dawn


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:22 PM EST

Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

i don't know to what i attribute that movement from 20 days ago, but there is definitively a movement.


by likelihood zero on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

Seen it. Seen that movement before. Obama is hitting the 'two candidate' plateau. Big deal. Hillary is running a very Morris-Rove salami slice of a certain part of the electorate. What a surprise! It doesn't change the fact that 90 per cent of the primaries are done and dusted. Nor, except in the wildest dreams of  fanatics, the idea that Hillary will become nominee in the summer, having lost two thirds of the primaries and caucuses, and somehow get elected in November.

Yes, there's still a way that through some disaster, planned or accidental, she could still be the nominee. But the majority who voted for Obama will not be energised to vote given the circumstances, and one sure bet would be this....

Go to intrade and make some money...

If Hillary gets the nomination through super delegate coup, she will lose the election.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

Obamabot watch!!

Hillary:

a. Has won every big state on the board, and won when she had to.

b.  Is Still winning the Superdelegate count

c.  Has Won the last 3 major primaries

d.  Has Won the DEMOCRATIC primaries, where registered Democrats are counted, and Indy hangers-on, GOP, and crossovers do not create noise and cause trouble.

e.  Is beating McCain by higher margins in almost every major poll.

f.  Has Won the traditional Dem constituencies that always turn out and vote, the core of the Party:  White women, older Americans, working-class Americans.

g.  Is the stronger candidate against agsint FOX and the right-wing attack machine.


by dembluestates on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

She's still in second place, and by a good amount.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

She's winning the popular vote, only down 8 delegates when you count all the states, and she's trouncing him in the public narrative right now.  

Fuzzy math and rules that aren't really rules aren't going to save Obama.


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

you have all of this wrong.

she's winning the media narrative right now and that's about it. Fortunately for her, that's a big thing to have on your side.

but let's get real, the reason she's got the media on her side is for those ratings. The reason Jerome is acting like a pimple faced kid right now is for higher traffic.

Clinton has realy little to no chance of winning the nominee. Lest we start pulling out all her quotes (and her advisors) regarding MI and FL.


!
by alex100 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 2)

Get real ... by the numbers, neither Obama or Clinton can win by "primary election delegates", period. Even though a few more states will vote, unless either gets all the delegates, it's basically almost a tie.  The rules say in that case, the superdelegates are to use their own conscience in choosing a candidate.  And, in this situation, the one with momentum, the one who is winning NOW, and the one winning the media narrative does affect the superdelegates' "conscience". Especially, should Clinton win Indiana, and/or Obama not win NC or NC by a large margin, there will be even more questions whether Obama can "close the deal".  And, MI and FL may become an issue only in that Obama missed a chance to change that narrative by calling for the revotes that Clinton called for to enable the states to play by the rules correctly.


by PracticalMagic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

"closing the deal" is an interesting concept but one that doesn't apply to this election. It's one reason why Hillary hasn't been able to get on any kind of roll this entire primary cycle. As soon as she gets a big win she suffers a huge setback that erases any large pledged delegate gains (TX/OH comparied to MS).

regarding MI/FL revotes, it wasn't on Clinton or Obama to "call" for a revote. I personally thought the two states needed to revote (regardless of the mess it would have been). Both states dropped the ball at the end of the day, from start to finish.

thanks for chiming in on your opinion on superdelegate "conscience". the progressive movement is so lucky to have mommy and daddy there to save us all from our votes.


!
by alex100 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

Well, the rules are the rules... so please remember they must play by the rules... MI & FL notwithstanding, and I agree with you on that stupid move by both states, the superdelegates do not have to vote with the candidate with the most pledged delegates, or with the popular vote, or even to vote for the candidate that "won" their state.  They indeed are tasked with voting their conscience to help "select", not "elect" who would be the strongest candidate, best President & likely winner in November.  The rules enable the superdelegates to overturn a poor primary election result or to ratify the primary election result. There is nothing sancrosanct about the most pledged delegates, unless the "magic number" is achieved. Moreover, the superdelegates can change their endorsements until they cast the first ballot in August in Denver.  So hang on, we're in for a bumpy ride !!!!


by PracticalMagic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

a. Define "big."  Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, Illinois...all in the top half of state by electoral votes and all Hillary losses.

b. I'll give you this one, since it's plain fact and not spin.

c. I do love the Clinton rhetoric whereby some of us just don't count.  I'm a bit conflicted.  I both want Obama to win my state AND to actually count as a valuable American citizen.  Guess I can't have it both ways.

d. Please enjoy this diary from late February on that myth.  I haven't updated the numbers, but they are pretty overwhelming in one direction.

e. ...in April.  In other news, last September I thought I might like to have pizza for dinner tonight, but it turns out that I'm having chicken.  Funny how that works.

f.  You forgot a traditional Dem constituency...BLACKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  

g. Yes, she'll win them over by having McAuliffe praise their neutrality!  ALL HAIL FOX, the EVER-BALANCED!  And she's been so complimentary of McCain you'd think she's pushing for his VP spot.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

a.) true if we define "big states" as "states hillary won." even then, dumb argument. she'd carry illinois, he's carry cali, new york and mass. most likely ohio and penn too, once the dem machines were with him.

b.) she's down 59-6 since feb. 5 i believe. and also, she's only winning among party brass, not elected officials. that's worth pointing out.

c.) obama won eleven primaries before that. and nc won't be a "major primary" with its 115 delegates, but by clinton logic, the closer indiana will be.

d.) you need indies to win a general. she won't get 'em.

e.) one poll. ap-ipsos is the only one that shows any differential in ge races. even that's within moe

f.) yeah, blacks sure ain't a core constituency. oh, and obama's done just fine with whites outside of the appalachains. in november, he'll do fine with the rest of them too.

g.) proof? obama acquitted himself quite nicely sunday. fact is, the vrwc has laid off hillary and doused everything on obama. they're not doing that for the good of the dem party. if hillary's the nominee, we'll hear all the 90s stuff recycled, plus whatever else comes up. meanwhile, the most they have on barack is conjectured guilt by association.


by jbill on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

The amazing thing is that you managed to come up with SEVEN POINTS which are all so easily demolished.

a) Illinois, Missouri, Georgia, Virginia

b) Is now only ahead by 20, having had a 200 lead. Watch that trend.

c) Seriously, she WON Texas? That's not what CNN or the delegate allocation says

d) Hold on. So no new registrations, no independents, and what about the Limbaugh vote? AND you're even wrong about her winning ALL primaries on the absurd and defeatist 'real democrat' scale

e) In polls today. Virtually every other poll in the last two months has shown them tied or Obama ahead.

f) Your definition of CORE is asinine, and is recipe for continued defeat.

g)  Appears more times on fox and uses right wing talking points I think you mean. Yes, they're supporting her now, big time. Guess why? Because they're more scared of Obama

Really. I've seen this moment in elections before. It's the sudden reprieve from a terminal illness moment. The patient, formerly on life support and feeling the drum beat of death in his ears, suddenly feels a whole lot better. There is a spring in his step, a feeling that anything is possible. He gets out of bed. He dances around. By some miracle cure he knows he will survive...

This story has a sad ending for the patient I'm afraid. It's not inevitable. But it's part of the cycle. Enjoy this moment while it lasts


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

Obama loses MO in GE. Just check the latest polls. McCain 50% Obama 42%  vs Clinton 47%  McCain 46%

Obama loses 24% of Democratic voters in MO.


by MOBlue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

Your D. and F. are true, however, those go to any democratic nominee, so if B.O is nominee he gets all (or most) of those votes, plus he gets the undecideds and youth vote.  He attracts newer and more diverse voters, that is a simple fact exhibited through exit polling, hence his lead.  

The other state strategies are debatable and again, states like California and New York aren't voting for McCain, they are strong blue for presidential GEs.

I am interested in seeing how this Rev. Wright issue will play out, as a BO supporter I thought Wright issue was over, but here we are, and now me thinks Mr. Wright might be a wee bit on the megalomanic side.  It kind of feels like W.W.E,  with the dramatic switching of sides and support (Supers, Wright, Richardson, etc.).  


by KLRinLA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

Well Obama is going to lose it anyway.


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

Given your amazing prescience, do you know who's going to win the FA Cup final at Wembley too? I'd like to know, I could make some money on it.

Intrade have a good deal going on Hillary too 4:1. It hasn't budged - except to 6:1 - since early March


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (2.00 / 1)

Look at where Hillary Clinton is leading Obama - only among DNC superdelegates.  If that's not the elite I don't know what is.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check the AP-Ipsos latest poll (none / 0)

I am not talking about the primaries. It is virtually too late for the primaries, but there are troubles on the horizon in the GE.


by likelihood zero on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Good Grief, where this graph came from... i bet I can do it better.


by SHIBAM8P on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Then maybe you for make try, yes?


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Jerome, what do you think of Dean's comments this morning? Will we know in early June?

I think it's a done deal and they (the Super D's) will give it to Obama. I also think we're in for a loss in Nov.


by tabbycat in tenn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST

Beating McCain will be a cakewalk (none / 0)

Don't kid yourself.

If we ever get there.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain beating Obama will be a cakewalk (2.00 / 1)

Wishful thinking.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right, Jerome (2.00 / 1)

If I were Obama, I would repudiate Wright's comments and continue going to the same church. I tell you this: if he divorces himself entirely from that church, there will be a tremendous loss of support in the African American community in North Carolina. It's already starting:

http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/


by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST

Pastor Wright (none / 0)

tells the truth.

