Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.

No one should pretend that Obama didn't know this (people with an agenda might dig through his past) was coming. If he was oblivious to the fact that this would eventually come out, he would have invited Wright show his face at his presidential bid announcement over a year ago. If Obama didn't want this kind of scrutiny, he shouldn't have run for president.

Interestingly, the CNN ticker has an article about Hillary's polls going in the wrong direction, probably due to the fact that she's trying to get pledged delegates to switch and her whole lying (misspeaking, thanks Roger) stuff.


I think her win-at-all-costs attitude is probably wearing thin on people. Doesn't help to have Bill Clinton blabbering about how:

Similar to the other polls mentioned earlier....



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New polls show many Democratic voters could swing their support to Sen. John McCain in the general election if their candidate isn't nominated.

A poll shows 44 percent of Democrats said they like Sen. John McCain, and 42 percent don't.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, taken March 14-16, shows the percentage of Sen. Barack Obama supporters who said they'd be dissatisfied or upset if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination has gone up -- from 26 percent in January, just after Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, to 41 percent now.

The poll suggests if Obama wins, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 51 percent -- would be dissatisfied or upset. The number was 35 percent in January.

The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 7.5 percentage points.

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

According to a Gallup Poll taken March 7-22, about one in five Obama supporters -- or 19 percent -- said they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

If Obama's the nominee, more than one in four Clinton supporters -- or 28 percent -- said they'd vote for McCain.

Crack analysis there by the party chairman. That's obviously why they pay him the big bucks to help win places like New Hampshire......and Iowa.......and Michigan......and Virginia........and New York......and Ohio.........and Pennsylvania......AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! :)

Paul Begala this morning used the Wayne's World "when monkeys fly out of my butt" line when asked whether he thought Hillary would step aside before the primaries ended.

I and others brought up Hillary's negatives when this started last year. Some discounted that but I still believe there is (and always have been) a good reason for the high negatives, which is playing a factor in the race.

[quote=Mizzou B-ball fan;1693155]Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.
/quote]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Am I missing some sarcasm here?

This is astonishing from a man who would be a journalist (Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor)

1) I am not standing as a unifying candidate for President of the USA

2) feelings and views? - rabid hatred for the country Obama would lead

3) know? Obama describes him as his "spritual mentor".

Give me a break, guys. The guy is either blind as a bat politically or this is an unbelievably fawning attempt to sanitise this matter. If you don't believe that Obama is getting the mother and father of all sycophantic deals from some of the media then the above should change your mind. If Clinton or McCain had sat and listened to white supremacy speeches for 20 years without walking out and finding another church do you think the above sentence would have been written to sanitise it.


This was stupid beyond belief from Clinton clearly trying for a little of the kudos of the kind that McCain rightly gets for his Vietnam experiences. But it's not unique to Clinton. Obama wasn't a professor, he was a mere lecturer. he didn't meet his wife at a significant event - he was married to her 4 years before the event took place. And so on.

I really don't know why they do it. But they all do it. They don't seem to be able to resist the temptation to puff themselves up even when it's pretty certain they'll be found out. There's always a compulsion to gild the lilly.

But Clinton has lost a lot of the advantage that the Wright affair gave her and aren't these guys (the Clintons) supposed to be the past masters at political campaigning? :rolleyes:

I would pretty much have to agree the 1996 results would have stood as is. But the 8% margin would have probably been about 4%, not much of a landslide.

In 1992, the breakdown of RP voters was a huge Republican percentage. I think that could have made the difference in the outcome. The best would have been if Perot had not pulled out of the race, then jumped back in. He may have actually had a shot at winning. I believe he was neck in neck or leading in most polls at the time.

I think VV is correct that Perot pulled equally from both sides. I saw polls to suggest that potential Clinton voters voted for Perot in relatively equal numbers as Bush voters. It was mostly union members who weren't all that happy with Clinton's pro-NAFTA stance that flocked to Perot's protectionism.

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

I agree, that is really some disappointing posturing to see.

The View? That disqualifies him right there from being elected.

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

Yep, and here's where experience would come in. He needs to stop talking NOW. Give his speech on race and just shut up... but everytime he feels has to explain himself, yikes.

