If that's the only way she gets them then she's screwed already. If she can't make it an issue of who is more qualified & prepared to be President then the race is already over.

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

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

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

I'm thinking that's one of the major reasons she's sticking around. Maybe she's hoping for a Spitzer like scandel, which would make the superdelegates rally around Clinton and the rest of the party would probably be quite ok with that.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the issue of race in the democratic primary:

“In Mississippi, Obama’s not carrying independent whites, he’s not carrying young whites, he’s not carrying educated whites,” FOX News contributor and NPR national correspondent Juan Williams said, noting that race was an influencing factor for both black and white voters in the Magnolia State.

“The results are very similar to the South Carolina results, in terms of how blacks and whites polarize,” said Roll Call Managing Editor Mort Kondracke, a FOX News contributor.

Black voters have pushed Obama over the top in southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. He has also succeeded in much whiter and more racially homogeneous states like Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.

“The only kind of state that Obama picks up are states that either are majority black or very heavily black … or states where there are practically no blacks at all,” Kondracke said. “This has been going on in practically every state.”

Like it or Not, Race Looms Large in Democratic Contest

I think there is another elemant people aren't talking about enough. When Obama wins, he crushes Hillary. In a format like the dems have, it's all about the blowouts. Obama has carried 60% of the vote 12 times. He's carried 70% of the vote 4 times more. Hillary? She carried Arkansas at 70%. She hasn't hit the 60% mark in any other win. That's 16 blowouts to 1.

So Obama does well in majority white or majority black states and Hillary wins the mix states? Well, Oregon is 90% white. NC is about 1/4 black. (roughly the same amount as Georgia where Hillary was trounced) I don't see a lot of hope for her.

I'm not sure the above study really covers the issue. Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? It's obviously more than race playing a factor here. Is it the fact a majority of Nebraskans just despise Hillary and would rather have a black man in office than a white women? Or did Obama do a better job of campaigning and getting his message to the people. Was his team on the ground that much better than Hillary's team?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

Perhaps the answer to that isn't as obvious as I would have figured after all.

I agree mostly. I think that the single biggest factor is that the almost fully white states are the small flat states in which Hillary simply didn't campaign (for reasons that even God Himself probably still does not understand).

There is, however, a racial component to it--at least from what I have read. White people in states with almost no black people seem much more willing to vote for a black candidate than white people in states with a significant black population. So, in states like Mississippi, there are enough black people to carry Obama to victory. In states like Wyoming, there are so few black people that white people don't vote along racial lines. And, in states like Ohio, there are enough black people to scare all the white people, but not so many black people that they could bring Obama to victory. Or so the theory (which seems to accord with the numbers to some degree) goes.

The problem that Obama has (and I think that this is Clinton's strongest argument) is that he has not convinced everyone that the white working-class union member in Ohio who does not like to drive through "that crack neighborhood across the highway" will pull the trigger for him in November instead of McCain. By all rights, that guy should be a solid Dem. voter. And he will vote for Hillary. But will race be a factor in that guy's vote and keep him from voting for Obama? I don't think that anyone really knows that.

dola--

And might I add that I think that Clinton is being mighty stupid in stoking those flames through Ferraro (sp?). It's not like the kinds of people who are going to vote on the basis of race were likely to come over to Obama's side. It was a strong silent base of support that she had/has. She didn't need to bolster it up.

Now, by keeping it in the forefront, she gives Obama a chance to confront the issue and speak directly to it. And she runs the risk of being seen as pushing it too far. It's OK for a democrat to rely on racism and sexism that are already there. You begin to play with fire when you are seen as courting it.

IMO, I've notice that (for the most part) Obama tends to do well in states that tend to vote republican. The South, parts of the West, areas in the midwest. Now, there are some exceptions (most notably IL, but that makes sense too). But, I think the point here is that a lot of the independents and former republicans in these "red/battleground states" don't really like Hillary on a personal level. You combine those people with the extremely high African American turnout in the democratic party for Obama, and it's not surprising at all to see these results. Basically, in states that either have a huge black population or tend to have more conservative democrats/independents, Obama wins (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, SC, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, ...). In states that are more traditional "blue states", with more liberal leaning independents, Hillary wins (California, New York, Mass, NJ, ...). The only real oddball in this theory is Hillary winning Texas - but that's more because of the Latino vote.