I just wish he would tell it later.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (none / 0)

True! About the only thing I stridently disagree with him on is Palestinian oppression and government infection of the black community with AIDS. He surely is provocative to say the least.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (2.00 / 1)

He's said some crazy things, to be sure, but are you suggesting that the Palestinians are not oppressed?    


by HSTruman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (none / 0)

HS Truman, that was a damn difficult question to answer. But I answer as honestly as I'm able:

I view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of Old Testament scripture (Book of Judges). American diplomacy with respect to Israel is based on Old Testament, Biblical doctrine. That's the God's honest truth. And I support it.

I support Palestinian repatriation. But none of the neighboring nations (e.g. Jordan) are receptive to taking them in.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (2.00 / 1)

I don't understand, at all, how our policy ought to be predicated on biblical doctrine.  If you want to flesh that out, I'd be interested to understand what you mean.  

Personally, I think that trying to arrive at a solution in that region based upon either groups' historical "claims" on that land is a recipe for disaster.  Neither side is going to ever get precisely what they want, and at some point the answer is a two state solution that will require an economically viable Palestine and a secure Israeli state.  The only discussion ought to be how we get there.  


by HSTruman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (2.00 / 1)

You view it through testament scripture and if a few kids get blown to shreds having their breakfast that's tough.


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (2.00 / 1)

Repatration? How is that different from ethnic cleansing?  The Arabs have been there for 1600 years. Just because Jews claim it as their ancestral homeland doesn't give them the right to kick out the Arabs. The Serbs made the same claim about Kosovo.

And I'm Jewish, by the way. If we base our diplomacy with respect to Old Testament scripture then I want nothing to do with it.


by elrod on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (none / 0)

Not only are the neighboring states opposed to it, but the people who you would, erm, "repatriate" are opposed to it as well.

I'll give you an analogy: imagine if the US decided to ship all about a quarter of their citizens to Mexico.  That's what you're advocating.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re:aids (none / 0)

I want to hear WHEN he said that!

After tuskegee, black folks are entitled to some degree of paranoia.

But after scientific research figured out the blasted thing, well, then, any pastor sayin such shit ought to be cussed out by G-d himself!


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re:aids (2.00 / 2)

After the past eight years, ALL folks are entitled to some degree of paranoia!


by dark1p on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pastor Wright (none / 0)

"I stridently disagree with him on is Palestinian oppression"

Ha!! What is it exactly that you disagree with, they're not oppressed?


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rev wright cited some good books... (none / 0)

including one that talked about experiments in the 1990's, on black youths (not related to aids).

here's another.
http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Viruses-N ature-Accident-Intentional/dp/0923550127


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As the first black President (2.00 / 1)

I wonder how Bill Clinton feels about this attack by the 'right' against the black church.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:42:30 PM EST

Re: Wright isnt the "black church" (2.00 / 2)

Anti-Semite? I'm Jewish and I'm pretty sensitive to those things. I see no evidence that Reverend Wright is anti-Semitic. Praising Louis Farrakhan's prison ministry does not make Wright anti-Semitic.


by elrod on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one has attacked (none / 0)

Why do you hate Hillary?  Why do you hate America?


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Jerome, Can you stop trying to create division? First the "More Perfect Union" speech was a new low for Obama, and now this?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:42:52 PM EST

This is so sad.... (none / 0)

I could cry.

I will not vote for Hillary or the Clintons (Chelsea) ever.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is so sad.... (none / 0)

Fine more Scalia's. Well he does have great personal charm.


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is so sad.... (none / 0)

You're not going to have to.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Probably a bit late in the game to expect the leopard to change his spot, or to stop putting the cat among the pigeons - to mix my metaphors with a feline vibe.

Obviously the constant harping on about Kos points to some kind of deep seated rivalry. But what would MYDD be like without the daily provocation to up the heartbeat and stir the keyboard.

One day these primary wars will be over though, and some people won't know what to do in civilian life.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Embracing Fox? (2.00 / 2)

Thank you, Karl!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTGbI8pzv qk

Terry McAuliffe: "Let me say, Congratulations, fox news... Fair and balanced Fox!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFEgd2gMe rA

Brit Hume: "It sure is nice to hear Terry McAuliffe say, as other Clinton operatives have, that Fox is fair and balanced... we'll take that and be proud of it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0b SI

Who, exactly, is embracing Fox?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:32 PM EST

Re: Embracing Fox? (2.00 / 1)

If were Clinton, I would be saying the same things in the context of NBC (National Barack Commentators). Now that Republicans are really losing, Fox truly is fair and balanced this cycle.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Embracing Fox? (2.00 / 1)

Gee, I can't think of a reason FoxNews would be promoting Hillary Clinton's primary cadidacy.

You don't think they have some motives of their own, do you....??

Naaaawww. Kooky talk.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 6)

I'll say this for Kos, he's willing to criticize his own candidate.

Don't see that every where in the 'sphere....


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:44:42 PM EST

mmmm.... not really (2.00 / 2)

I know some people are upset that Obama "threw Daily Kos under the bus", or other such nonsense. He didn't.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only after Obama threw Kos under the bus (2.00 / 2)

ummm... Wrong.

-- Markos in the link Jerome provided

I know some people are upset that Obama "threw Daily Kos under the bus", or other such nonsense. He didn't.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only after Obama threw Kos under the bus (2.00 / 2)

Kos doesn't think Obama threw him under the bus, actually.  And he still supports Obama.  He just doesn't think the guy is perfect.  Which makes sense, since he's not.  He's just the best alternative among a group of imperfect options.


by HSTruman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

I was going to make the same comment.  Kudos to him for having the honesty to criticize the guy he supports when he thinks he's done something wrong (even though I don't happen to agree with him).

You could learn something from that, Jerome.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

i think jerome is having too much fun to care, honestly.

even if his preferred candidate at this juncture will get beat.


!
by alex100 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He went on Fox (none / 0)

and mentioned that Wright is no longer his Pastor.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM EST

Re: He went on Fox (none / 0)

He's already been to the Whitehouse for both Bill Clinton and LBJ, and those were much more conservative times.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Of course Obama has it sewn up; have you just not been paying attention, Jerome?

Clinton is mathematically unable to overcome his deficit, and the SD's sure as hell aren't going to overturn the pledged delegate winner.  You're living in a fantasy world if you think any differently.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 3)

Is that why in the last poll of undeclared superdelegates, the overwhelming answer was that they would not vote for the pledged delegate winner,  but the most electable candidate?

Superdelegates don't have to vote how you tell them to. Stop changing the rules in the middle of the game. Now that Obama's not electable, maybe you can make the superdelegates vote for the bigger race baiter in the game...


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

When you say Obama is 'not electable,' it's a completely false and idiotic assertion.  For, you see, he most certainly is electable and will be elected here pretty soon.

The super-delegates are not going to overturn the pledged delegate leader.  There's not evidence whatsoever that this will happen and an extremely strong case as to why it won't.  There are MANY s-d's who are on record as saying they will vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries; that's Obama, without a doubt.

You ought to face the reality of the situation rather then whining about changing the rules; nobody is forcing the s-d's to vote a certain way by changing the rules, only by recognizing the reality of Democratic doom that would follow such an idiotic move.  Huge percentages of the party would either defect or stay home... and you can forget about the AA vote for the rest of time.  Not going to happen.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Open your ears and listen to what the DNC is saying:  Howard DEan has been saying for two days straight that the SD's are not boujnd to anything, that their only job is to select the best candidate.  NOTHING about pledged delegate counts, about popular vote, about states won, NOTHING.

That is a direct message to Obama's campaign:  Look out below!!  Obama's star is falling.


by dembluestates on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

That isn't what he has said, or is saying, whatsoever.  

Just last week, Clinton supporters were bitching about how Dean is in Obama's corner; now it's the other way around?  I can't keep up with every new little twist that you guys try and take with the logic, lol.

Those who think the pledged delegate leader is going to be over-turned don't understand a single thing about politics.  No elected official wants to piss off huge segments of their voting base.  Especially not to put in a candidate who is guaranteed to bring out the opposition in droves.  You aren't using your head, and instead thinking with some other part of your body, which suspiciously resembles a set of buttocks...


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

"Huge percentages of the party would either defect or stay home... and you can forget about the AA vote for the rest of time.  Not going to happen."

If Barack Obama does not rally his supporters to unite to elect Hillary Clinton after she is nominated his political career with be over. Finito.

She will win without his supporters, if they choose to stay home. She has what it takes, and has been improving as a candidate on a daily basis (minus Mark Penn). I promise you, she will be our next president, and will be one of the greatest presidents in our history as a country.


by 07rescue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

sorry, but she won't win the nomination. and if you think you can win without the African American vote, you've truly lost it.


by jbill on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but you are wrong on several counts.  

Most notably the assertion that Clinton will be the next president; your promise simply isn't worth much, as you have no special information showing that the leader of this race is in fact going to lose.

Second, that she 'has what it takes' to win without Obama's supporters.  This is a factual farce of a statement.  It shows a disconnect from reality to claim such a thing.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

You know, if Hillary had some amazing legislative and public service record, I could agree with you.  Unfortunately, she has not.

She has backed shitty warmongering and been a failure.  She has backed good healthcare legislation and done a shitty job getting it passed.  She has run a shitty campaign for president despite every possible advantage.  

Where I come from, that is not the basis for one of the greatest presidents in the history of our country.  It is the formula for a shitty president.


by zadura on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

The 'overwhelming majority of superdelegates' you are referring to don't add up to the 'overwhelming majority' of 80-85% percent of the remaining superdelegates that would have to band together for HRC to get the nomination.

And please don't start back on the 'but the others can change their mind' track. Sure they can, but do you really think that is going to happen in any significant numbers?


by tysonpublic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

One might think Jerome hasn't made it past the denial phase yet.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Do me a favor - point me to the drop in the polls that Obama has had due to the 'damaging information.'

thanks for playing tho!


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Sure thing.