It also smacks of typical Dem defensiveness, which comes off as fake and never works.

When Wright came up, I felt that the typical (John Kerry) type Dem response would have been a half-hearted "I reject that and I actually like white people almost as much as John McCain does."

Instead, Obama said "Here's what I think. Here's why I think it. And here's why its good that I think that." He lost some votes that way, but most of those votes he was going to lose anyway. And it reminded people who liked him of why they liked him. And, if it ended up failing, it was because voters rejected Obama's actual choices--not because they rejected some insincere and yellow-bellied apology for who he was and what he believed.

This View thing totally turns that on its head. And, it is just stupid politics because it interjects something new into the Wright situation, which might give Wright new news cycle life. He should have just told them to watch his speech and denied them any new soundbite.

I fear that Obama is trying to chase those voters who say that they were thinking of voting for him until his response to the Wright thing. He should not chase them. He will never catch them. Regardless of what they say and what they may actually believe about themselves, they were never going to vote for Obama. They were just waiting for an excuse not to do it. They were "considering" Obama in the same way that I would consider Jeb Bush. It is a costless lie to tell yourself in March to make you feel more open to the other party than you are.

His team of neophytes are going to kill him before he gets a chance to get elected, with the way they're failing to manage him.

I was playing tennis on the PS2 last night against the #1 in this match when I was ranked 90th or something and I was ahead early, then he came back and I finally won...but it reminded me of the Clinton/Obama race. Obama is the upstart and when you're coming into a match as an unknown quantity, your best best is to find early where you can win points and then hit on all cylinders to get up on your opponent early.

You want to beat them before they know what hit them or before they have a chance to respond.

Like it or not, the Clinton campaign has successful FORCED him to play in the mud with them and aren't allowing Obama's team to alter the conversation AT. ALL. His people need to be aware of this and find ways to his high minded rhetoric and prose that he's been so accused of flaunting and get people to swoon again, because he's becoming more and more ordinary by the day. Transforming himself from "Inspirational candidate" to "Typical Politician" is going to torpedo his campaign.

We all know that kids don't necessarily vote in November and so, banking on them isn't a sure thing. Other than black voters and oft-derided 'latte liberals' he doesn't really have a coalition that are used to playing nice together.

He better realize he needs to find some way to galvanize Americans into action. All of this sniping back and forth with Team Clinton is just wearing people down and will get them more and more polarized going forward...and no way it convinced independents to consider sampling the Kool-Aid.

But maybe he just wants to lose now, so he can make more money after it's over. I mean, it's far more lucrative to get Tonya Harding clubbed by the Clinton team than to just lose to John McCain because then "hope loses" and it's not quite as compelling until another decade. And being Governor of Illinois won't really substitute for it and I really just doubt Michelle is going to let him run again in four years...or eight.

This is his shot. Dems don't let losers come back, so...I think his people probably have to realize that this is their watershed moment and they'd be getter straight the horse for the stretch run.

Not to nitpick, but that's one of those base untruths that is just thrown out there by the other side to see if it sticks. According to the University of Chicago, Obama was a professor.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

dola--

not to take away from your overall point, which is that puffery is an essential part of politics.

I very much agree with your interpretation of this explanation. In fact I'm surprised that he believed he could answer the criticisms with this. His speech was excellent - but in another context. It too failed to answer the question "Why the hell did you listen to this crap for 20 years?"

But I disagree with your opening comment - for me he still has to address the perception that he tolerates or even has some sympathy with Wright's views and remaining quiet, while perhaps better than half-assed answers like The View interview, will not have the matter go away - unless Clinton comes up with a howler even worse than her "ducking the bullets". And even then he will have McCain, or to be more exact McCain's supporters, to deal with as they throw away the kid gloves the Clinton campaign (in fear of a Democrat backlash) has worn so far. If he thinks he's having it rough at the moment he's got a surprise coming and his current behaviour feeds the perception that he wll not be very good under pressure.

This interview, which highlights the real problem as you indicate, suggests he hasn't yet realised what that problem is.

