Can I ask how many states you have votes in, and where your votes in other states are going?

I'm of two minds there.

One, I think the DNC needs to stand by "tough shit" on this, given the potential for greater shenanigans in 2008 if Florida/Michigan are allowed to whine their way to relevancy after they broke the party rules that were established.

Two, okay, let them go ahead and re-do their process, but there needs to be some kind of penalty in place so that they (and the other 48 states) don't take the wrong message from a re-vote. Maybe dock 'em a significant percentage of the delegates they otherwise would have had. Take away 50% and split the rest normally so that they don't go "Oh, hey, this was a great idea, let's do this again next year."

Just saying "oh, we didn't really mean it" and letting them re-vote with no penalty, or seating them as originally "voted" upon are both bad ideas, though, IMO.

The problem really is that no matter WHAT decision is made, it will be seen to benefit either Obama or Clinton. Also the fiasco completely neuters competency as a positive issue for the Dems, which I expected to be one of their trump cards.

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

I don't think that's remotely the same thing. Was that done to ensure McCain's nomination? That's the question that will be asked of any decision the Democrats make, regardless of what decision, and possibly even regardless of which nominee they end up picking.

My cousin was telling me about this at easter dinner. He's a state rep, and he thought the philly dems were pretty amusing with the way they were acting. You are going to have a nearly impossible time getting any kind of anti gun bill through PA, due to the extreme amount of hunters here.

Also the republicans didn't completely boycott Michigan and Florida. The voters still had some say even if it was 50% of what they should of had.

Interesting (I thought) post from Jim Geraghty.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...I1ZWNlZjc4NmQ=

So if you include the two states where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and he still beats Hillary in raw votes, the superdelegates should decide that his margin of victory is too small to actually count? Interesting stuff.

Cam: When the primaries end it's all but certain that Obama will lead in total votes, primaries won, and total delegates. It will be very close, but Obama is going to be ahead narrowly. At that point the Supers can choose to do whatever they wish, but giving the nomination to Hillary will guarantee a split in the party.

It's telling that all of Hillary's arguments eventually come down to ignoring all of the ways Obama is narrowly ahead.

If there is an obvious swing to Clinton and the numbers narrow between now and the convention the super-delegates could justify taking Clinton over the top by arguing that the advantage Obama holds comes from the time when little was known about him and had the full knowledge been there from the start he would not have had that advantage.

If they had to make their decision at this point the super-delegates would be between a rock and a hard place - give it to Clinton and they antagonise Obama supporters, give it to Obama and they give it to a candidate who may be unelectable in the Presidential race. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

I think they'll be keeping a close eye on how sentiment towards Obama moves over the next few months both within the Democratic community and the population as a whole and hope that things become clearer one way or the other and make life a little easier for them.

On this gun law point - has a nationwide, independant poll been taken on the population's attitude towards gun laws in recent times? If so what were the results? The assumption in the above posts seems to say the results are overhwelmingly against such laws. Would restricting laws to, say automatic weapons only, significantly affect the results?

Anyone know about this?

And that's the argument that Obama's sure to be making now. But given that the most likely scenario is that neither Obama nor Hillary will have the magic number of delegates by the time Denver rolls around, Hillary gets to make the argument that Mac made above.

I still think a brokered convention would be the most fun to watch, even if it resulted in Al Gore as the compromise candidate with Obama as VP. :p

Cam's the one to talk to on this, but I'm pretty sure automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.

They are not illegal. They require a special license.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

CBS catches Hillary in a lie about her trip to Bosnia.

about time someone backdoors a clinton.

Just a general thought, and this has more probably to do with the general election but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7312078.stm

Let's say that Moqtada al-Sadr ends the cease fire and the Mehdi Army starts fighting again. Could this have any effect on our politics? I'm no expert but one of the main reasons the surge has been successful is that the Mehdi Army has stood down (did we bribe them?). Looks like things are starting to heat up again.