Gallup daily tracking, April 20: Obama by 8

Gallup daily tracking, April 27:  Obama by 1

Newsweek poll Obama

3/5-6  Unfavorable 28

4/24-25 Unfavorable 40

Over 45% increase iin unfavorable ratings.


by dembluestates on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Uh, who cares about the daily tracking polls?  They go up and down constantly.  

And his unfavorability ratings aren't really relevant to his electoral prospects; otherwise you would agree that Hillary is f*cking doomed, as hers have been sky-high forever.

Selective cherry-picking leads to crappy analysis.  If Obama is so hurt, why is he still leading Clinton?  The truth is that he has not been significantly damaged by any of the news that has come out.

On this graph - a poll of polls - can you show me where his numbers have dropped due to bad news?

Nah, you can't.  


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)


You're assuming people who say "undecided" are undecided.  They aren't.
by killjoy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Please link to the post in which I assumed that those who say 'undecided' are in fact undecided.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

The great Jerome is not only a pundit but now he reads minds, I bow to his greatness.


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

I just posted this in the Polls for it All thread, but since that's scrolling down I'll re-post it here to see what you have to say about it:

Right now Obama is +135 per RCP.  Let's say that doesn't change with the remaining primaries (a decision that should help Clinton because of NC).

Politico says there are 240 remaining uncommitted supers.

Now...this is that crazy "math" part.  In order for Clinton to come even to Obama, she needs a +135 net from the remaining supers.  So she would need...wait for it...to go 187-53 with the supers (giving Clinton the rounding error).

187-53 among remaining supers.  Is that going to happen?

Of course, adding MI or FL into the mix makes this slightly more complicated.  But the chance that supers actually hold off until the convention, which is the only scenario in which MI and FL are relevant, I think is next to nothing.

...so what's your end-game, Jerome?  Do you think supers are going to hold out until the convention, and a FL/MI/superdel bomb will give it to Clinton?

Do you think that's reasonable given the expressed sentiments of Pelosi, Reid, and Dean?


by randomscientist on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST

Yes Jerome (2.00 / 1)


   many of us who support Obama are not unable to criticize him when he screws up.

  As opposed to many Clinton supporters on this site, who flatly deny that Hillary has said or done anything even remotely unfair to Obama.

  Several of us are pissed that Obama caved. That shows us to be objective.

   As opposed to Clinton supporters who thought what Ferraro and Johnson said was perfectly ok, who thought that Hillary being the first Dem to use 9/11 as a scare tactic was just fine.

  Several Clinton supporters can't criticize her, while we can criticize him. it's the differece b/w supporter and Hero-Worship.


by southernman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM EST

Re: Yes Jerome (none / 0)

No no no. You don't get it, we are the ones that are blind not Hillary's supporters. Who cares if she makes racist statements. Jerome's response, "I've been to Africa I can't be a racist."


by cranberry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (none / 0)

I do still prefer Obama, but this was a big mistake he made and a huge opportunity wasted.

I'm pissed, it goes to show how much more work we progressives still have to do.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Frankly, DKos seems to be split pretty much 50/50 on this.

There was outcry beforehand, handwringing during and declarations of failure afterwards.

As someone who spends a decent amount of time on either blog, I'd have to say that the reception on DKos has shown a lot more variation than similar actions by Clinton have here.


by Capt America on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Jerome (2.00 / 1)


  I do. And Clinton used that tragedy to scare voters...she's the first Democrat to do so. The fact that you condone that says a lot about you.
by southernman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bs (2.00 / 1)


   It's fact. She's the first Democrat to use the image of Bin Laden in an ad against a fellow Democrat while saying he's weak and unable to lead the country.

  The very first. She used a terrorist attack to rationalize her candidacy.

  The fact that you can't see that proves one of two things...you are actually blind or selectively blind.


by southernman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bs (2.00 / 0)

Um, no, actually, Kerry ran an ad in 2004 that morphed Howard Dean's face into Osama Bin Ladens'.

On November 7, 2003, a strange new group no one had ever heard of called "Americans for Jobs & Healthcare" was quietly formed and soon thereafter began running a million dollar operation including political ads against then-frontrunner Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The commercials ripped Dean over his positions or past record on gun rights, trade and Medicare growth. But the most inflammatory ad used the visual image of Osama bin Laden as a way to raise questions about Dean's foreign policy credibility. While the spots ran, Americans for Jobs-through its then- spokesman, Robert Gibbs, a former Kerry campaign employee-refused to disclose its donors.



"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Would you like to prepare a scale of tragedies?
Great depression
Civil War
Vietnam
Jim Crow
Dust bowl
Native Genocide
Pearl Harbor
Katrina
Galveston Hurricane
Johnstown Flood

9/11 was a big deal but as with everything that seems to happen in America Hyperbole seems to creep in. The problem with 9/11 and its deification is that it has been used as a device to create a mass of totally counterproductive policies that have been largely a costly failure and done great damage to our great Republic.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Jerome (none / 0)

The ad that mentioned 9-11 was a montage that featured the many events of our time (Katrina, etc.).  While you may not have liked that the Clinton campaign included 9-11 in it, it is surely one of the big events of this century.  Sen. Obama has questioned HRC's fitness to lead and she is questioning his--there is no attack, just a difference in who she perceives is better equipped to handle crisis.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wright is insane (none / 0)

I've read all kinds of stuff like that about Churchill wanting to get the US into the war, or about ignoring the aerial photos about Auschwitz... scratch anybody and they have some weird conspiracy theory.

When did you start being interested in the Rev Wright. Nothing to do with these primaries I assume


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:51:33 PM EST

Re: ANYONE (none / 0)

So basically, anyone who has a different opinion about FDR than you do is insane?

You seem to be basing your argument of Wright's sanity on simply your mere opinion of FDR's character. That's extremely weak.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANYONE (none / 0)

Nuts but not particularly dangerous. I mean, he's not running for president. I'd be pretty scared if someone running for president didn't know how to press the CAPS LOCK key off too. Who knows they might hit the wrong button in the bunker. But you're not running for president either I assume (unless your handle is a sobriquet for Gravel) so I'm not unduly worried.

But thanks for the warning anyway.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANYONE (none / 0)

Im sure I learned in Highschool, College, and post college (history channel) that FDR knew full well of the attack.

Back then America was great, popular opinion was against war mongerers.

For some reason or another FDR was itching for battle but had no exuse to break america's new found no internventionism.

For you to tell me, that AMERICA, one of the world's top military powers for 150 years, had Intelligence that completely failed?

Your take on Pearl Harbor paints our Military and Intelligence services as the most incompetent people in history.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Jerome how do you see this ending, and ending well for Sen. Clinton?  Legit question.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST

Re: 2 terms at 1600 (2.00 / 1)

How does she beat McCain when Obama isn't the nominee because of his black preacher? You think the social force that is the black church will GOTV for her?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2 terms at 1600 (2.00 / 1)

I meant how does he see the primary playing out.  Wasn't your account deleted?


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)


Obama is going to play it safe,

I bet Axelrod has it all worked out: No debates, very small town hall meeting, strip search for cameras etc... just kidding...

But seriously, it is risky because he is not that far ahead. Sure the math are with him, but there are limits to this advantage, especially if he loose too many of the last remaining states.


by TaiChiMaster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:54:01 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Yeah - I agree he is not that far ahead and I'll add that he acts like he has the nomination (you need 2025 for that) - I think Obama will try to play it safe. However, Superdelegates are not committed to vote until the convention - the numbers are estimates based on what people have said to reporters and they can always switch if they feel like it.

Obama will clearly be in trouble if we hear of any of 'his' superdelegates jumping ship for Hillary. Also, Florida and Michigan will go to Hillary's advantage one of these days bringing the numbers closer to even. Lesson: don't assume he is the nominee until he actually is.


by sunnyaz08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 6)

You know, the more loudly and forcefully you try to tell the other half of your party: "this is already over", the more tinny it sounds to us.  It's quite clear to most rational folk that the process continues and has not ended.  And when we watch you repeating this again and again like some sort of bizarre mantra, all we hear is: "i'm really nervous about my candidate right now."

If you think about how much pressure Hillary and her supporters have endured already - being told that every state is "do-or-die", watching an opponent's campaign and media parrots devoted to 24/7 character destruction, and even a 10-day campaign to try to force us to quit based on this "inevitability" argument - most of us are actually very calm about our odds.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough.  "Inevitability" is never a good argument.  As Clinton was good enough to show us, it can singlehandedly sink a campaign.


by Capt America on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

I think "It's the math" is the worst. argument. ever.  It is even more insulting than "inevitability".


by mikes101 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

What's insulting about it?  If a candidate is mathematically not able to win the election, or only able to win via an unheard-of swing (like the 50-point spread in SDs she'd need)...what's wrong with pointing that out?

Even more frustrating is pointing over and over out how the math effectively eliminates Clinton, and never having a Clinton supporter have a reasonable argument in her defense.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 3)

It seems like from your answer you don't appreciate the fact that no delegate has actually voted yet.  Superdelegates can change their minds as many times as they want before the convention.  And neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win.

Therefore this comes to the superdelegates' court, which is very dynamic and very political.  Pretending that they are governed by math is just silly.

Certainly the odds favor Barack Obama.  That's about as strong a statement as you can honestly make, though.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Uh, yes, I do realize that delegates aren't technically bound to their pledges.  But I also realize that it would take a LOT for a delegate to go back on their word.  Something catastrophic would have to happen to get a significant number of SDs to flip from Obama to Clinton.  And barring that, there's just no way that Clinton can get enough SDs to catch up with Obama.

And I don't really see much good that comes out of staying a race where you're hoping for (and potentially encouraging) catastrophic collapse of an opponent that's part of your very own party.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

What is insulting is it seems like you are attempting to say that she is mathematically eliminated.  You are attempting to say that it would be foolish to support her because of the implication that she is mathematically eliminated.