Mac,

I agree with Ksyrup that Obama's best bet is to just shut up about it. He's given his "major speech", he's addressed the issue (badly) several times since then, and every time he keeps the story going.

Yes, this story will hurt Obama. But every time he opens his yap and tries to explain away his decisions, it only hurts him more. Politically speaking, it's probably best to just take your lumps and move on, especially since Obama's position doesn't seem to be changing. He just keeps coming up with new excuses to justify his behavior.

Some interesting comments on Obama and race by Condi. From the Washington Times:

A pretty powerful legacy at that, I think.

That is a great quote.

I would change this slightly:

Before 2008, Obama had pretty much a 4-5 year honeymoon with the national media. Nearly every story was positive and he could simply let the media fight his battles. IMO, people that haven't been forced to deal with strong criticism tend to struggle when put on a stage with it. Obama probably felt that it would all go away after his initial speech (with help from the media), but when it didn't he started going "on his own" to deal with it - something he doesn't have the experience to do.

For his own benefit, it's good that he takes some lumps now as most will be forgotten by the fall election. It's better to learn how to handle criticism now (even some that isn't legit), than suddenly get put in a trial by fire with it in September for the first time.

You guys may well be right on this because I don't know what he can say that would get him off the hook. But it isn't going to go away. Even if the Clinton Gang let up on this (which I doubt) the Republicans are not going to in a Presidential campaign. This is with Obama right the way to the White House and beyond if he makes it that far - and it may be the reason he doesn't.

So how far do we take things? Does the fact that Charlie Black, long time McCain friend and advisor, served on the host committee for Moon's coronation at the Dirksen Building matter? Can we really trust McCain when perhaps his closest advisor is in bed with a man who called for the destruction of America?

Why not?

Condi Rice gets some cool points from me for that statement.

This continues to play out like I thought it would. The dem friends I have are getting more and more divided by the day. I see it in the national polls as well. The nastier the stories get (and by nasty I'm not saying untrue or unfounded), the worse this gets for the dems.

With Hillary's high negative numbers, she was going to have a tough time getting elected to begin with. Now? I can't see it. She's not even going to be the dem nominee. (she's the only one who can't see this at this point)

now Obama is making idiotic quotes all over the place and showing his inexperience. He's going to be the nominee, but I don't see how he wins in November.

The scary thing for the dems? The fun is just beginning. Wait til you see how brutal this is going to get one week ahead of PA.

So apparently Mike Gravel quit the undemocratic party and is gunning for running under the Libertarian banner.

That's after he flirted with the Green Party. He's just an egotistical guy looking to find exposure.

You could replace Dem with PS3 and you'd be right back to 6 months ago, as incorrect as ever.

Either democrat would roll McCain. Eventually the media giant will turn it's attention to McCain, and they will damage him. There is a lot for them to chew on out there.

He's completely flipped from everything he said as a "maverick" in 2000-2001. He's sold out to the neo-cons to get elected and he's left an enormous trail of contradictions in his wake. He's admitted to not knowing a thing about the economy, which will easily be the #1 factor in the election, just like it is ever 4 years.

For instance, this just came out today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...iv-prevention/

His plan to curb AIDS in Africa is abstinence, he doesn't know if condoms stop the spread of disease, and he forgot what they told him to say. There are mountains of stories like this that the mainstream media hasn't focused on yet.

If he wins, it will be because someone found out Obama really is a muslim, or something. Obama's numbers have already rebounded from the Wright thing. Clinton is the only one who can win it for McCain at this point. The longer she stays in, the shorter amount of time we have to shift the lumbering attention of the media to form it's narrative on McCain. That takes time, but as the Wright/Tuzla stories showed, it doesn't take long to damage a candidate.

I think Obama wins because the media narrative will shift. If it doesn't, which is possible, Obama will have a fight. But eventually, someone will do their homework and the anchors will stop using words like "maverick" and "straight talk."

March 16, 2007 is today?