If we see an upswing in violence, will this help somebody like Obama who wants to get out sooner rather than later? Likewise, if the cease fire ends and the Mehdi insurrection is squashed, it could just as well help McCain a ton and keep the electorate's focus off Iraq.

Not that I'm hoping for violence, but anybody that thinks al-Sadr and his army will hold to the cease fire is crazy and I dont' think our electorate can stomach another round of violence, whether that is right or wrong.

I think it could swing both ways. If the violence starts back up again, it might play into McCain's hand as the whole "military C-i-C" thing. I know that's one reason my grandma has decided she's voting for McCain, is because my brother recently joined the military and McCain's got the military background. There will be some for whom something like that would either make the decision for them or further solidify it.

And as you point out, it might push some folks into Barack Obama's camp.

I tend to think it would be an issue of "what was their inclination on the issue to start with?" Folks who support remaining in Iraq are probably more likely to vote McCain in the first place, and less likely to change their minds if violence starts up again. Folks who want out are more likely to support Obama, and violence would only harden their resolve.

Can't imagine there are too many left who are undecided on the issue of the war at this point.

All good points. Then you also have people like many moderate McCain supporters I know. They want to get out of Iraq, but it's simply not one of their priorities. Not allowing Democrats unchecked power is their highest priority.

March 25, 2008
Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats?
Posted: 02:15 PM ET




FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

In a newspaper interview, Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn’t endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

It’s an interesting idea. It’s not clear if Democrats really know what they’re in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it’s over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.

Al Gore has insisted he won’t run and that he has “no plans to be a candidate”, although he’s also said “I see no reason to rule it out entirely.” And, it’s worth pointing out that the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner has not yet endorsed either Clinton or Obama. So stay tuned.

I was very surprised that Al Gore never sought the nomination, but I think its exceedingly unlikely that he gets the nomination without even campaigning.

Apparently, Gore's finances are such that he'd not risk running and having to expose who is giving him cash. Dunno what the story is on that, but that's what I've heard.

Denying Obama the nomination when he'll be ahead in every way you can count it will guarantee a lose in November. Clinton may figure out a way to make it happen, but I see no reason why Gore would want to jump headfirst into that shitstorm.

Exactly.

Obama has no chance either. It's gonna come down to the supers or a brokered agreement.

How is white, Midwestern America going to find middle ground with Wright's comments? Please explain the specific common ground they are going to find with someone like Wright.

You have to start at the middle and work your way out. You don't get the radicals on your side first. You follow the "Remember the Titans" plan and get liberal leadership from both sides to show unity and slowly bring others along. Maybe that's what Obama was trying to do, but Wright blew that paradigm out of the water.

Just how many delegates are yet to be declared and how many of those are super-delegates?

Since you are an expert in Wright, pleas tell us his specific policies, other than the 5 clips you've been watching on Foxnews for the past week. I have a feeling that in 2 months, it won't really be an issue, of course until some conservative group swiftboats some ads. I'd tell you watch the whole sermon, but I guess you get your info in 30 second sound bytes instead of 5 minute in-context clips. Point is, only the foolish partisan types really believe that Wright's views represent Obama's views. I've heard my rabbi say some pretty interesting shit I don't agree with about Israel, but in the A, we don't exactly get a wide variety of choices on where we can go.

Why are so many people upset about the coverage of Wright and the scrutiny on Obama for his choice to associate with him?

Obama is running for President of the United States. I don't care what color he is, he needs to be vetted and scrutinized just like everyone who runs for president.

If people don't care about his choices around Wright, let them decide for themselves. For some it will be a meaningful issue about who he is and who he chooses as influential mentors and advisors. For example, one person in an earlier post responded to concerns of inexperience, saying they thought Obama would surround himself with smart competent people to advise him on foriegn policy, etc. For others it will simply be a case of one mans Bigot is another mans Hero.

I would think most of you would appreciate the idea of an informed populace.