You even say:
"If a candidate is mathematically not able to win the election..."

and
"Even more frustrating is pointing over and over out how the math effectively eliminates Clinton"

Let me straighten this out for you - this is politics, not baseball.  And even in baseball, we do not say that someone is mathematically eliminated until they have a 0% chance of continuing on to the playoffs.  Clinton has much greater than a 0% chance at this point - and nobody can even say what this chance is, because it depends on the private thoughts of individuals that I cannot divine.  

Heck, if we were to carry forward the analogy to baseball even further, this primary is like a baseball season where you can go back into the past and change the outcome of games, because supers don't actually vote until the convention and are free to change their minds at any point (including right now).  I'm not saying it is likely, but supers could reconsider their support of Obama.  Doesn't seem very mathematical, does it?

If the supers wanted this race to be "mathematically" over as you suggest, why don't they all just come out right now and say so?  There is nothing to prevent 100 of them from all signing some document and coming out in support of HRC tomorrow as far as I know...

Aside from this, I believe (and GE polling confirms) that Clinton is the best GE candidate.  Since my concern is not merely with winning the nomination but with winning the presidency, I take that into account.  (This involves multiplication, FYI)

Finally, I believe Clinton would be the best president.  That, as VISA says, is Priceless.  So don't try to argue the "math" to me.  You need to break out a can of string theory or something to convince me...


by mikes101 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

You are attempting to say that it would be foolish to support her because of the implication that she is mathematically eliminated.

Not really, no.  People should support who they support.  I lived in Boston for a long time, I know a lot about supporting teams that you know have little chance of winning. :-)

Let me straighten this out for you - this is politics, not baseball.  And even in baseball, we do not say that someone is mathematically eliminated until they have a 0% chance of continuing on to the playoffs.  Clinton has much greater than a 0% chance at this point - and nobody can even say what this chance is, because it depends on the private thoughts of individuals that I cannot divine.  

Uh, you clipped out the rest of my post, which included "or only able to win via an unheard-of swing".  Yes, Clinton's chance is not zero.  I never said that it was.  But at this point the math is so overwhelming that it would take something catastrophic happening to Obama for Clinton to win the nomination.

And since that's the case, Clinton could suspend her campaign now.  Not drop out, but suspend.  Then, if something DOES happen that makes Obama obviously unelectable, she can re-enter the race as the savior of the Democratic Party.

If the supers wanted this race to be "mathematically" over as you suggest, why don't they all just come out right now and say so?  There is nothing to prevent 100 of them from all signing some document and coming out in support of HRC tomorrow as far as I know...

True, and I wish they would all get off their asses and declare, one way or another.  Personally, I suspect that they don't want to be perceived as handing the nomination to Obama, so they're waiting for a solid win from him to declare their support.  I suspect that if Obama earns a 10+ point win in NC, as he should, we'll see a lot of SDs declaring for him in short order.

Aside from this, I believe (and GE polling confirms) that Clinton is the best GE candidate.

Well, I totally disagree that anything "confirms" that EITHER candidate is stronger in the GE.  Both have strengths and weaknesses, and I think both can win.  As to which is stronger?  I think it's basically a wash at this point (which the polling generally indicates).  Neither candidate has maintained much in the way of a statistically significant lead at this point, and I don't put a lot of faith in polls this far out from the election, regardless.

The reality is that Clinton needs to win something like a 50-point spread on undecided SDs at this point.  Do you honestly expect that to happen?  What will precipitate that kind of SD turnaround, since they've been trending towards Obama for months now?

I just don't see it.  I really don't mean to be insulting, and I'm sorry if I come across that way.  I just don't see what Clinton does that gives her a path to the nomination.  I just don't see it.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

>>The reality is that Clinton needs to win something like a 50-point spread on undecided SDs at this point.  Do you honestly expect that to happen?  What will precipitate that kind of SD turnaround, since they've been trending towards Obama for months now?

I would give it a decent probability, I suppose.  I think Clinton has much better chances than the conventional wisdom would indicate.  I do not think it will take a major downfall (a la Elliot Spitzer) for Obama to lose the super delegates, just more and more minor problems for him that demonstrate that he cannot win.  A small victory in NC or a loss would be a huge blow to his campaign...


by mikes101 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Okay, well if you think there's actually a reasonable chance that SDs are going to swing 75-25 for Clinton (overturning his pledge delegate lead) due to something like a smaller-than-expected victory in NC...well, I'm not sure what to say.

I very much disagree, and think the odds of that happening are pretty much nil.  That's a HUGE swing for Clinton.  It's just not going to happen out of thin air.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

You may not see it, but the people who continue to vote for her do. I believe in the democratic process, and all states have not yet voted.  Although I've disagreed with a good deal that
Dr. Dean has said, I do agree with this--the process must be fair to all sides to be acceptable, and to me that means that people need to stop trying to push HRC out of the race.  That said, I also agree with Dr. Dean when he says this is not about BHO or HRC, but the good of the party, and the role of the superdelegates is to choose the better candidate for the general election.
by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Yes, but to propose a route whereby Hillary wins the nomination, without some reference to the mechanism (i.e. delegates and superdelegates) insults everyone's intelligence.

Go ahead and bash Obama all your like. Then get over the fact that there's no way Hillary can win more pledged delegates after 80  per cent of the primaries. Not math, just fact. And then tell me how this helps the democratic party....

Waiting.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

She doesn't need to have won more pledged delegates.  Repeating the Axelrod talking point doesn't change that.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Well technically she doesn't but not only is giving the elected delegates loser the nomination a risk that I don't think many people are going to want to take, it's an achievement in its own right.

Obama's 150 pledged delegate lead means real votes at the convention.  It means that she's going to have to convince more than 150 superdelegates to back her than Obama will, and there are only 250 undecided ones left.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

I agree with your second paragraph, except to point out that these superdelegates are fluid and can change their minds/posture/position at any point in time.

As to your first paragraph, that "risk" you refer to does not exist in isolation, and it is the magnitude of that risk in comparison with the magnitude of other risks that will be the issue.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

Well you and I obviously read those risks very differently.

Glad you agreed with my second paragraph though; I was afraid I had made grammatical gibberish out of a fairly straightforward point.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Good. So your answer it as expected. A superdelegate coup, in this case with the phenomenal percentage of 75 per cent undeclared going for Hillary.

Now tell me how that plays out in the GE...

See what I mean? The majority of voters who backed Obama in the primaries will not appreciate the superdelegate coup. Hence...

Clinton loses in the fall.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

If there is a superdelegate coup, it will be for a pretty good reason, such as supers saying that Obama is an unelectable GE candidate based on some pretty hard and good polling data.


by mikes101 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

You're kidding right? This is a snark surely. You mean that they would steal the nomination from Obama:

based on some pretty hard and good polling data

I mean, do you know anything about polling. What's the largest sample size? 1,000? 1,500?

How many people (excluding FL and MI for now) have voted in the primaries? I'll give you some clues:
Obama: 14,752,775 Clinton 14,141,255   

My rough math (sorry to use the word) calculates that's almost 30 million. If you're truly thinking a superdelegate coup after 30 million people have voted could be justified by

based on some pretty hard and good polling data

Then I suggest you and Mark Penn team up together and run the election in, say, Zimbabwe


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

>>My rough math (sorry to use the word) calculates that's almost 30 million. If you're truly thinking a superdelegate coup after 30 million people have voted could be justified by

That's right, and by measures that already include Florida, Clinton is down by only 300k.  By measures that include Michigan, she is already ahead.  And with nothing but friendly skies from here on out... why would they steal the election from Hillary?


by mikes101 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI and FL? (none / 0)

Do you want to book your tickets to Harare now?


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

You realize that no superdelegate has voted and any one of the superdelegates in Obama's camp can change their mind at any point, as could Hillary's, right?

If supers are to end this, it will involve a substantial defection from one side to the other, not simply the divying up of what is left.

So you are operating from a false premise.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Check out my post above. If you think that the superdelegates will overturn the results of primaries that have had unprecedented participation, with already 30 million people voting then you're not only operating under a false premise, you're living in another dimension where the laws of gravity, space/time and democracy don't exist.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

If you think the superdelegates will nominate someone whom they don't think has the best chance to win, you are naive.

Also, I think they might care about how those 30 million folks actually voted - ie, popular vote.

Also, as brilliant as Obama's strategy was, shoring up delegate count by seeking out uncontested, red-only caucus states, I think most superdelegates understand it for what it is - a very smart, well executed political strategy, not a mandate from the people.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

I'm not naive. It's precisely my point. As the superdelegate trend (down from a 200 Hillary lead to 20) they know exactly who is more electable in the fall. Sorry. I'm going to assume that the majority of the democratic members of senate, house, and governors are making a better call than you.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Well, I lack your apparent ability to read (all of) their minds.  So I have to fall back on primitive tools such as logic and common sense, knowledge of history, or understanding of the rules.  And those things tell me - odds favor Barack, but not by much.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

That's a reasonable reply. Colour me surprised.

I think they'll start declaring soon. Just had some senator whose name I can't remember for Obama, the governor of NC for Hillary.

It's not completely clear cut, I grant you that. I'm just saying that in this car crash of a primary, with two change candidates in a four month collision course, the democratic party better start making its mind up soon. And the odds favour Barack for the nomination, and there's a big big problem (bigger than Wright for example) if Hillary is seen to 'steal' it from him by DLC superdelegates.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:24:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Cool.  Let's be civil then.

Given that neither candidate can win with pledged delegates, why is it "stealing" for one candidate to win via supers, but "fair" for the other to do it?