The true irony of this entire process is that the two front runners (McCain and Obama) are doing better in states they normally don't do well in for the generals. McCain won the nomination by winning blue states and Obama may end up winning by carrying red states in the primaries.

It's tough to reconcile this statement, without knowing what you really mean by "majority black" states.

I'll admit I haven't been a part of this entire process. I've watched a handfull of debates and read some synopsis of their takes on issues. In the debates and speeches I've watched, I've heard Hillary play the "I'm a women" card plenty of times and haven't heard Obama play the "I'm an African American" card at all. Michelle has with some of her quotes, but it's not something that is consistent from the Obama camp as it seems to be from the Hillary camp.

Hillary is walking a very, very fine line at this point. She's trying to hammer the experience card on Obama to make her comeback and get the supers on her side. That isn't going to bode well for her in the GE, because she won't be able to play that card against McCain. In fact, McCain will be able to play it right back on her. Especially that 3AM quote where she said "I'm prepared to take the call, McCain is prepared to take the call, Obama gave a speech in 2002"

This is the second or third article I've seen from feminists looking like fools and making statements that it's easier for a black man than a white women to get into office. Ummm. . . maybe, maybe not. But bringing it up makes you look idiotic.

This is intersting to watch anyway. :)

majority was the wrong word. How about a large percentage?

On the democratic side, I think this is partly explicable by Obama being to the left of Hillary. In a state like Kansas, for example, most everybody in the state is conservative and republican. But then there's Lawrence, which is probably more liberal than New York City, and that's where the democrats live.

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

I think in general, no, but I think for certain issues, like Iraq, yes. I think your farcical notion is a media fabrication, and perhaps something his voters like to say, but not something they actually believe. I think they envision him as a liberal/minority/youth takeover of the White House. Down with the preppy Bushes, up with ... whatever Obama is supposed to represent in their imagination.

Just my own $0.02.

I think the Republicans are more entertained by this race than the Democrats. ;)

Well, the R side of the discussion is settled, it's just a matter of who they face off against. It's fascinating for the neutral or the other side to watch, I'm sure (with a bag of popcorn, and enjoying every in-fighting moment of it)

A majority of the dems are too busy cringing right now. I have a ton of (D) friends who are beside themselves now. Both Hillary and Obama supporters. None of them think what is happening is a good thing. They are also becoming more entrenched with "their" candidate by the day. Not a single one of the friends I have who voted for Obama would vote for Hillary in the GE. (15 is a small sample size, but it's the only firsthand thing I have to work off of) The friends I have who support Hillary are supporting her because of her "experience" (which I find laughable, but whatever) and won't vote for Obama in a GE because of that.

Honestly, I think the conservatives are taking a great interest in this thing. Watching to see how the dems finish this thing is of great interest.

I'm interested for a variety of reasons. I am right leaning (though that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a democrat if I thought they were the best person for the job) More than that, I'm a fan of history. I think we are all witnessing something incredibly historical here and as much as I want the right person to get elected, I'm fascinated to see how this thing plays out.

Sounds better, but I still don't know what defines a large percentage. You said NC was 25% black -- is that large? I honestly don't know. You said Oregon is 90% white -- so maybe 6-7% black? I'm assuming that's small.

Here's a better breakdown.

Black population by state
Rank States Amount (top to bottom)
#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

Damn alot of blacks in D.C.? Do they work for the government?

They don't call it Chocolate City for nothing. It's been that way for a long time.


It was a lot higher at one point. It's continuing to drop as more and more folks move to the suburbs.

Here's an article about it.

Reverse alphabetical order. Diabolical.

Found a better one that seems more accurate with all of the states included this time.

Yeah, it's like watching two chihuahuas argue over who is the biggest dog.

LOL. I've seen that today already...

+1

Just as an exercise (I'm sure somebody else has already done this somewhere, but I'm going to look it up myself), let's see who "won" each state (popular vote, not delegates):

Obama
Clinton


#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

I left Florida and Michigan out because of the weird circumstances surrounding those states. I also left alone states which haven't held Democratic primaries or caucuses yet.

Okay, no surprise that of the ten states with the highest ratio of blacks to overall population, Obama has won the nine that have held contests.

On the other hand, of the ten states with the LOWEST such ratios, he's won 6 of the 8 that have held contests.