Obama a distant cousin of Bush

It has emerged that Barack Obama is a tenth cousin, once removed, of the man whose job he wants - George W Bush. They are linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. Mr Obama is also a distant cousin of the actor Brad Pitt while Hillary Clinton is related to Mr Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. The ties of the US Democratic rivals were established by a respected US genealogical organisation after three years' investigation. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama can also boast a long list of other famous relations.

Christopher Child, from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, says that the politicians' ancestries show they have more in common than they think. The Society, founded in 1845, is the oldest and biggest non-profit genealogical organisation in the United States. The research, conducted by Mr Child and Gary Boyd Roberts, came up with some extraordinary family connections.

Mr Obama is the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. He was previously identified as a distant cousin of US Vice-President Dick Cheney. His political lineage includes not just President Bush but also Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S Truman, Dick Cheney and Winston Churchill. The connection made with Hollywood star Brad Pitt adds a welcome splash of glamour to his family tree.

But Mrs Clinton's kin has much more of an exotic feel. Her distant cousins include the singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morisette, as well as the beatnik author Jack Kerouac and Prince Charles's wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles. She and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed. They are both related to one Jean Cusson, who died in St Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718. If the Hollywood couple, collectively known as "Brangelina", decide on a very extended family gathering, it could provide the perfect Opportunity for the two Democratic presidential rivals to get together.

From Jake Tapper, ABC News correspondent:

"l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight. The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold."


I have to say, this has the potential of not only completely screwing the Democratic Party's shot at the White House in 2008, but if Clinton somehow manages to convince enough people to switch their votes (not just superdelegates, but regular delegates, too, since she's made statements recently suggesting that they aren't really tied to anything and can change their votes) and captures the nomination despite having fewer popular votes, less delegates from the primaries/caucuses, and winning less states than Obama, they could be responsible for a race-fueled protest/riot.

And I gotta believe that being the genesis of a racial incident would be devastating to the Democratic Party, given how it has positioned itself with the black community compared to the Republicans. And all because the Clintons are so self-centered, and Hillary knows this is her last shot at the Presidency, that she's apparently willing to screw her party over in order to get there. Maybe Obama wins Pennsylvania and a couple other states and Hillary throws in the towel. But if not, all indications are that she's willing to shoot her party down in flames to get to the GE against McCain.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

Why do you need anonymity to speak candidly?

By resonate with voters do you mean resonate with you? Or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

Because he's giving a backroom version of what's going on that the Party likely doesn't want out there, and if this person's name was attached to the statement, he/she would be in hot water. That's pretty much standard in every facet of life - sports, law enforcement, you name it. Reporters get more information if they promise not to divulge names. This is news?

In general, states in the South and Midwest tend to have more rural voters than most states. Although it greatly pains me to state this, people in those rural areas aren't quite as advanced in their thinking as people in the urban areas. Plainly speaking, comments like the ones from Rev. Wright will be attached to Obama and, whether it's right or not, will serve as a stigma against his presidential bid because of their race. I wish that were not the case, but sadly, it is. I wish there wasn't ignorance involved, but it does exist whether we admit it or not.

No, it just makes me sad.

In other words, there is a sizable group that will consider this an issue and another sizable group that wish it would all go away and doesn't know why it's not completely swept under the rug.

Yep, that's pretty accurate.

Hilary Clinton in a Time interview.

A snippet:

Well the South doesn't matter as it's now the base for the Republican party. The Midwest is a much bigger problem as that's likely to be where the general election is decided.

I don't want it swept under the rug, but I do want to know why association with Wright is so unacceptable while association with Rev. Moon is fine. If this is the road we're going to go down let's expose radicals on both sides.

This Gallup poll result has to be a nightmare for the Democratic party. There were concerns that this drawn-out battle may have this effect on the electorate..........

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03...t-to-november/

That's what I was referring to in my post above. She's made it clear that all the delegates are up for grabs.