McCain is McCain, most know what they are getting (for better or worse). Age is a concern, as is his willingness to sell out the base in his party to look good. The problem for the democrats is that his biggest flaw to republicans (willingness to to work with dems) is a big draw for independents. it seems like most on the right have come to terms with this so I don't really see what's going to come out to knock him down. He's run for president multiple times (even as a front-runner) and most of his dirt has been aired out for a while. Some of his hawk talk might put people off and you could focus on his inconsistent statements. Still, seeing him go to a proactive approach to global warming and becoming more liberal on some social issues is hardly going to turn off democrats and independents looking to jump ship from someone else.

In the end, if most on the right hold their nose and vote for him (as I expect they will - for the judges issue alone), he should win.

My view, Arles, is that McCain will not appoint the social con judges (as some here are fearful of) but that he will not appoint liberal judges. Sort of a cost avoidance issue. This makes it an issue but not in the way people think.

McCain's problems with conservatives don't mater in votes, but in money. In February he raised a paltry 11 million. He'll need to generate excitement with the base if he wants to raise money. He'll attract a lot of independent votes, but those folks generally don't donate.

He's also going to have problems with the FEC over the spending cap. In the end he won't be legally hampered as the FEC is non-functional right now, but the way he played fast and loose with campaign spending regulations will hurt him for a bit.

To switch topics a bit, I'm really at a loss to see why Dean, the dem party and parts of both campaigns are against the Breseden plan to have a "superdelegate conference" in June and figure this thing out then. I don't see anyway that either candidate will get the votes needed by the convention and atleast this way involves debate and an overall decision process in the open. I could easily see the winning candidate from this in June (prob Obama) using the next 3 months to reunite the party and get ready for the fall election.

This seems to be an infinitely better option than waiting until the delegates individually report in the convention and make a decision late in the summer.

Dean has already said that by July 1st, the superdelegates will have decided.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/s...-deadline.aspx

We thought Bush wouldn't either. See how well that worked out. He will pander to them and he will appoint judges that are "highly qualified" and willing to be conservative soup de jour. That's fine, but...when court nominations boil down to who will be appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade or not, the whole apparatus is a little silly.

The problem here is that they may be split and still not "officially" nominate a winner. By having them all together, you could give the winner enough delegates to be an official winner. Even if all the supers decide by July 1, they may not reach the magic number for one candidate - so I'm guessing the loser will hang on until the convention (while trying desperately to get a few to change votes).

Last year, after this story ran about Obama not inviting Rev. Wright to give the invocation at his announcement for President. Rev. Wright wrote this letter in response last March:

Hillary's campaign isn't paying its bills. That's not news for political campaigns, especially losing ones. But...it does prove her campaign is having a devil of a time raising cash.

Netroots will come through in big ways for Obama were he to find a way to seal the deal on this and I think that's going to make the task facing McCain and the GOP base having an even more difficult time. He might convince the right wing he'll appoint their judges in return for big fundraising bucks, but...Obama has been breaking records left and right and even in the shadows of all of this stuff going on now, he's still awash with cash.

No way he takes public funding in the general, even though he said he would before.

Obama / Bloomberg ?!
 

About 1/2 down the page, the author notes that Michael Bloomberg is introducing Obama in a high-profile speech.

hxxp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/825803.aspx

Is this serious? Could Obama run Bloomberg on his ticket?

One of the interesting things that is happening now that so many more people are paying attention to the primary than before is that stuff that isn't news and happens all of the time is seen by some people as news.

You are right that it isn't newsworthy at all that a campaign, like any business, waits as long as possible to pay its bills--letting some of them get behind. That's just smart (and normal) operating procedure.

But some people are latching onto this story, trying to use it as evidence that Clinton does not understand money, or that she does not support small business. It is, of course, neither of these things.

It interests me to see campaigns having to positively spin actions that, in any other primary election, would not even be noticed--let alone need to be spun.

Very unlikely. Though a Jewish RINO might be an interesting idea, I doubt he'd do it. Bloomberg doesn't need to be Veep and it'd just make Obama easier to bump off by some crazy.

With all of the sore feelings that'll come together after this nomination process, they'll have to pick a white woman to assuage the idea that this is another "business as usual" election where "change wasn't allowed to happen" by rejection Hillary.

By getting a woman on board who doesn't infringe on Obama's "stature" or deflect attention too much -- maybe a red state woman Governor -- it'll make people sorta forget about Hillary and start to think ahead.