Hell, of the 25 states with the lowest ratios, Senator Clinton has won six, four haven't held contests, and the other sixteen went to Senator Obama. There may be a "black thing" going on in favor of Senator Obama, but it isn't "just" a "black thing."

The 9.2% is about the same as what Obama got from the Republican vote in the Texas primary. Contrary to the tone of this thread, Clinton has not been dominating the Republican vote.

Remember we are talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. i'm guessing damn near no blacks in the South are Republicans.

Right, how many black people are in the state is an irrelevant question as far as I can tell.

People seem to make him into what they want him to be. If you look at the far left blogs, they love him there. They certainly don't think that he is outside of partisanship. They think that he will pull things way to the left.

And a lot of moderate people do see him as a post-partisan moderate because he has spoken out against the red state/blue state dynamic.

So what I am making him into :)? I like him best of the three for a few reasons. First, I like that he is less beholden to the Washington structure than the other two. That does not mean that he is somehow post-partisan. It does mean that he hasn't been a major Washington player for 20 years, so he will be able to evalute things and make choices without tons of baggage.

Second, the guy was a liberal professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Which means that he has been exposed to the highest level of conservative intellectual thought. Which means that when it comes time to work with the Republicans, he is more likely to say "Even though I disagree with your goals, I understand and respect the truths at the core of your position" and less likely to say "I hate all of you because you kept pointing out how my husband fucked a lot of random women."

Third, I just don't really like the other two. McCain will appoint judges too conservative for my taste. Clinton will expose us to 4 or 8 more years of that soap opera she calls a marriage. Maybe Obama will do something just as bad, but I don't know about it yet. That's good enough for me :).

All of which is to say that not all of Obama's supporters are hopeless romantics with no sense of reality. Just a healthy percentage of them :)

I think one is a function of the other.

No, I don't think the voters at large know or care about his voting record in the senate over his three year career. That's extraneous information to them (at this point).

I totally don't get it.

People don't care about his record in the Senate in large part because there isn't much of one. For good or ill this Senate just hasn't voted on anything controversial. The agreements made wit Republicans to count the threat of a filibuster as equal to the real thing has left us with a scarcity of votes that can be easily used to frighten voters.

His Illinois record has better ammunition, but he also has stories from Republicans about how he was able to respect their views and work with them. I'm sure the same old "liberal elite" arguments will be made, but in comparison to the voting records of the past two Dem candidates, he looks very middle of the road. The Republicans have spent decades defining crazy liberal" and Obama doesn't fit the mold.

Of course it's also interesting that Obama gets criticized for extreme left policies and a shortage of policy specifics at the same time.

On the threat of voters to switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win, it's overblown. It's easy to say that now. When the choice is R vs. D most of them will clench their teeth and vote for the nominee.

For the first time in a long time, I don't think voting records are going to be a central part of the campaign. This is the first campaign I can remember where both candidates will be sitting Senators. In the past, just because of the way the Senate works, there were tons of votes that could be used to attack a candidate as not being "true to the conservative/liberal cause". That is why Governors had an edge, because there wasn't a comparable body of work that could leave them vulnerable to attacks.

You guys act like Obama just walked into the senate chamber yesterday, and his slate is non-existent. Granted, he only has three years of experience, but in 2007 alone, he cast 286 votes in the senate. He has a lifetime rating of “8” from the American Conservative Union, virtually identical to Clinton’s “9” rating. John McCain has an “83” rating. I’ll concede that this has been a non-issue in the primary, playing to the democratic base, but when the general election campaign gets underway, his voting record and stand on the issues will take center stage, and he won’t be able to continue to skate on ““We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States — We are the United States of America”. At this point, someone will whack him over the head with an Electoral College map, and the real campaign will commence.

Same reason more people are voting in the democratic primaries than the republican ones - more drama :)

Vic: Point out some truly controversial votes. I don't think a number rating has much effect on the moderates who will eventually decide the election. It only matters, if even then, when it's tied to specific scary sounding votes. He won't have the, "Obama voted for tax increases 300 times," or Obama voted to cut defense spending 200 times," charges to worry about.

I'll admit I've only looked at last year's votes, but there wasn't more than one or two that looked like it could be used against him in a thirty second spot. Obama's best decision was to run now before he had a long Senate record of easily distorted votes.