I agree 100%

No, I live in Atlanta, but I'm from New York and New Jersey. I think everyone involved has their own character issues, but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care about this sort of thing. I care about actual issues, not who's got mean friends. I'm fairly certain Hilary and McCain have "friends" or allies I would consider to be repugnant for different reasons. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I just don't really care about whether he's a uniter, I am in favor of an intelligent leader who will take this country in a different direction. I don't think Wright's comments (which most people agree were taken out of context) were really that far off from what a lot of people believe.

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

Like I said, context is important. But you are correct, those people who just hear he said "God Damn America" and nothing else will believe Obama to be unpatriotic because his pastor said that at the end of a 5 minute speech about the God vs. Government. I actually feel for the future of our country that these people may ultimately decide its direction.

Caricatures do not the sum of America make.

The people you describe don't vote Democrat very often.

They don't vote Democrat very often, but they were the difference in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton getting elected.

But let's be fair. The people in this thread generally don't reflect the voting knowledge of the general public. They're listening to things they see on the nightly news or in political commercials and basing their decision on that small snippit of information. That's the way it is for the majority of the voting public.

Exactly. To get elected as a candidite promoting unity, you need to get some swing votes from the other party. Similarly, Reagan had cross-over votes that helped put him in office for 8 years (i.e. Reagan Democrats).

But some of these voters are the same ones that will sit in an evangelical megachurch and approve of their pastor saying 9/11 was God's punishment for America's sins. Any honest discussion of Wright would include this too. The bigger issue is that in churches all across America millions of people hear messages that the majority find out of bounds. Cheap political gain focuses on Wright, a real concern about the mix of religion and politics in America's churches focuses not just on one pastor.

Great. The first day we hear that McCain's pastor said something like that, we'll dive right in and beat him up about it. My guess is that there have been many media writers that have already dug into that possibility and found nothing. As far as the voters that would listen to crap like that, that's their business unless they run for government office. At that point, scrutiny begins.

Your repeated argument seems to be that 'everybody's doing it'. That's simply not the case. There's many people that go to churches where these kinds of things aren't said and there's also many people that have left churches where they didn't feel comfortable with the pastor. Obama chose not to fully distance himself from those remarks. That's his choice. As a result, he's paying a political price for that decision. Welcome to Politics 101.

You don't find it a little strange at all that McCain's campaign has been endorsed by guys like [EDIT: John. Don't know where I got "Chuck"] Hagee and Pat Robertson, and the media hasn't talked much about it? They may not have said "God Damn America," but they haven't exactly shied away from controversial statements, neither.

Oh, I find it totally strange to some extent, but this is politics. These guys endorse McCain, but you won't find him in any of their church services. Also, McCain has openly stated that he doesn't approve of their behavior/speeches. Translation: he just wants the votes. Politics 101 rears its ugly head again.

In addition, I think McCain would have handled the Wright situation much differently if it was his pastor doing the blasting. He would have completely distanced himself from that pastor, strictly for political posturing. Now, is Obama possibly a better person for standing up for his friend when the opposite would be much more beneficial for his presidential hopes? Maybe. But presidential politics is a blood sport. Nice guys don't win.

Oh they are waaaaaaaaay more hate-filled and controversial than Wright, but the media coverage is vastly disproportional.

http://www.catholics-united.org/?q=node/136

There is a reason... ie, they aren't McCain's pastors or friends for one.

Carter won in a sqeaker, Clinton in a near landslide. Which one is it?

Ah, this is what she was talking about.

I find these polls to be meaningless. Republicans were saying the same thing when it became clear that McCain was going to get the nomination. When you get right down to it, Democrats are going to hear McCain speak and the Democratic candidate speak, and they will vote for the Democratic candidate.

No, not everybody, but probably a few million with all sorts of ideologies. You also seem to be saying in your last few points that because it will be used against him validates that it should be used against him. I haven't once said it won't be used against him. My point is that if you're attacking Obama and no one else it's simply a partisan attack that may or may not have much merit behind it. If you want to have an honest discussion you need to broaden your view.