Without that addition, they're just going to be haunted by the ghosts o' Clinton.

I think the media has a vested interest in 1) keeping the Rev. Wright story near the front page. If it bleeds it leads and 2) stoking the fires of the "Hillary Go Home" crusade, because it makes for good drama since they obviously know that she won't quit because people tell her to.

I think this entire primary season and election as a whole has been crafted by media partisans who are trying to tailor the news cycle, rather than report it. Not a shock, but...I think the sensationalism is far more accepted as fact now, than it used to be.

This is really the relevant part of the article:


We'll see what her numbers look like for March, which should be a good month for her. She is, though, well behind in primary funds and that's going to have an effect. Here in IN Obama has already started a heavy media campaign and Clinton hasn't done anything. She's paying for her campaign's early habit of throwing money at everything.

The press has actually gone fairly easy on the Obama/Wright affair. Here are some salient questions that haven't really been answered yet:

1. In early March you said your church was not “particularly controversial.” Later in the month, after video clips of Jeremiah Wright had been repeatedly played on television, you admitted that you had heard Wright make statements in church that qualified him as a “fierce critic” of U.S. domestic and foreign policy and that “could be considered controversial.” You also said you “strongly disagree[d]” with some of Wright’s political views. Can you tell us what you specifically heard Wright say that you considered fiercely critical of U.S. policy, controversial, and with which you strongly disagreed?

2. During the approximately 20 years you attended Trinity United Church of Christ, did you hear Wright make comments or read things published in the “Pastor’s Page” of the church bulletin that could be fairly deemed to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and/or a “profoundly distorted view of this country” (to quote from your speech on race)?

3. When did you first become aware of the fact that in 1984 Reverend Wright traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to visit Muammar Qadhafi? Similarly, when did you become aware of Wright's role in giving Farrakhan a lifetime-achievement award and that Wright referred to the Nation of Islam leader as a man of “integrity and honesty?” Did those things trouble you when you learned of them?

4. Did you ever, even once, have a conversation with Reverend Wright in which you expressed your concern about his rhetoric and worldview? If not, do you now wish you had? What ought to have triggered that conversation with Wright?

5. In the speech on race you delivered a couple of weeks ago, you said you could “no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” Does that mean you believe Wright is synonymous with the embodiment of the black community, that they are one in the same? Is it your view that to disown any person who is black means you would therefore disown the black community? If so, does that mean you would be unable to “disown” someone like Louis Farrakhan? Are there any grounds on which you would disown Wright? If so, wouldn’t that (by your own logic) mean that you would disown the whole of the black community?

6. On ABC’s The View you said “had the Reverend [Wright] not retired and had he not acknowledged what he had said had deeply offended people and [was] inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.” Had you done so, how would that be different from “disowning” Wright?

7. Can you cite a single public statement in which Reverend Wright acknowledges that what he said deeply offended people, and was both inappropriate and a mischaracterization of what you believe is the greatness of this country? To what evidence of Wright’s public contrition can you point?

8. When you/those on your campaign cancelled Reverend Wright’s delivery of the invocation when you formally announced your run for the presidency in February 2007, what were the grounds for the cancellation? What did you know about Wright then that moved you to cancel his appearance?

9. With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist? Are they consistent with, or fundamentally at odds with, your expressed desire to end racial divisions in this country?

10. Is there anything Reverend Wright has said in your presence that you fear will be made public and that your campaign is working to keep from coming out?

11. You have complained that America has been presented with an incomplete picture of Reverend Wright. Would you therefore urge Wright and Trinity United to make public all the sermons of Wright, as well as things he has written in the church bulletin and elsewhere, so we can see the full body of his work? And will you let us know, to the best of your ability, the dates you attended church services during the last 20 years?

12. Since the Wright story broke there seems to have been a concerted effort to keep Reverend Wright from speaking to the press or in public. If he is the man you says he is — if the soundbites we have all seen are anomalous and the portrait of him is a caricature — then why not encourage him to do interviews in order to set the record straight?