That's probably the most concise description of this election I've heard yet. Bravo, sir.

Wait until the RNC starts running ads on this. Let's see if Obama distances himself from these remarks. We'll see. Clinton has been excoriated for playing the race card, but what will happen with this?

Barack Obama's Pastor Preaching the Love of Jesus

This isn't overblown at all. The fact is, there are major differences between the two candidates and the two sides don't like each other very much. (and it's going to get nastier, Ferraro's comments are just the tip of what's to come in the next six weeks leading to PA)

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

On the opposite side, don't think a majority of those black voters in the south are going to just flip over to Hillary. If Hillary wins by the superdelegates, they are going to feel like the election was stolen from them. A lot of them aren't going to cast a ballot for the candidate who they feel was responsible for a backroom deal.

I really don't think enough has been made of it myself. I think the longer this goes, the easier McCain can skate into The White House no matter what candidate the dems throw out there. Again, from a historical perspective, candidates who went down to the wire in the primaries have not fared all that well in the GE. I don't think that trend will go away.

One last thing, keep in mind that it doesn't take 40% of the dems to switch over for the reps to win this thing. Bush wasn't a popular president when he won reelection. Don't underestimate the conservatives pulling together and coming up with another big showing in November. ANY split in the dems is going to devastating for their chances to win the election. That split is already there and is going to grow wider the longer this continues. I'm stunned more people aren't on this storyline.

Not only an experienced (R), but one who has had a history of working with Democrats to get things done and one that doesn't seem to be as crazy as some of the other conservative Republicans.

I've detailed this several times already, but here's the short version again:

- There are fewer self-identified conservatives now as there were in '04 and especially '00
- McCain is essentially running as Bush III
- With the economy headed for the toilet, the above two points would keep any R from winning against any non-Hillary D

Hillary's problem is she doesn't have any experience either. And she can't make an argument that she's more experienced vs. McCain anyway.

R's are getting involved as someone else mentioned and they're voting Hillary. See my post from the other day.

Troy: I just don't think that many people will switch when it actually comes down to it. It's an easy threat to make in March because there are no consequences, but in November after months of negative ads and vitriol most of the people who threaten to walk away will vote Dem. This is especially true since the people making the threat are on average far more partisan than the average voter. It's just like with the Religious Right and McCain. They all threatened to bolt, but one by one they're now stepping in line because McCain is still better than a Dem in their eyes.

There might be a threat of people stying home, but even this diminishes if the race is over in early June. If there's an ugly floor fight I can see people stying home, but otherwise there is plenty of time to heal wounds and move on. Provided the losing candidate comes out and endorses the winner, the "split" in the party won't be anything to worry about.

Every election cycle something comes up that's going to permanently destroy one of the two parties, but it never happens.

Not permanently destroy a party (though this is as close as I've seen to one of the two big parties heading for an iceberg) But in terms of blowing up a single major election? It's happened frequently in our history. And it's about to happen again.

I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the divisivness going on in the democratic campaign now. The only good thing for the dems is that many of the party leaders who I've heard in interviews are taking it seriously and are already preparing to try to heal the wounds after this ends. If the end comes on the convention floor, it will be too late.

Agian, it's just my opinion and we'll have to wait until election time to see if it comes true.

In the past forty years I can only think of one example of a split causing a major fallout, McGovern in 1972.

In 68 Humphrey lost by less than one percent of the popular vote.

In 76 Ford closed a 33 point gap after the conventions and may have won if not for a major blunder in an October debate.

In 80 both parties had splits. Carter had so many problems that I think it's very hard to blame the loss on Kennedy. Bush I was the inventor of the phrase "voodoo economics, " but he closed ranks and ran as the VP.

In 2000 Bush angered a lot of moderates in the party with his attacks on McCain and prominent conservatives voiced a "with us or against us" mentality.

In 2004 Deaniacs were pushed to the side to make room for a more establishment candidate. A few thousand votes in Ohio changing hands would have put Kerry in the White House.

I just think the "I'll never vote for that kind of Dem/Rep argument by party stalwarts rarely comes to pass. The primary voters are generally the most passionate members of the party and even though they'll stomp and cry, eventually they almost always come back to the fold.