Just to give us a head start -

1. I don't believe at all that pledged delegates best reflect the "will of the people", and they certainly aren't a good measure of general election performance.  [Part of the problem here is that this contest doesn't offer any of us a clear measure of the will of the people, not does it seem to accurately reflect general election dynamics.  I blame this crap-o process far more than either candidate.]

2. My bottom line is not who played the game better, but who will win the White House [granting that I think either can do it but I feel much stronger about Hillary, personally] and who will actually be a more effective President for us.  [Granted, also, that the Obama campaign should be commended on their brilliant tactics and the smooth execution of them - likewise the Clinton campaign has paid a price for their failure to understand their opponent until after Super Tuesday.]


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

It would be perceived as stealing by overturning of a large delegate lead. If the positions were reversed, and Obama was claiming a route to the nomination by this route, my guess is that outcry would be huge.

Of course the screwed up system allows for this, technically. But though I'm an Obama supporter, I'm also guessing the undecided SDs are very much working to their self interest - and Obama's coattails and fundraising abilities across the majority of states are demonstrably superior.

I completely respect your personal bottom line about who would make the better pres - but this is what primaries are for. We all have our own opinion, but democracy consists in finding set of rules whereby the majority opinion can be determined and acted upon. The current rules are so screwed up as we said, there are unfortunately a post modern variety of metrics of what is the popular will.

But my guess is that more democratic voters would be upset, not turn out, fail to support, if your scenario obtains.

It's a guess of course, as is yours I suppose. The only verifiable answer is in the future. I'm pretty sure what way that will go, but good to find there are some common ground rules we can agree on


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

It would be perceived as stealing by overturning of a large delegate lead.

Not a very large lead. More like a small (and shrinking) lead.

I also think that Clinton is much more electable. The 527s are not going to tread lightly around Obama's skin color. They are not going to be afraid of being called racists.

Also, I can picture the upcoming TV ads showing Wright mocking John Kennedy and then pointing out that this was Obama's spiritual advisor for twenty years.

The super delegates will be charged with selecting the candidate they think can win in November. A moral victory in August will be a very hollow victory if we have to pay for it with four years of McCain and god-knows-how-many years of his supreme court appointments, and '100 years' in Iraq.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

With 90 per cent of the pledged delegates selected we both know he has an insurmountable lead here. For all the so called 'bad news' of the last month for Obama, Hillary made a net gain of 10 delegates, down to 5 because of a movement that way by other delegates.

Obama's been in lead since Feb, and this is the first time he's slipped back (by around 0.5%).

Of course, you're right about the whole 'momentum' thing, and I agree, Hillary's last card is to paint Obama as unelectable, and the perceived trump car there is his race. As you say 527s will be much more racialist in tone.

But I just want you to follow on this for a moment, in good faith.

Basically this is along the lines of 'America isn't read for a black president', and of course, the rejoinder to this could be 'America isn't ready for a female president'. I don't think either is true, and given high turnouts on both sides, is actually demonstrably unlikely. But there's something deeper which I urge you to consider. Were Barack to be making, albeit subtextually, that the US isn't ready for a Woman President, he would be accused of acquiescence to sexism, a sin of omission rather than commission to be sure, but still effectively letting other misogynists rule the roost.

Now apply this to Obama. If Hillary's campaign is effectively saying he's unelectable because he's black, they can easily be seen as colluding with racism. That's certainly how African Americans, the young, and educated liberals already see it, and will see it. It won't be 1968, but it will be massive turmoil for the democratic party.

In this f**ked situation, I think an uncommitted superdelegate who really just wants a democrat in the white House and big vote in their constituency, is marginally more like to opt for the Obama route as the least worst option.  


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

OK, I agree with almost all of that. Except I think that Clinton is more electable, and that even though Obama gets 80-90% of the black vote, that's not enough to win the GE.

As for not being ready for a black president, a recent poll (I could look it up but not now, I'm kind of supposed to be working) said that something like 85% of the people polled said that they wouldn't have a problem voting for a black man, but something like 65% said that they knew someone who would never vote for a black man.

I believe that people are afraid to appear racist in public and that accounts to some extent for Obama's success in caucuses. When it comes down to casting the secret ballot in November, I don't think he's going to do nearly as well.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong about all of this.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

My route whereby Hillary wins the nomination has been exactly the same for nearly two months now:

Win more votes.
Make a compelling case that you are more electable.

Very simple.

(I have always prefaced this by saying that if MI and FL were not resolved in a way that both sides deem "fair", the situation is problematic and will likely not be settled until Denver.)


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Well we know she can't catch up in pledged delegates so by what means could she win the GE if she's the nominee because Obama is deemed unelectable because of his black preacher?

I haven't seen any analysis of this...


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

You are so good at non-sequiturs.

You should write a book: How to be a wiseass without ever making any sense.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

And yet still no analysis...  


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

You want me to analyze a string of nonsense in which no clause has any logical connection to the others?

Well we know she can't catch up in pledged delegates

(Nearly) True.  However the only case in which pledged delegates determine the winner is one in which a single candidate wins 2,025.  Since that is (nearly) impossible for either of them, there is no longer a direct connection between this figure and the choice of nominee.  Non-sequitur.

so by what means could she win the GE

Pledged delegates in a Democratic primary have nothing to do with the general election.  Non-sequitur.

if she's the nominee

It's true that this is possible.

because Obama is deemed unelectable

People may support Hillary Clinton because they believe she is more electable, and/or becaues they think she has the right ideas or is more likely to execute those ideas successfully.  False premise.

because of his black preacher?

Barack Obama's mentor may or may not relate to his performance in the general election or in this primary.  Fixated on his race for any particular reason?

Hopefully you can understand why I do not normally choose to invest the time required to pull apart the various non-sequiturs that you manage to jam into a single obtuse statement.  And, regardless, you've indicated time and again that you are not capable of or interested in dialogue, only these cute little one-liners with no relevance to what has been said.  Perhaps you do it for the sake of your ego, I don't know.

But I told you several days ago I would not again make the mistake of thinking you were one of the people on this site that could hold a conversation.  You're not.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

All that and still no analysis of what votes she'll lose and how she'll make up for them.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

What votes she'll lose if __ (what?) ?

Try to make sense, just this once.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

If she walks into Denver trailing in pledged delegates and walks out the nominee anyway because of a black preacher. Votes in the GE....


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Why are you presuming that the only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is because of Rev. Wright?  Some of us progressives still like universal healthcare.

And why are you so fixated on his race, by the way?


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

What? The pledged delegate race is over. She can't catch up. The supers are going to decide this. The argument is that Obama is unelectable because of Wright. White preachers can say all sorts of crazy things and it doesn't effect the electability of those who call them spiritual guides or who seek their support so that's why.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Why are you so fixated on race?


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 3)

And when we watch you repeating this again and again like some sort of bizarre mantra, all we hear is: "i'm really nervous about my candidate right now."

That's a misreading -- from my point of view it's more about frustration.  We look at the math and the overwhelming number of remaining undeclared SDs Clinton needs to claim to win the nomination (something like a 50-point spread), and it's infuriating that she's still around hurting our candidate.

She obviously has the right to fight on, and her supporters are obviously free to think that she's a better candidate.  But from an Obama supporter's point of view, she's hampering his ability to really go after McCain while reinforcing McCain's criticisms about Obama.

I realize you support Clinton, and it hurts having your candidate lose (which I know I don't have to tell anyone here, we're Democrats after all).  But I look at the state of the delegates, and I just don't see how Clinton can win it.  I just don't.  I don't see a path, and I've yet to have any Clinton supporters be specific about how she wins the nomination without something politically catastrophic happening to Obama.  If the situation was reversed, how would you feel about Obama hanging around in the campaign, criticizing Clinton, staying in the race just hoping that something awful happens to her?

We're all Democrats.  We shouldn't ever be hoping for disaster for any of our candidates.  If an intra-party race ever gets to that point, I think it's time for the other candidates to bow out.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

Well said. It's frustration, not nervousness. I have no doubt how this will end up. But I'm ready for the party to unite to fight McCain instead of continuing with the charade that it's an even contest. The problem with Clinton continuing on in this vein is that it furthers the divisions within the Democratic primary electorate without legitimately getting her closer to the nomination. She needs 75% of the remaining superdelegates to win. And she's gotten about 1% of them since Super Tuesday. For that to change something much more dramatic than Rev. Wright is going to have to take place. Electability polls won't cut it.


by elrod on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

The night Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania, CNN had a Republican analyst one who was basically saying that she was doing their work for them.

"It would have been hard to run an ad showing Osama bin Laden.  Well, now we can do it and no one can complain because Hillary Clinton has already done it.  It would have been hard to run ads attacking Obama's character.  Well, now we can, because Hillary Clinton has already done it."

Of course the Republicans are going to do what they do no matter what Hillary Clinton does, but she's given their arguments her stamp of approval.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (2.00 / 1)

Chris-

In order for superdelegates to shut down this contest before Denver, which according to Dean is the plan (whether he actually has the political capital to do it, we shall see), it will require a massive defection from one side to the other.

You seem fixated on the SD's that are still undeclared.

But no SD has yet voted.  They can change their minds as often as they like between now and Denver.  That's what is missing from your equation, in my opinion.

If either candidate had the ability to get 2,025 pledged delegates, then this would be much more mathematical, as you suggest.  But since this will fall in the lap of the superdelegates, who are after all politicians, I suggest that it is going to be a lot more fluid than you think.

Odds still favor your guy.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suggestion to Obama supporters (none / 0)

Let's talk on June 3rd, if you're not crying into your pillow.


Peace, S.
by Reluctantpopstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Jerome, your posts are really starting to become funny.  

Hillary's people are featured in Fox promos because they've been so supportive of Fox.  Obama goes on and does an interview and you write a post about it.

Hillary's people say Michigan and Florida will not count, and yet when Hillary claims to hold a popular vote lead and counts those votes, you write a post about it.