13. Do you think it was surprising or out of character for Reverend Wright to reprint an oped by a leading Hamas figure, Mousa Abu Mazook, in the “Pastor’s Page” of Trinity United’s church bulletin?

14. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-Semitic? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

15. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-American? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

16. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be racist? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

17. Whom do you consider to be a more admirable and impressive figure and whose public words do you more closely associate yourself with: Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. or Justice Clarence Thomas?

18. If the GOP candidate for president had a close, intimate relationship of almost two decades with a pastor whose church provided shelter to homeless people, provided day care and marriage counseling but who was himself a white supremacist, asked God to damn rather than bless America, said that the United States got what was coming to it on 9/11, advocated conspiracy theories about genocidal policies being promoted by the American government, said that Israel is a “dirty word,” believed it was a terrorist state and promoted the views of Hamas leaders, would that trouble you? And would you accept the word of the GOP candidate if he insisted that he was not sitting in the pews when those things were said and therefore claimed he ought not be tarnished by the association?

19. Have you ever heard things contemporaneously said by Reverend Wright that you considered as offensive, or more offensive, than what Don Imus said about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (something you considered to be a firing offense at the time)?

20. In looking back on this whole matter, do you think you have made any significant errors in judgment regarding your relationship with Reverend Wright? To what degree are you responsible for this controversy? And have you been completely forthcoming in telling Americans about what you heard from Wright and when you heard it?

21. When Reverend Wright told the New York Times last year that if you got past the primaries he thought you might have well have to publicly distance yourself from him — and your reaction was that you agreed — what did both of you know at the time?

22. Will you answer the questions posed above? If so, when? And if not, why?

National Review Online Article - Wright Questions

I don't even think that the media is the main reason that this story continues to progress. Obama's continuing need to keep adressing the situation and provide statements that seem to conflict with previous statements are the main reason that this story continues. The media has to ask further questions when the contradictory comments appear. Obama's mistake was when he decided to be defensive and provide half-truth statements about the situation rather than immediately distance himself from the situation and then shut up.

NPR did a story on black liberation theology.

I don't think it's that white people "don't know" are "are surprised by" about the idea of this -- I thought the issue is that Obama shouldn't be supporting it. Also, detailing the differences between "black worship" and "white worship" is the most divisive thing I've heard in a while. Before you know it, someone will come in and say they're not talking about the same God. :p

It might be divisive, but..it's still pretty true even today.

From MLK in 1963:

It just comes off to me as saying: "You don't understand. That's just how black people are."

And while MLK's speech calls it a tragedy, here it's being used as an excuse.

Heh, it's funny. In church last Sunday, one of the praise band singers (this is in the "contemporary" worship) was remarking on the up-tempo songs for the week and said something to the effect of "we're still somewhere between the conservative churches and the African-American churches...but we're getting there!" This is to a primarily (oh, say 98%) white audience, where maybe a smattering of the crowd is comfortable clapping to a song, and even fewer will raise a hand up. I think that "getting there" is going to take a long time.

From Alice Walker:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...selections2008

But it was NPR. So the person they interviewed was probably some liberal apologist. To quote James Baldwin:


The stuff some of those folks do is almost more indefensible than the folks on the right that they revile with such disdain as "not understanding" the so-called plight of colored folks. Because if those folks were so progressive minded, they'd be living in communities and practicing what they preach. But in reality, they're just visiting and making themselves feel good and then going back to their suburban tracts and privately wondering the same stuff the folks in "less enlightened" areas, just they'd never say it out loud except with their well-meaning friends.

Saw this at Instapundit. It's an op/ed from GayWired.com.

hxxp://www.gaywired.com/print_this_article.cfm?ArticlePage=3&Section=67&id=18614


Identity politics is such a wonderful thing. :p

Hillary Clinton has challenged Obama to a bowling match to decide the primaries, even spotting him 2 frames. If they actually went through with this I would vote for the winner in the GE.

But sadly she had to issue the challenge April 1st.

Who cares about Iraq and the economy, let's focus on analyzing every speech given by a person Obama said hi to in the last 20 years. Yay!

You may think it's foolish to spend so much time and energy looking at the people that Barack Obama is close to, but you don't help your case when you create a strawman argument.