The problem as I sit it for the democrats is a little bit of a "perfect storm":

1. The line drawn on race and sex during the vote is fairly remarkable. Obama gets very few white women and Hillary gets next to no black men. When this divide is so great, you get a lot of cultural subdivides that could start boiling over.

2. If Obama wins, the Hillary crowd will automatically be upset with him and may move to McCain for the reasons stated above (more experience, similar on many policies). If Hillary wins, the Obama crowd may not vote at all.

3. Because this is fight will go well into June, it's going to have more of a lasting effect in the fall. Bush and McCain had their spat in New Hampshire/SC, it was in mid Feb. By super Tuesday, Bush had it all wrapped up and was able to bring the party together from March to July. When this ends, it will be probably right near the convention - leaving only a few months before the general election. There won't be that mid-March to Mid-July "party honeymoon" most candidates have to recover from the primaries.

4. Their opponent is not a staunch conservative or vilified (R) like Bush, Dole, Reagan or even someone like Romney. Really, the McCain platform and the democrat party are not all that dissimilar on things like Global Warming, campaign finance, public education, sticking it to the rich in taxes, against drilling in ANWR, against Guantanamo, ... He even came up with the "gang of 14" idea for judges so it's questionable how conservative a judge he would nominate. I don't know that the "fear of the other guy winning" Armageddon scenario works with McCain for democrats.

For the first time, I can see McCain winning in the fall as having higher odds than either the Hillary/Obama winner. And, that's not something I would even considered back in December.

I'm not convinced that even a moderate 70-something from the party of the President who is repulsed by all but a few precious souls can beat identity politics when voters get their shot to "make history." I think that will simply be too big a chance for ordinary people to pass up in the end.

Just had a completely ungrounded theory that is almost certainly not true:

Clinton will drop out before Pennsylvania.

Unsupported Axiom: The Clintons' tax returns show some shady and questionable stuff. Mainly about how Bill learned to stop worrying and love making $50,000,000 with the help of sketchy Russian oligarchs (or some such thing).

When they thought that they would have the nomination wrapped up in February, they figured that it wouldn't really matter. When they released the returns they would be going against Giuliani or some other ethically compromised candidate, so it wouldn't seem that bad. And, even if they had to run against a McCain, the fact that the GOP was attacking Clinton financial deals would almost seem . . . right. It might help energize the base, and it certainly wouldn't hurt. Anyone to whom those things mattered is already against the Clintons.

Now, however, they are in the position of having to release them during the Dem. primary. Which means that they will get scrutiny from other than the GOP. Which means that people might actually listen to what the critics say.

So, they have decided not to release them. Which means that they will drop out soon before Pennsylvania--right around April 15th, when they said that they were coming.

So, why stay in the race until then? First, Obama might stumble (i.e. drop the c-bomb or something). If he hands her the nomination on a silver platter, then she is back where she thought she would be after Feb. 5th.

More importantly, she is raising as much money as she can. For the next five weeks, she can pad the warchest with donations. That will help pay back any personal loans that she made to the campaign as well as give her a healthy amount for her future senate campaigns.

If this whole thing is true, then I also think that only she and Bill know about it. Too much chance of it leaking out otherwise. I also think that she can play her cards right and call Obama with about two weeks to go and extract mega-promises for dropping out.

Anyway, I have nothing to base that on. But six weeks is a long time to keep this thread going until the next primary. Can't spend all that time with facts.

albion - just to add to your conspiracy theory, it would also explain why they've been pushing the Obama-Rezko connection so hard.

But to work against your conspiracy theory, I believe if there's anything really troubling they'll just delay the release. The hit they'd take for a connection to tens of millions from some foriegn dictator is considerably more than the hit they'll take from saying they needed an extension due to how complicated the forms are and they'll try to have it done in the next few weeks.

Honestly how many undecided Dems really give a crap whether the tax forms have been released or not? They'll only care if something bad is exposed.

Agree with this. No matter how this turns out, the vast majority of Democrats are far more interested in getting the Republicans out of the White House. They'll unite and vote en masse for whichever nominee. I do think that Clinton winning the nom with have a small effect with those who would vote for Obama but hate her, but I think the big picture will eventually bring most around.

However, that's not a good storyline for six weeks with no primary, so I expect to hear much more of the schism in the Dem party for the next month.