Just because it can be used to destroy Obama doesn't mean the story is that simple.

I just listened to that 5 minute speech on a website that is trying to bring "context" to his words. I've got to say that I'm not impressed. This is not a speech about hope and the future...it is a speech that starts with the Supreme Court stealing the 2000 election and ends with America has failed in its dealings with a number of ethnic groups, so God damn America. I don't see a context where this isn't a hate filled speech. It showed promise with the "governments change" section showing that slavery was legal and segregation was legal...but governments change. Ultimately though, it was just a "look at everything that is wrong" speech with no message to fix things or to show any hope for the future. This may not be the kind of speech which shows just how terrible Reverend Wright is, but it certainly doesn't help his cause either.

Hillary's Pastor Rev. Dean Snyder of United Methodist Foundry Church in Washington had this to say about Jeremiah Wright last week:

Why do I suspect that Hillary would be unhappy her pastor said this? All of her "I would disassociate myself from a man like that" comments aren't going to look so good now.

The whole problem I have with Wright is that he doesn't just proclaim "perceptions and truths." He proclaims unsubstantiated lies, too, and passes them off to his congregation as facts.

I'm still trying to understand how any of this is appropriate subject matter for a church service, though. I honestly can't wrap my brain around that issue.

Hillary doesn't exactly strike me as being an avid churchgoer anymore than I believe that Obama harbors linger race issues.

I think it is sad that this country is more up in arms about what somebody's spiritual advisor says instead just the insane fact that all three canidates who want to lead this country actually have a spiritual advisor.

So does Pat Robertson and he has an entire television network where he does it. It's no different really and the latter has a much larger following. I think the best way to summarize it is "no matter how outside the mainstream otherwise intelligent and well-reasoned people might judge these folks to be, the fact is, they have a following and in the grand scheme of things, they ought be judged on the standard that says "Well, some of those religious folks can be crazy." As opposed to "Gee, that Rev. Wright was advising someone who might become President. I hope Obama's black half doesn't decide to enslave the white half.

But all facetiousness aside, people need to stop trying to understand the context of Wright v. Obama. Either factor it in and say "well, he needs not to be President.." or not. I don't understand the idea of belaboring it. Especially when it's literally ONE sound bite over and over again. It's not a series of presentations or anything of the sort. It'd be like running replays of what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond some ways back. Sure, he lost his gig then. But he kept his seat and was

I mean, seriously. People do realize the guy is the post-racial dream of reconciliation, right? The guy was black in name only until he went to college, because being in Hawaii is a multicultural place to begin with. He was raised entirely by white people.

If Obama gets beaten, the next time there is a politically successful black candidate on the national scene, folks are going to immediate wish for Obama's multi-ethnic coalition of sugar plums and tax increases. Because if he loses, the old civil rights guard wins. That means, the progeny and anointed from that affirmative action induced "leadership" class will continue to dominate the politics of race in this country.

And no one wants that.

The only good thing about Obama winning is that he'll give rise to a whole new class of trans-racial candidates who care more about substance than the same bipolar discussions of black and white and race and all of that. Even if he loses in the general, it'll still advance the conversation. Swiftboated or not, they'll have a chance to "have their say." I don't see the trouncing scenarios by McCain that some of the prognosticators here have supposedly seen, but...that's neither here nor there.

The black "community" is and always has been diverse and multi-faceted. But there are enough folks out there who benefit from propelling themselves to the forefront by purporting to speak for the "masses" in a substantive way.

I agree re Robertson and others like him. Completely. And I want nothing to do with him and wish he wasn't even associated with the same religion I am. But I think that's part of this issue many people have with Obama - how could he not run like hell from those kinds of views?

As far as what it all means in the larger context, I've already said that I don't think it should be the deciding factor in whether he is elected, but it certainly is a consideration of his overall judgment and ability to lead. It just isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO) as significant a part of the consideration as all of this press and all of these posts are making it out to be.

Ok, I get what you're saying now.