Face it, you're reallllllly reaching for some way, some how, that Hillary can win in 2012 against McCain.  Because you know she is not going to win 2008. So does she.


by bradical on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:57:11 PM EST

Really? (2.00 / 1)

And you know this because you're a mind reader, yes?  She continues to run because she feels she is the best candidate and so do I.  If she loses (after all states have voted), I can accept that.  I don't however, appreciate the "Obama is our President" nonsense--it hasn't happened yet, since general elections are notoriously different from the primary season.  


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

People are really warped. If you are so dug in for your candidate that you are willing to nominate someone that can't win the General Election, what are you involved for? Just to be able to type alot?


by glennmcgahee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

LOL. He really does, though. He is going to be the next president.


by Becky G on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST

Re: not a chance (none / 0)

You wish.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Jerome if you happen to pop over to the great orange satan's home you will see he is not shy at criticizing Obama. I think you should try some of the same. If you step outside of you rabid advocate suite for just a few dozen diarys you know in your heart you would have plenty to critic in your "Pure as driven snow Saint Hillary". I patiently await you first reality based dairys.


by eddieb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Its over for Obama.

Anyone who says differently isn't facing the facts.

Obama is unelectable, and Democrats can't afford to lose the race for the Whitehouse yet again.

At this point, he's so radioactive that even choosing him for VP would be extremely dangerous.


by BerkekeyGuy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:45 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Baseless assertion.  There are no set of facts to back up your claims, and what more, there is plenty of evidence that what you are saying is completely false.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

based on what facts/issues, you made a very weak blanket statement.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Yep, I guess that explains why Super Delegates keep endorsing him over Hill.  Yep, it's opver for him alright. lol


by ETHIOLIB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Is that why Jeff Bingaman endorsed him today? Unelectable. Umm-hmm.


by elrod on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

"At this point, he's so radioactive that even choosing him for VP would be extremely dangerous."

Absolutely. Ever since the Wright videos came out Obama's campaign has been over. All the silliness about how he is teflon aside. He's getting scrubbed now, and it isn't pretty watching him go down, inexorably, due to his lack of experience and qualifications to offset the baggage of his past associations. If that is all he has to offer voters who need to understand and trust who he is in order to vote for him, then he has been doomed from the start. he has been a hopelessly flawed candidate who racked up some early victories based on excellent marketing strategies that crumbled under the slightest examination by the press and voters.

We all hope that we will be able to elect a black president very soon, but we need a candidate who does not have numerous dubious associations in his recent past, or has strong qualifications and credentials for the job to compensate for the baggage.


by 07rescue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

I prefer Hillary, but I certainly think Obama could win the general election.  Since I do believe in the Democratic Party, I will be voting for the nominee, whether HRC or BHO, and I'll do it gladly.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fox is Un-American (2.00 / 1)

I am dissapointed in Obama going to the propogandist channel.

Obviously Hillary broke that long ago.

Let's not forget who Fox is.

And don't think that Billo doesn't include every member of this site too


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST

Is Wright funny or what? (none / 0)

Milbank:

For Obama, the Voice of Doom?

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.


--donna darko. I don't read or respond to comments. There's too much hate and misogyny here.
by nonwhiteperson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:00 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

His grandmother isn't the only one Obama will be willing to throw under the bus. I think the hard left  wing of tghe dem party is in for a rude awakening.


by linfar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:05 PM EST

He doesn't. (2.00 / 1)

Where's the post analyzing how Clinton can win in the GE if she walks into Denver with less pledged delegates and walks out the nominee because of a black preacher who, though he said some crazy shit, also said some shit that many Americans - not just African-Americans - agree with?

Some analysis would be appreciated.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST

You don't think he has it sewn yet? (2.00 / 1)

Well, try and steal it from him and we will see if Hillary will win in Nov without 90% of the African American vote.  That's what it will come down to.


by ETHIOLIB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST

Re: You don't think he has it sewn yet? (none / 0)

What's this some sort of racial blackmail? If you don't let me win I'll take my ball home. Hopefully this sort of nihilism will be forgotten by November because if it isn't then look out for more Scalia's.


by ottovbvs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't think he has it sewn yet? (none / 0)

What do you call Hillary's white swing-voters?  I don't get this double standard: Hillary supporters are allowed to switch sides, but if Obama supporters do it it's "racial blackmail".

And they'd have a point too - we have a candidate who's competed everywhere, played by the rules, won more delegates and you expect his backers (who by the way, are the majority) to take it lying down if the nomination is stolen?


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't think he has it sewn yet? (none / 0)


I don't think that's true.  If the black vote splits up ideologically, with liberals voting Clinton and conservatives McCain, Leftist/Rightist/moderates going 50/50 (or staying home)-- that may well be enough.

Yeah, it could possibly shake out and break up 'the black vote' as a unified force.  Dunno how I feel about that, but maybe it's been on borrowed time.


by killjoy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

Is there a means by which to prevent, or track, users editing in comments to the ad tags section?


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Trusted users can edit them back. Show me where the problem is and I'll see if I can help


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Yeah... I already took them out.  I just want to know who is doing them.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

What a train wreck for Obama.

Welcome to the Hillary Clinton campaign ya'll.

She wins the general easily if we unite like the gop.

Lets win this time.


by gotalife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:02 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

You people are forgetting Puerto Rico which has over 60 delegates and it's WINNER TAKE ALL.  Hillary is currently ahead there and that could close the pledged delegate count by half by the time June comes around.


by karajan72 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Oh. Thought they'd changed this to a proportional system


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

It's not winner take all.  So, no.


by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rating ability.... (2.00 / 0)

Gone.  Seems my rating ability has been removed because I zero rated the three noxious comments by Judge Holden.  Just a warning for anyone else that zero rated them, and I see that a couple have, they might want to remove the rating as the user seems to have favored status.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:58 PM EST

Re: Rating ability.... (none / 0)

He and his 19 profiles are protected - I lost my rating ability for the same reason.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rating ability.... (none / 0)

Did you get a reply when you inquired about it?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rating ability.... (none / 0)

I emailed Jonathan and he said it was a technical glitch.  He's resolved the problem and I can now rate and rec.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

I made a mistake.  Puerto Rico isn't a Winner Take All primary.  I had heard this from Michael Barone and David Brooks, but it was an incorrect statement.


by karajan72 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (1.33 / 3)

Obama is hype balloon with a bunch of giant holes in it. The press and the Obama-nuts keep trying to pump in hot air but there are so many holes that he keeps deflating no matter how hard they try.

The good news is that its much better for him to lose now than in November.

He's got so much bad history in Chicago and so little to recommend him that he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Its over for Obama.

It couldn't happenn to a more deserving guy.


by BerkekeyGuy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:27:51 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

You seem angry.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

I think this is hilarious -the outrage by move-on and kos I mean. Obama has been telling you from the beginning he is a centrist (read triangulator). He wants to bring the parties together. He wants to work with republicans and incorporate their ideas. He thinks the democrats are equally responsible for the deadlock in Washington. If you believe that fine. Obama is your man. But everything I have ever read on Kos or Move-on says that they believe exactly the opposite. In fact they think democrats have compromised with republicans too much already (which is what I believe and why I do not support Obama). Why progressives think Obama is their man when he has been saying this all along I cannot fathom.

Has his image finally been tarnished or can the Obama-ites manage to spin this as Hillary's fault once again. Stay tuned.


by Bornagaindem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:28:12 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Really?  You call that outrage?

Huh.

I guess I never thought disagreeing with my candidate would be seen as heresy by Hillary Clinton boosters.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? What a weird, illogical analysis... (2.00 / 2)

Obama is doing this because he knows this is NOT sewn up. He's going on Fox and (possibly) distancing himself further from Wright because the next two primaries are NC and Indiana. It's a series of moves toward the people he needs for the next primaries. You're just trying -- for whatever reason -- to shoehorn the recent events into some "Obama thinks he's inevitable" narrative, but anyone can see they don't fit. It's clear that he's worried about certain demographics in the primaries and is trying to play to them because he knows it could be a barrier to his nomination.


by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:12 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Hillary has already virtually destroyed her delectability with her Wright response.

What's not smart about baiting her into doing herself more damage?


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

What Wright response? How on Earth would anything Clinton's done on Wright hurt her electability? That's nonsense.

Also, haha, "delectability."


by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

how delusional are you?
she simply answered a question by saying he wouldn't have been her pastor and you're saying she destoryed her electability?
she could have hit him much much harder.
Bo supporters blame everyone but obama.
by the Walrus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Yeah - some of us still believe in the separation of church and state.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

She failed to lead and stop the racist sound-biting by her followers.

Much of the country sees this as a passive aggressive use of racism to further herself.

She's lost vital votes, because of how she is perceived on this.

Maybe the perception is wrong (I don't think it is) but you aren't going to recover those voters by telling them their perceptions are wrong.

Already barely more than 50% of AAs will support Clinton over McCain, and that will go far lower if she wins the nomination by persuading the Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable because he is part black.


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

She can't win.  Had she managed to do it Democratically she would have had a shot, but with her baggage, her loss of the democratic base, AND a turnover of an election she doesn't have a prayer.

She's barely beating McCain now, and a) the GOP hasn't begun to attack her, and b) she hasn't felt the fallout from what she would have to do to win the nomination.

And she's consistently less popular among democrats and "democratic leaning voters" than Barack Obama is.  


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

I greatly dislike Rush, Hannity, Coulter & the like and can't bear the idea of giving them the gift of a Hillary nomination.

The sick right would sell their children to oppose Hillary, even if it means backing McCain.