Has this been posted yet?

Dear Baby Boomers:

Please stop causing problems.

That was sexist. So he is saying that women are only good for cleaning? I hope he realizes that the only thing Hillary cleans is her ass and mouth. Oh and Bill's cock.

Thanks. Now I have to go wash my brain out with bleach.

I guess we'll find out.

My money is on it being a big, big split and if this goes to the convention floor the dems get their asses handed to them. Let's see what happens. :)

I know that I'm tired of hearing about this preacher business as much as I am tired of hearing the Democrats talk about people who were "tricked" into getting "deceptive mortgage loans."

I can't seem to find the popcorn smiley ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...hillaryclinton




However, after 20 years of going to "church" (except when the pastor ever said anything inflamatory apparently)...he's now sold his own pastor down the river for the sake of his Presidential campaign.


I like Obama better than Hillary because he's the devil I don't know...but God damn...

I'm curious what people think about political guilt by association...it's happened quite a bit lately, all over the spectrum. People want to act like it's not a big deal but I think it's a HUGE deal...especially in this situation. You have Obama's #1 spiritual advisor saying these things. Obama wants to say he's never heard him say these things? Please. I find things like this to be terrible for candidates when they are associated with them.

It seems Obama especially has to continually distance himself from the comments of his supporters.

Actually he specifically didn't throw him down the river,

I think in most cases its not a big deal.

You do realize that by saying a man is a Marine speaks nothing to "knowing" his pastor and does not offer a counter of the man's opinions that Obama has followed for 20+ years.

It's clever words from a silver-tongue that has bested many Democratic supporters so far.

I guess for me, you are the company you keep. I don't think he cares about what Farrakan says and I can accept that because I don't see them as being close. This case is VERY different though. He's extremely close with this man and it's frightening to me that this guy could be his closest spirtual advisor if he's elected. That's a major problem.

I think people are growing more and more afraid to attack Obama for fear that they will appear as if they are attacking him for being black. That scares me. If any other candidate was tied so closely to such a man, it would be disaster.

I think it's becoming more clear why Obama refuses to wear a USA lapel on his coat. God Damn the USA.

I don’t think that candidates should be responsible for supporter’s comments that are controversial; however, this case goes far beyond that, and it goes to the man’s judgment.

This isn’t some casual acquaintance or hothead campaign staffer. He married the Obamas. He baptized their children. Obama was a regular attendee of this man’s church for 20 years. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy. “The Audacity of Hope," Obama's bestseller, was inspired by one of Wright's sermons.

No, this isn’t some casual acquaintance or campaign worker flying off the handle; this is an overtly racist religious leader who guides Obama's moral code. One must question whether Obama accepts this value system. Is there any other rational explanation for his 20 year attendance at this church? How many times has Obama attended one of Wright's poisonous sermons? Surely there must be hundreds of Christian churches in Chicago where the Obamas could worship, and hundreds of non-racist ministers from whom Barack Obama could seek spiritual guidance. But Obama prefers to follow the moral compass of a man who blames America for 9/11, preaches rabid racism, denigrates the Clintons from his pulpit to the applause of his congregation, and rewards Louis Farrakhan.

For Obama to now come out and say that he “wasn’t aware” of these vitriolic statements is disingenuous, and it reeks of a politician trying to cover his ass.

I don't think guilt by association is a big deal at all, and frankly I'm a bit sick of it.

Nobody can be responsible for the actions/thoughts/statements of everybody else in their life, whether they are a politician or not. Doesn't matter how close that person is to them, whether it's their pastor, or the head of their finance committee.

If it wasn't for the media we wouldn't even know 99% of this stuff, and ever think that the media helps drive it by looking for stories, and then this crazy-pastor goes "oh man...here's a chance for me to get my name in print and get my 15 minutes."

Obama says he didn't attend any of his "poisonous" sermons. And I think if you want to question whether he accepts this value system that's fine, but he's already come out and said that he condems and rejects this stuff. What more can he do? He obviously wasn't aware of the gravity of them, or he would have gone and worshipped elsewhere.

how often does obama actually go to this church is the other issue?? I mean he's in washington most of the time, or out campaigning, I can see it as totally true that he's a "member" of this congregation in much the same way i'm a "member" of a congregation that I haven't actually stepped foot in in the last 14 years...