Hardly someone that Obama's just said "hi" to. Plus, are you saying that members of the GLBT community shouldn't be concerned about someone like Meeks having a place in an Obama presidency? This isn't some "retired reverend" we're talking about. This is an Illinois State Senator who's closely involved in Obama's campaign.

yawn

Right. So he's a bigot...but for the left. (name the movie!)

Like I said, McCain, Clinton, Obama all have people they are in some way associated with that would be considered "evil" by one faction. Point is, if this is all they have to bring to the game, they lose. The American people have shown over the past few weeks that they don't really care about this. People who supported him still do, people that supported McCain and Hillary don't like Obama regardless. Polls show that most Americans are concerned with Iraq and the economy. I'd even be willing to bet more care about global warming. So instead of trying to constantly dig up something negative that somebody said along the way (old politics) maybe it's time to actually pay attention to the voting public.

But then, you'd have nothing to hem and haw over while your candidate figures out who to attack.

Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with 5 in Pennsylvania. But the Real Clear Politics average is still at about 14%

Does anyone really, honestly, think Barack Obama is anti-white or anti-gay? Really?

On the other hand, John McCain had a very real relationship with Charles Keating, very likely being the beneficiary of illegal activities by this same man. A man whose business was bailed out by the U.S. Government to the tune of several BILLION dollars in the S&L scandal. Given that, less than 20 years later, we're bailing out the financial industry once again, wouldn't this be relevant information? Shouldn't we be discussing this?

Dude, your partisan hackery is really showing. It really must bother you that this story has legs as oppose to the millions of crappy things the federal govt has done the past 40 years.

This is like, in the NFL, asking how one of the wild card teams matches up with a team that got a bye. Of course those questions will come up; but first you've got to beat the opponent in front of you.

Keating has been a part of every campaign McCain has been in since 1988. There will undoubtedly be more in the fall, but here's some for you to check out in the meantime:

"Is John McCain a crook?" - Feb, 2000
http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

and one from last week from the AP:
"Lessons from Keating scandal applied to McCain presidential campaign" - March, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...in-Keating.php

But the NY Times alone has run between 7 and 12 stories on it over the past 10 years. Here's a beauty back in Feb of 2008 that was later corrected for numerous smears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...=1&oref=slogin

Column by Dowd in Jan 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A96F958260

Another story in Nov 1999:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A96F958260

October 7, 1993:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A965958260

There's numerous more if you Google McCain and Keating.

Yeah, I seriously doubt the Keating 5 thing will have much legs, especially since to McCain it was his "wake up call" and when he decided to take on the special interests in Washington. It's almost a strength for him, ie, the thing that got him "born again" (so to speak).

I to a certain degree can understand where Obama is coming from, inexperience is a killer. Hopeful he can get pass this and make his way toward the white house.

"Yes We Can"

:)

I was hoping for Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact.

Barrack will do.

If you smell what Barrack is cooking.

LOL, that's awesome.

She's no Sara Silverman.

Obama raised 40 million in March with an incredible 218000 first time donors. Hillary's campaign says they won't release totals until they are legally required to do so on April 20. She's expected to be below 20 million.

McCain is expected to come in around 13 million.

dola

Obama has raised over 130 million just in 2008.

You know what bothers me about Obama, though? It's that his entire campaign is centered on how it's time for "change" and he's not "politics as usual"...and then you see something like this. It's not that he's doing something others aren't doing; they all do it. The problem is that he's built his entire campaign on not being "politics as usual." But isn't the misleading advertising, the splitting hairs, the claiming to not do something that no one is allowed to do and playing word games to suggest he's acting in a way the other candidates are not... isn't that the very definition of "politics as usual"?

hxxp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html



Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

• Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
• Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.



Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest ever recorded by any company.

Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changed

Obama: Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available, was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.



When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

– by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank

Sources
Kornblut, Anne E., and Perry Bacon Jr. "Clinton Resists Calls to Drop Out." The Washington Post, 29 March 2008.

Mouawad, Jad. "Exxon Sets Record Profit Last Year." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2008.

"Open Secrets" Database. Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 31 March 2008.