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

"she's barely beating Mccain"

she's barely beating mccain by seven more points  than than obama.


by the Walrus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

oh she failed to be a firewall against criticism of her political opponent? It isn't up to Hillary to defend obama. That you say the attacks came from her followers(i assume you meant supporters),is disingenuous. The Wright issue was brought up by the gop, not HRC.

the perceptions are wrong.

racist sound biting? huh. the biggest racist on the stage is Jeremiah Wright.
These attempts to brand all criticism of obama or wright as racist are desperate. it's like wright saying this is an attack on the black church. nonsense. it is legitimate criticism of his incendiary dishonest divisive words that raise questions about the candidate who has vcalled him his mentor and moral compass. This line of defense reminds me of tom delay claiming the attacks on him were attacks on Chrsitianity. Obama, at least, appears smart enough to stay off that track.


by the Walrus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

You can argue that the effect on her negatives, and her potential vote, is unfair.

(I don't think it is. We are hiring someone to lead, to make our world better, and on this she failed miserably)

But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Gee, I guess you missed this:

Hillary Clinton criticized John McCain Monday for not doing enough to stop Republican ads running in North Carolina and Mississippi featuring the infamous comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

"I believe that if Sen. McCain were serious he would do more than send a letter. He is the putative nominee," Clinton told reporters. "I think that he could very clearly tell the North Carolina party, tell the Mississippi party that he would not tolerate those kinds of advertisements and I'm waiting to see whether he does that."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/04/28/clinton-mccain-could-do-more-to- stop-wright-ads/

Who else is standing up for Obama against the Republican attack ads?


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

too late, too little


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How did you get to this conclusion? (none / 0)

She responded by saying she would not have remained in Rev. Wright's church because she disagreed with his analyses of the issues facing African-Americans and other racial minorities.  How does this make her unelectable?  Even though I support HRC, I'm certainly not going to maintain that there are no negatives, but this isn't one of them.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 1)

I don't approve of Obama's going on Fox.  But then, I'm not going to rationalize this as "reaching across the aisle" like some were with the Clinton's endorsement by Scaife (which spawned a rec'd diary, if memory serves).  The mindset of a lot of people here seems to be that the enemy of our enemy (i.e., Republicans with respect to Obama) is our friend, so seeing a diary slamming him for this very maneuvering is both surprising and hypocritical.  At least it blows the "Obama supporters are mindless cultists" meme out of the water.  Let us say that that particular description seems...misplaced.


by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

At least it blows the "Obama supporters are mindless cultists" meme out of the water.

Dunno about that.  Revolting at their leader when he tells them that it's not really about them, that he just thinks them useful tools...


by killjoy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

North Carolina Governor endorses Hillary Clinton.

She wins the general easily if we unite like the gop.

Lets win this time.


by gotalife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Where'd you hear that? Put a link if you can - thanks :)


by sunnyaz08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

It was breaking on CNN.


by gotalife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Watching the press conference/questions from the National Press Corp. with Rev. Wright.

I can say, without any doubt, Rev. Wright has cost Obama the presidency:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/w right.npc/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

That kind of talk really bothers some whites because it's the words of a "challenger", not a "bargainer".  Please read Shelby Steele's take on Obama and his compromising with whites to win.  Rev. Wright is not a bargainer.  He wants to put whites in their place and show them their "flaws".

The reaction of the audience is also telling.  Trust me, this will NOT play well to the liberal media and bloggers are going to be able to spin to white acceptance.  

Obama is done.


by stefystef on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:55 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (2.00 / 2)

Why do you care so much about his pastor?  This is about principle; either you believe that the wall between church and state is absolute, or you don't.

You don't.  That's not where most of America is.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

What great clips.

I love Wright, he's wise & funny too.

He's a great asset


by wrb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

It is over.

Its a train wreck.


by gotalife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It ain't over by a long shot (2.00 / 2)

Smug Obama true believers who think this race is over are deluding themselves. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote, is closing the pledged delegate gap, and has won the most important states with the most electoral votes. Super delegates were put in place 28 years ago to redress the imbalance created by allowing proportional delegates in the primaries.

Facts to consider:

1. There is no such thing as a pledged delegate since all delegates are free to choose the best candidate.

2. Super delegates are free to choose the best candidate for the general election irrespective of who is ahead in pledged delegates.

3. Obama is damaged goods and Republicans in two states are already running TV ads against Democrats who support Obama who will be poison down-ticket.

4. We've seen a definite demographic trend that indicates Obama has no chance whatever to win in November.

5. There's no way delegates are going to commit political suicide by handing the nomination over to a sure loser who not only will lose the election but who would also cause other Democrats to lose their local elections.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will beat John McCain and her long coattails will help many other Dems get elected to Congress and other offices.


by Nobama on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST

Re: It ain't over by a long shot (none / 0)

You know, whoever you support, you do a great disservice to the english language, and indeed the concept of objective truth, to label your assertions 1-5 as facts.

It's so strange that Obama supporters are called cultists, when your post is a complete faith-based reality.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It ain't over by a long shot (none / 0)

Prove me wrong.


by Nobama on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

If Obama gets extremists of all polarities angry, maybe he really is genuine? He is sincere enough to tell it like it is and not cater to the extreme right or left.

Reminds me of the Rudyard Kipling poem, "IF":

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling


Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans. - Will Rogers
by benjaminsp on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST

That poem (none / 0)

I have always loved it.  Seems pretty fitting for Hillary, though, these days.


by avrdream on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

The wheels are off the Obama campaign. Say hello to  "The Comeback Rev!"

Oh and thanks for the "You'll be a Man, my son!" poem. Veeeeeeeery touching. Is there one for girls?


by cc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:52:22 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

LOL some people are in for a big surprise on Denver. The Clintons will win, bank it


by rossinatl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

the plural nature of this post cracks me up.


!
by alex100 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton's have lost. (none / 0)

And that you can go out and spend. Which makes diaries like this bitter little screed hard to understand.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:13:53 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

it's 95% sewn up.


!
by alex100 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:03 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Wright's Farakhan comments blew me away.  are we supposed to pretend that after 20 years of sitting in that church, Obama had no clue about the jew hating?  because that's what Wright preached today at the press club.  Zionism is not racism!


by joker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:21:29 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

"Zionism is not racism!"

That may be the case, but saying it is doesn't make you a racist either.


by Todays Lies on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

spinning out of control (none / 0)

my impressions from cable news first spin cycle are much more negative than i expected .. forseen by most commentators as fatal for BHO's chances, particularly in the GE, if not strongly corrected

frankly, i'm surprised by this and even more disappointed .. earlier today i was waxing optimistic having seen all the Wright interviews and speeches over the past few days .. now, i'm even more unsure .. this is all looking and feeling too familiar

politically, i'm still pretty much as uncertain as when i voted for HRC in the Texas primary and caucased for BHO that evening - that's still about the same way i feel .. i'd be satisfied with either over JMc .. but that's another story

regardless, this Wright issue spinning out of control also validates the tired old political campaign maxim of avoiding, at all cost, sublty and nuance because the vast majority of voters don't have time or interest in pondering beyond the transparent and traditional to make a decision

this was and remains GWB's singular diabolical brilliance .. he recognizes that, like cattle, many if not most voters follow herding instincts -voting as others like them vote and blindly following the leader of the herd

if these cable tv news programs influence the herd, sadly IMHO they do, the Wright story may have stronger legs than i expected and make things far more complicated for BHO

i guess this is all no surprise as naive optimism has been and continues to be a hallmark of mine .. how else could i have survived this long in GWB's Republican Texas? when the Rovian spin machine begins to kick in, if it hasn't already, i may need a strong drink or two

so it goes


"call it peace or call it treason ... i ain't marchin' anymore" -- Phil Ochs
by MadDawg on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

"The thing is, Obama is doing this with the conclusion in mind that he's got it all sewn up. He doesn't."

Um, he does have the nomination wrapped up.  Just because the pro-Hillary MSM and pro-Hillary MyDD says it's not over doesn't make it so.  He has won in pledged delegates and the superdelegates will not overturn the will of the voters unless they want to lose the election.

Period.

Having said that, all the voting should go on, but once June 3rd ends, this campaign ends with Obama as OUR nominee.


by RussTC3 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Despite Dr. Dean's bluster, you can't force a candidate out.  It's this attitude that sets my teeth on edge.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

No one is forcing anyone out.  I just told you that the contest should go all the way through the very last vote.  But what I'm saying is that the superdelegates should not and WILL not be more important than the vote of the public.

By the way, superdelegates better be eliminated by the next primary season.


by RussTC3 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Neither you, Dean, Pelosi, Gore et al may force anyone to vote the way you want.  They certainly may, but the idea that you're going to force them to support your position is specious.


by TinaH1963 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

It's hard to overstate how depressing it has been watching the reemergence today of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club.

It has been depressing to see the Obama campaign go through more "Wrightgate" in the wake of "Bittergate", and the loss of Pennsylvania. Obviously, this is the last thing in the world they needed.

It has been enraging to watch the news media obsess so deeply over the words of a man who is not even running for office, and then associate those words and positions with Sen. Obama--a man who has never uttered publicly any of those words or ideas, nor taken publicly any of those positions. It has been even more infuriating to hear a blowhard like Chris Matthews ask aloud "why won't the reverend just go away", then devote the entire hour of Hardball to picking over his every word. This, naturally, has been the reflex position of the entire political elite the last 24 hours.

It must be downright surreal for the Obama campaign to watch someone utterly out of their control pop off to the news media whatever he feels like saying, whenever he gets the urge, and then have the same media gallop over to Barack and demand an explanation.

More than anything, though, to have watched Barack Obama go to great pains several weeks ago to defend the character of the man he once called pastor, only to have Jeremiah Wright stab him in the back today with the following comments, was the most galling moment of all.