In an interview with Major Garrett last night, Obama said he was a regular attendee and contributor. He did say that their attendance was sporadic for a short time after the birth of their children.

touche.

then again, how can he be in washington and be a regular attendee?

How many years since 1988 has Obama been in Washington?

Not necessarily just a Washington thing.

He served in the Illinois State Legislature as well; did he travel home on weekends to attend that specific church?

(Note: not a rhetorical question.)

isn't the more relevent question: "How many sermons has he attended" as he could have not been there for other reasons.

I was just about to post that. And various campaigning trips for that, and trips out of state on state business...etc

The whole thing seems pretty irrelevant to me, but the question "how many sermons" did he attend strikes me as particularly ludicrous. The question should be, "what exactly is the common ground Obama shares with this guy," or "what about this guy does Obama find appealing." Those are pertinent questions.

well that's true also.

One of the things that we hear a lot of the time is that we dislike politicians who act too much like politicians. I always got a bad vibe from John Kerry, for example, because it seemed like he was a professional politician from about age twelve onward. You got the sense that when he was nineteen years old, John Kerry was constantly thinking "I wonder how this internship/membership/job/meeting will affect my prospects when I run for Congress/Senate/President one day." I confess I just don't like the notion that a person would be thinking ahead with such clarity throughout his early adult life and onward.

As for Obama, and his decision to attend a certain parish, and to confide in a certain religious leader... I wonder if this is to some extent the flip side of my complaint above. I suspect a more careful and calculating long-term politician who had been running for president for 20 years might have said "I need to distance myself from this man, as he is too prone to hyperbole or controversy and I can't be connected to him." Instead, I suspect, he decided that the bulk of what he said was uplifting to him personally, to the community, and to the parishioners. And he made a reasonable decision to, in all likelihood, look past some of the inflammatory stuff he might have said sometimes, to embrace the greater message. It seems to me that for so many religious people, the decision of where and when and with whom to attend services is a complicated and social decision.

So, on a certain level, this is yet another one of these things that seems to make Obama a different sort of political candidate, to me. Maybe a more traditional politician would have had the foresight to stay out of this sort of situation altogether, recognizing the potential for trouble when the time came for a major run for high office. I guess I'm sick of people leading their lives that way to claim they will be more worthy leaders for it.

Do you feel the same way about McCain and Hagee? Because you can write an almost identical post on that relationship which is probably even worse since Hagee is actively campaigning with/for McCain.

McCain is not a member of Hagee's church, as far as I know.

That's quite an exaggeration, to say the least. True, Hagee endorsed John McCain, and McCain welcomed that endorsement. McCain has also disavowed Hagee's statements.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama called Rev. Wright his "spiritual mentor." McCain has not made any such statement of Hagee. Obama had his children baptized by Rev. Wright. McCain's kids never knew Hagee when they were small. Rev. Wright performed Obama's marriage ceremony. McCain had never even met Hagee until he became the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. Obama chose Rev. Wright's church and attended it for 20 years. McCain has never attended Hagee's church.

These points are extremely important and mark a completely different relationship between Wright and Barack Obama and McCain and Hagee. Obama had two decades of intimacy with Rev. Wright, so it appears that Wright's hate speech could not possibly have bothered Barack very much at all, much less have come as any surprise. While John McCain had only just met John Hagee, it seems reasonable that his history of anti-Catholic statements is not something that McCain could have had long and intimate contact with.

molehill, you are now a mountain

This is exactly the point. All I'm seeing so far is some people cherry-pick some quotes and try to make it seem like they accurately and 100% reflect the core of Barack Obama's belief system. Step back for a moment, people, and see how ludicrous that is. I mean, jeez.


Yeah, I hate it when politicians don't mean what they say:



:p


Alternatively Obama could have just disagreed with some of Wright's views and left it at that. Despite the picture you're painting, there's no evidence that Wright railed from the pulpit each and every Sunday with this "hate speech".

I suspect all of our regular priests, ministers and/or rabbis say stuff in their speeches with which we disagree.

For reference, Barak Obama received a Political Science degree from Columbia 25 years ago.

Being a political science major doesn't mean you're planning to run for political office. It can often mean you're going to go on to law school, though.