Hillary for President. “False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money from Oil Companies.” 28 March 2008.

Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices," accessed 31 March 2008.

So let me guess this straight...if a guy who is some employee (one of 100,000s) and donates money to a campaign, in this article's judgement that's the same as taking money from the oil company? I work with stats for a living and this data is funky. There are much better ways to figure this out.

Well first, somewhere around 50% of that "oil money" has come from bundlers, so it's pretty obvious there's a concerted effort from top execs in the oil industry to collect money for Obama. Second, all of the candidates' contributions are compared the same way in this regard, Obama's not being singled out (other than in the context of his ad claim).

The big issue is Obama's claim that HE does not take money from oil companies (insinuating that others do). NO candidate can. And then he claims he doesn't take money from lobbyists...but he takes it from their spouses and others at their firms. That's the kind of two-faced political crap that he's supposed to be the alternative to, isn't it?

I agree, I just like my stats and numbers a little more detailed in the breakdown. Personally, I think you would be a better president than anyone running.

If you (or anyone else) is planning to vote for Obama because he is some sort of weird post-partisan Jesus figure, then I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your vote. Obama is a politician. He is nothing more and nothing less.

Try telling him that.

Wow. It was hard today to follow the regular news with all of the outrage against Randi Rhodes' vulgar, sexist, anit-semitic rant.

Or not.

I missed the anti-Semitic part. I've only heard about Hillary and Ferraro being "f***ing whores". What else did she say?

Guess I read that wrong. Sorry.

I always thought what the left-wing-punditocracy really needed was an Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin type whacko. Way to go, Randi...

:rolleyes:

They already have Al Franken, Michael Moore and that dogs and cats chick. Oh yeah and Rosie. They don't need Rhodes.

There are two kinds of people who can't recognize that there are left-wing wackos. Left-wing wackos and the duped.

I don't get the "anti-Semite racist" comment. Nixon, ok, was anti-Semitic. And an argument can be made that Reagan's attack on "welfare queens" and some of his speeches appealed to racism somewhat. Cheney, perhaps there is something there somewhere.

But, how exactly were Reagan and Cheney "anti-Semitic"? You'd think anti-Semites wouldn't be all that fond of Israel for one.

Randi spent too much time in South Florida half-baked out of her mind while spinning Eagles records. Everybody's an anti-Semite.

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?

Look, Obama's a politician. For some (possibly many) he's an inspiring person as well. He has my support because, for a number of reasons I've detailed before, I think he could be a very good President, and certainly better than the two other current alternatives. But he's not JFK. Of course, JFK wasn't JFK either, if you really look at it.

Sadly, it seems this race (and this thread) has simply devolved into a daily "Oh! Gotcha!" contest. Woo hoo.

It's like you've never followed politics before.

Actually, it's like I've followed politics for a long time. Both races have been pretty exciting and interesting this year until lately, when they've reverted to ugly, boring, presidential-politics-as-usual.

I was half-joking. However, every race turns into a "Oh, Gotcha!". It was only a matter of time.

Oh, I agree 100%. Mostly I just think I'm grumpy. I wonder if it's Bucc's influence.

I enjoy how we (FOFC posters as a whole) always blame our grumpiness on Bucc's influence :).

Nice spin. Gotcha! for misleading people. Great. Look, he brought this on himself. No one told him to make a big deal about not taking money from oil companies. That he would go out of his way to state as a "fact" something that, by law, NO candidate can do, smacks of "politics as usual." That's the issue.

And then there's the lobbyist thing...again, making a point to tell people he doesn't take money from lobbyists - but hey, if their spouses want to give me money (wink, wink), then that's A-OK!

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit. That's his campaign's overriding mantra, and he's demonstrating that he's not any different. I know he's a politician, but you can't tell me he's not campaigning as if he's not the usual candidate.

And BTW, I have no agenda here. I'm likely not voting for any of the 3 remaining candidates. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Factcheck.org analyzes all candidate ads, statements, etc., regardless of party. Hard to see how an unaffiliated organization pointing out misleading statements or outright lies to aid citizens in determining what they can or should believe is "politics as usual."