When Wright was asked today about his original remark that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost", rather than offer the sound foreign policy theory of blowback to explain, he used the Bible: "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

On his feelings toward Farrakhan: "He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks it's like E.F. Hutton speaks."

Not to stop there, he dragged all African-Americans down that road with him. "All black America listens." Really? So now Jeremiah Wright speaks for all black America?

On his theory that the U.S. Government gave AIDS to black people: "Have you read Horowitz's book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola"? Whoever wrote that question, have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You've read it?" No, we haven't.

On the sincerity of Barack Obama's disowning of Wright's controversial remarks: "He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician..."

On his personal loyalty to Barack Obama: "If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."

I don't agree with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, or the National Review, that this event may have doomed Obama's candidacy. I do believe, however, that it may have doomed his chances to win the Indiana primary--one that until today was essentially a dead heat. It also threatens to seriously tighten his popular vote margin in North Carolina.

I confess I don't know exactly where I stand on the near-unanimous media opinion that Obama's only escape from the newest controversy is to completely disavow Wright, once and for all.

I think there is a good point to be made that Wright's narcissistic rant today was a public betrayal of Obama, thereby providing a fair pretext for a disavowal. I believe there is an even stronger argument that since Wright has insinuated Obama is faking his distance from the controversial statements, this requires the senator to directly refute Wright, publicly and immediately. Obama certainly can't have anyone close to him--especially his former pastor--continue to give interviews telling everyone not to really believe Obama means what he says.

On the other hand, I get pretty nauseous when the media starts dictating to public figures whom they are and aren't allowed to associate with. Let's call it what it is: blackmail. The MSM is saying to Obama, "you can make this easier on yourself if you play by our rules, and cut Wright loose. Otherwise, we will hound you day in and day out with this until you drop out of the race." Not included in the threat is the obvious fact, of course, that nothing Obama says or does will ever shut the media up about Rev. Wright anyway. So, what's the point?

Also, wouldn't it look deeply political for Obama to kick Wright to the curb at the very moment the minister is causing him the most damage? And didn't Obama himself say "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother"? You can just see the tabloid headline: "Obama Disses Wright; Granny Takes The Hint, Packs Her Bags".

I don't really know what Obama should do, though the thought of Barack having to cough up yet another mesmerizing "race" speech to get himself out of yet another jam certainly isn't appealing. I do however, have a question for Rev. Wright.

You're obviously an intelligent man, Reverend, who I surprisingly find a lot in common with ideologically, although I believe your leftist politics are of a more conspiratorial strain than my own. It is also obvious that you care passionately and profoundly about the African-American community you have dedicated your life to serving. With these two truths in mind, the obvious question surfaces:

Why are you knee-capping the first viable African-American presidential candidate in our nation's history?


by Todays Lies on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST

Wow (2.00 / 2)

Repeating your beliefs which are based on zero facts, just heightened emotional investment in a single candidate, that Obama is somehow done and over is amazing.  Each day its something else and each day its more desperate.

So people at Kos are pissed at Obama for going on Fox.  So what?  You think they are going to come over to Hillary instead?  Most of us dont really care about Fox and at some point they have to become relevant whether we like it or not.  And I agree with some here who says it shows quite a bit of difference where at least at Kos they are willing to acknowledge their candidate is not perfect, where here that is unthinkable.  And Obama supporters are cultists?

Lets look at what facts we know:

1) Obama basically leads in all metrics for securing the nomination,

  1. Assuming the race plays out as expected, Obama will still lead in all metrcis for securing the nomination,
  2. Obama has not cratered and is not cratering by any poll measurement out there,
  3. Hillary is a strong candidate and has tremendous support in the party and in the electorate,
  4. Hillary still has a technical shot at the nomination within the rules,
  5. Outside of Obama cratering (which is of course possible), Hillary's chances for securing the nomination are slim at best.

I know you want to wish really, really, really hard on your bright lucky star that the SD's will overlook Obama's lead, factor in Florida and Michigan in the most disingenuous of ways to favor Hillary and overturn Obamas lead becasue you know your belief that Obama will lose in the GE is a fact, stomp your feet hold your breath fact!, not belief.  The problem is, no facts support such a claim.

The facts about both candidates:

1) They both are great.  I like the quote, for which I have misplaced the source, which basically said Obamas support is shallow yet very wide, whereas Clintons is more narrow but very deep.  I think that sums them up perfectly.

  1. Yet, they both are weak.  Obamas 'newness' to the scene and apparent lack of dem bona fides seasoning worries me.  Hillary has extremely high negatives which will be hard to overcome.
  2. They both have different GE strengths and weaknesses and both have different but viable paths to the nomination.
  3. Both would defeat John McCain.  Handily.  Assuming a united party.

I will not state that the primary is over.  As long as Hillary has a technical shot at the nomination, it is what it is and it goes on.  But to not acknowledge the reality of where the race stands and at the same time the risks associated with letting it continue is just plain disingenuous.  

We need to honestly recognize that while Hillary has a chance, there is a greater chance of worse things happening to the dem party if this primary continues to the convention, which is the only place where Hillary can 'officially' topple Obama.  And like it or not, in the US, the loser will pay the ultimate price for any perceived devaluation of the party.  To the winner go the spoils and the loser the derision.  So beware of taking this to the covention as the losing candidate.  I mean no threat in this, I just mean to state the facts of the way competition plays out in the US.  The same facts will equally apply to Obama and his supporters if the inverse happens.

I believe, my beliefs now, that what is required for Hillary to secure the nomination means 1 of 2 things which will hurt the democratic party for years to come and keep America in a sad state for a long time.  They are:

1) One of the most promising intelligent and potential base building young democratic national candidates (building in places where it was never thought possible) will have to either a) self destruct completely or b) be pummelled into nothingness by a two pronged attack one being from a fellow dem supported by the heavies of the dem royalty.

  1. So much time will continue to be invested in the primary campaigns that the factions we have created will continue to deepen further and the attacks will become more and more vitriolic that there will be less and less chance of real reconciliation within the party which will have two effects a) a tougher GE than need be and b) a loss in downticket races where serious gains were possible.
  2. Whoever comes out will have too little time to mount a good national campaign (vet and select a VP - a borkered convention means no VP choice until after, raising money, advertising, setting up ground games, etc.)

I want Hillary to drop out solely because I believe the cost to the party of her staying in to the convention with such slim odds is seriously outwieghed by the risks of the ramifications to the party for letting it go to the convention.  

If this is allowed to go the convention, which seems to be the desire of Clinton supporters, can you imagine what June, July and August are going to be like?  With a gleeful media egging on both sides.  A convention fight may sound romantic to the die hard supporters, but outside of that small bubble it is a receipe for complete disaster.

Do you who support the prospect of the supers overturning the pledged delegate leader really believe that there will be no ramifications?  Serious long term ramifications?  And I dont mean 'im taking my ball home and voting for McCain' kind of childish ramifications, but real party fratricide ramifications.  Or is it simply, the ends justify the means.  Im really curious.

You will in one swoop depress turnout for the GE, turnoff a large historic and loyal base of the party and turnoff the future of the party.  You of course will be able to fall back onto 'the supers can do whatever they want' and technically you will be correct.  But the victory will not have a legitimate ring to it outside of the core of the party.

As a loser myself, every single time in primaries Im used to sucking it up and accepting the fact that my preferred candidate didnt make it.  I have always held private beliefs about the electability of the candidates that were chosen instead, but I pulled that D level anyway and I will do so this time if that is the way the chips fall.  Some of you will have to do some serious soul searching and suck it up this year as well.  It sucks when your candidate doesnt make it, but it sucks worse when the candidate in the lead by all metrics isnt given the nomination.  Legitimacy in a candidate is more important than anything else and like it or not delegates are the ultimate measure of legitimacy in the primary, everything else is secondary and wishful thinking.

I appreciate your support of your candidate, honestly I do.  I just wish you would equally acknowledge the risks her continued candidacy carries to the party.  Remember, this is not a Hillary site, it is a dem site (theoretically).


by pattonbt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

If Obama does not get the nomination-we lose!  Simple as that.

Kiss the Presidency goodby.  I know too many folks that will never, never vote for Hillary.

McCain will win if Hillary steals the nomination!


by lja on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:55:30 PM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

Jerome. Check the scoreboard. That is all.


by Brannon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:23 AM EST

Re: Obama swapping out (none / 0)

After watching Reverend Wright over the weekend give his speech to the NAACP, it turns out, SURPRISE!, that the man is not a monster, a hater, an anti-American, or any of the things he has been branded by Faux News and the Pundit Class after seeing a FIVE SECOND CLIP of one of the man's sermons.

Turns out, he gives a great speech, interesting, filled with nice anecdotes, a few funny stories, even a little bit of singing and few impressions on the side.  Even some words that were inclusive and warm.

After watching that speech, I like the guy!  Seems intelligent, well-spoken and has a sense of humor.  I can see why Obama was drawn to him.

And I say this as a white guy who has never been in a black church in his life.  

Let's stop all this condemning of a black preacher because you don't understand how he speaks, why he says what he says, and who his audience is.

Even all this bitching and moaning among Obama supporters that "Wright is only in this now for his ego" is a bunch of crap.  "Why is he hurting OBama?  He must know that he's hurting Obama!  Why is he doing it!  He's out of control!"

Bull.  He's defending himself from attacks from seemingly every white person in the country, both on the right and the left.  He has every right, and he should take every opportunity.

The people to blame for building this up beyond all sanity are the press, who are really whipping up a non-story into a scandal I cannot even comprehend.  Five days on this?  It's not important!  Stop talking about it!  

What must Obama do the "distance himself" from Wright to the satisfaction of the racist white people passing judgement on the black church?  Does he have to set him on fire?

"Stop hurting America." - Jon Stewart


Peace, S.
by Reluctantpopstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.