And come on, no outrage over posting the picture? I live for your outrage, man! :D

He could have gotten a degree in Dermatology. I'm just sayin'... ;)

Become a politician or spend your days working with people's diseased skin. You gotta admit - it's a bit of a tossup. :)

Good point! (Kerry also got a degree in Political Science a couple decades before joining the Senate, for what that's worth.)

The latest from the Obama campaign:

hxxp://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/03/obama-disavows.html

I think if nothing else, it's interesting that Americans are finally figuring out after all of these years what goes in a lot of black churches on Sundays, maybe that'll convince the most "Segregated day of the week" to be put to bed finally. But I doubt it.

I went to a baptist church growing up and hell, the pastor was married to a white woman and still SAID all sorts of crazy things at times about white people, America, politicians and other social issues. It wasn't every week. Or even once a month. And you couldn't predict it, but it did happen. This stuff isn't as uncommon as folks want to think and that's why I've noticed a lot of commentators who understand this are wondering what the outcry is about.

But Obama's people are to blame for this. If they'd simply taken the ultimate high road with the Ferraro thing and simply said "look, she's not Hillary. Let's get back to the business of the American people," this thing never would've blown up in his face like this.

The press are drama queens and love a story. The Clinton people love trudging around in the muck and love having the heat off of them. And this story has been fed to us a few times and the TV press wouldn't bite on it until now. Obama's people are trying to go fishing with experienced anglers and they're about to get dumped in the water.

So throwing his pastor down the river is despicable as is not throwing his pastor down the river. Got it.

On the bigger issue, it's brought up a lot of the reasons why I have stayed out of politics even though I quite obviously have a taste for it. So much of what's gone into this discussion about Obama, as was the case with Hagee, is just a vengeful flurry of attacks consciously or subconsciously designed to destroy what by any reasonable measure are good men. Most of the flames don't seem to have any real basis except as an opening to swing voters away from a particular candidate.

Do any of you that are complaining about Wright really believe Obama is going to set about punishing whites? Can you find even one thing Obama's said or done that might lead you to believe this? And does anyone really believe McCain is going to destroy the Catholic Church or ask God for help in tormenting gays? In the end we're not measured by the company we keep, good or bad, but by what we do.

I'll freely admit that there's a fun side to these arguments. It's a contest to see how much you can tear down someone. In effect it's a strategy text sim with different options for paring off bits of different demographic groups. It's also, however, what has kept me from pursuing a life in politics. I could easily see me relishing in these kinds of games, but in the end I believe the people most damaged are those who can see no other pursuit in politics but personal destruction.

This is not to say we can't argue bitterly over issues. Politics should be about ideas and there are times when we simply can't find any sort of Broderian middle-ground. The difference, though, is that we can actually look at what the candidate says or does and find out what they want to do instead of piling on ever more layers of ritual apology designed to do nothing more than cripple someone.

I had a mentor as a director that changed me both personally and artistically. I see his influence in every piece I do. He was, however, a paranoid misanthrope that fought with any authority figure. Some of his ravings and conspiracy theories were offensive as they attacked people I saw as friends. I mildly disagreed with him a time or two, but I never made a fuss and he probably has no idea I was uncomfortable. I valued him as an older, more experienced, and brilliant artist and I tried to forgive his ramblings. Right or wrong, I would guess that's roughly how Obama saw things.

I'll also point out that Wright himself is going to take an unfair beating on this. Let me be clear that I don't agree with him on any of the controversial statements that have been brought up lately. It's a shame, though, that he's going to only be judged on his most foolish of actions and not by the totality of his life. This may be where I go a little askew as I try to figure out how a flawed man like myself can still be a good father for my daughter, but I hate to see people defined only by the worst of their actions. He's made his own bed, surely, but I'd hate for people to forget about all of the dedicated and inspirational work he's done teaching and living Christ's message.

All that aside, in terms of the game this is bad for Obama and I wouldn't be surprised if it kills his candidacy sooner or later.

No way is it close to that bad.

Yes it is.

The Rasmussen tracking poll today showed Obama's lead over Clinton drop from +8 to +1. I'll bet those numbers aren't poll variance, but a genuine look at how badly this has hurt Obama.

The worst possible for thing for Obama is to be lumped together with what most of white America sees as the radical black political class. A lot of people will hear about this and unfairly see him as an ideological twin of Al Sharpton.