No, but a lot of potential voters are avid churchgoers. She seemed to be willing to use the Wright situation for political gain, but having her pastor contradict her won't help.

Then those people need to be asking the same questions of any politician remotely associated with any wacko religious figure.

"remotely" lol

Harsh article on 360 Anderson Cooper at cnn.com about Clinton (referencing Bernstien's bio):

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/2...nces/#more-470


Some people want to look back at the Clinton years with rosy-glasses nostalgia but for those that were paying attention, we had to put with a constant string of lies, half-truths, smarmy lectures, cover-ups, and secrecy. Not saying it was better or worse than Bush2 but it not knowing about Bush2, it was sickening to following all of that at the time.

By the way, since when did alledgedly ducking bullets in another country count as "foreign policy experience".

and from my favorite columnist, Roland Martin


In college, I attended Sinn Fein meetings which were no more than propoganda for the IRA. Does that mean I have terrorist connections?

Bucc, why do you hate America?

I agree with those who find this latest foible involving Senator Clinton's description of the Bosnia trip to be wholly illuminating -- and I totally agree with the conclusions of her biographer excerpted above. This is just who she is, and her relationship with truth will never be a comfortable one. Many people will vote for her based on policy, and many based on trust, but there really shouldn't be any doubt that this is the true person underneath it all -- the person who exaggerates the truth, and then essentially lies to cover up or cover over the initial exaggeration. It would be folly to expect anything different were she elected to an executive position.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03...e-friends.html

(comments aren't bad - "Retarded Weasel." Heh.)

Why "remotely asssociated"? The whole reason I find any of this relevant to Obama at all is the fact that he not only spent 20 years at this guy's church, but he thought so much of him that he included him in the biggest moments of his life and considers him his spiritual advisor...not to mention, a year ago, he acknowledged - way before any of this happened - that he would likely have to distance himself from Wright at some point.

I find it pretty ballsy that one of Hillary's excuses for the "misspoken" Bosnia thing is that she was sleep-deprived...yet she counts as one of her most poignant selling points that she would be a better choice than Obama (and presumably McCain) to answer a 3am phone call from Commissioner Gordon. If being sleep-deprived causes her to re-imagine a trip to include being under attack, then I'm fairly certain I don't want ANYONE waking her ass up at 3am to determine whether we should launch nukes.

I would say Ford's pardon of Nixon and the general fallout from Watergate was the difference in getting Carter elected and Ross Perot was the difference in getting Clinton electon both times.

You don't have anything dominant like that in this election.

Bingo.

You might say that, but all of the post election research and exit polling indicates that Ross Perot only prevented Clinton from getting over 50% of the vote, and that Clinton would have won by comfortable margins in both 1992 and 1996 without Ross Perot in the race.

First black nominee or first woman nominee.

The tsunami is coming. Just you wait. The identity politics of this nation have not gone far enough people won't do anything other than turn John McCain into the representation of everything that America has done wrong in the past...well...the entire past.

He'd be the oldest President ever elected to a first term. The media is going to jump on that like a trampoline in the general. That's just the beginning. And painting him as Bush's third term isn't going to serve him well either.

It's like Bob Dole redux.

Mitt Romney was a member of the LDS church and is seriously considered by some to be a strong VP nominee. He was a member of the LDS church during a time when they said blacks weren't worthy of the priesthood because of the mark of Cain they received in the pre-existence.

He's said he "wept" when it happened, when blacks were granted the priesthood. But why wasn't he raked over the coals for stuff some of the elders of the LDS church have said in the past 25-30 years?

It's no different.

I don't even know what LDS Church stands for (apparently I'm not as up on my fringe church attendees as I should be), but he probably wasn't raked over the coals about it because he never got to the point of being a real contender for the nomination...ever think that stuff was "on hold" until he was in a 1-on-1 battle with someone else, or had secured the nomination? If you're going to hurt someone, make it count, right? The Obama thing has been out there and acknowledged by Obama/Wright for over a year, and it's only coming out now because Obama's standing in the race matters.

Before Wright it was some finance guy. Tim Russert was going on last month about Louis Farrakhan. There's a lengthy list of crazy and/or corrupt people closely associated with the Republican party. It's been those people, and the giant double fucking standards applied to them, that caused my disillusionment with Republicans. Let's hear all of those stories first without any context and then we can get back to the manufactured Obama controversies.

Oh and here's some context on Democratic primary voters crossing over:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/some_c...democratic.php

"[i]t may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate."

"Of course, the larger point of the eight year old Pew numbers is that snapshots from March have a short half-life, so speculate with caution."

The problem is that the media's spent the last 5-6 years fawning over McCain and the "maverick" that he was because he often went against Bush on policy. Dole was the republican establishment and was taken to the woodshed by the media. Now, if it's McCain against Obama, McCain will get strongly attacked for a good 2-3 month period. But people will already be jaded against the election media from fatigue and they will be going off 5-6 years of being told what a standup guy McCain was by not supporting Bush on economic issues. Dole was the enemy from day 1.

Mitt Romney lost the primary because of fears on him being Mormon. After Huckabee's comments in Iowa and the intense media scrutiny on his mormon beliefs in Iowa, NH and the southern states, Romney was done for. If Obama got 1/5th the media scrutiny Romney did in those 2-3 months, Hillary would be the nominee now.

Just imagine if Hillary or Bill came out today and stated how dangerous it would be if someone from the Trinity church was president because "Don't Trinity worshipers believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?". I highly doubt the media response would be to say "Interesting point, what's your response Obama?" - like they did with Romney when Huckabee said it.

What's manufactured about it? Those are the facts, aren't they? This guy said some batshit insane stuff, Obama's been going to his church for 20+ years, and the guy has been Obama's spiritual advisor and overseen some of the most important moments of Obama's life. Those are the facts in a nutshell, right?

Your comment reminds me of Pats fans trying to defend Belichick's cheating by saying "but others were obviously doing it too." Well, that might be, but it doesn't absolve Belichick.

Dola. And holy shit I just realized you're from Boston. The Pats comment was just off the cuff, not directed to you if you take it that way. Kinda funny, actually.

Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. RLDS is the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, which has since been renamed to the 'Community of Christ'.

Um... you do realize that one of the major reasons that Romney isn't still in the race (or leading it) is because people were voting against him for his Mormonism, right? Look at what happened with Huckabee started really railing against him for it.

And Romney was repeated asked about Mormonism. I remember him having to deal with a question on polygamy, which the LDS has had banned for longer than Romney was alive!

Romney should have run as an economic guru. Then, to temper fears about his religion, just indicated that "Religion is important to me as it is to most Americans. And, because of that, I will appoint judges who understand the important and historic role that religion has played in our society and who do not misuse the Constitution in such as way as to frustrate the will of the people. For a long time, the American people have worked to get the right judges on the bench. I am committed to continuing that work as one of my top priorities. As Americans, we deserve a Constitution that defends our natural rights to worship, to life and to property."

That would have, in my mind, have sent the signal to the religious right that, "hey, you might think Mormons are nutjobs, but I'll get you your judges. That's a fair tradeoff, right?"

+1

It's a really good analogy and what's funny is while I live in Boston I didn't grow up here and hate the Pats. That said, I'm about as big a defender as you'll find of Belichick regarding the spygate thing.

The question to ask is who's driving the story? It's obviously someone or a group of someones with an agenda. With the Pats, it was a division rival/disgruntled ex-employee. With Obama, it's Hillary and the R's. That's what's manufactured about it. As I mentioned, Wright was the third attempt.

So if anyone pushing an agenda wants to discuss specifics that's fine, but they get to subject themselves to the same standards. That's obviously not happening here with McCain and until it does, fuck everyone who wants to promote it.

In NY, Spitzer had to resign because he spent time as AG prosecuting various people for prostitution. Good riddance.