Front Office Football Central - Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=62530)

I think what I'm getting at is that trying to say that implying people's religious faith and belief in gun ownership rights are due to economic bitterness being exploited by a political party is highly, HIGHLY offensive to people who actually do have religious faith and belief in gun ownerhip rights. Its kind of like saying to them that those things are merely because the Republicans can tricked you.

That's not what he said. And it apparently isn't that offensive to actual undecided Pennsylvanians, as the polls didn't budge. The most "offended" people have been Hillary supporters and conservative talking heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1707289)

That's what he implied. I think based on his statement, that's probably what he actually believed.

And, really, it doesn't necessarily matter to "undecided Pennsylvanians". Where it'll really manifest is against McCain. After all, the rural, small town folk in the Democratic primaries are going to be for Clinton more anyway. It may affect the undecideds in the general election, however... as it will be part of a concerted effort to portray Obama as an elitist. Hillary doesn't have enough time to do that (and really, Hillary going after someone else for being an elitist liberal won't go over well).

Oh, and as for the Penn polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/index.html

They seem to be interestingly all over the place.

On the 14th, you had the Susquahanna poll showing Clinton winning by 4 and the ARG poll showing Clinton winning by 20.
Today, the Quinnipiac shows Clinton winning by 6, but the SurveyUSA has her up by 14 and the Rasmussen has her up by 9.

Hillary said that Pennsylvania wasn't part of America. At least that's what she implied and that's probably what she actually believes. John McCain said that he loves seeing Americans killed in wars. At least that's what he implied and that's probably what he actually believes.

This parsing of statements and invention of implications and beliefs is ridiculous. And I don't care what Republicans will do in the general. It isn't shocking to me that they're going to try to portray Obama as an out of touch liberal elitist. Guess what, they'll do the same with Hillary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1707276)

Its kind of like saying to them that those things are merely because the Republicans can tricked you.

But isn't that true to an extent? It's pretty much accepted wisdom that many blue collar folks voting Republican are voting against their own interests in favor of the "strong America" and "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" arguments, right?

The poll raw numbers don't matter in relation to Obama's comments. What's important is the movement of the polls from before to after. A case can be made that Obama was closing the gap and that his comments stopped that momentum, but in terms of numbers, the polls didn't budge from pre-comments to post-comments.

Hillary is going to win PA, probably by high single or low double digits, but at this point there is no evidence that Obama's comments are making a measurable impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1707220)

And I know, Joe Lieberman's supporting John McCain, blah blah. I just found the awkward pause and "I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist" comment. It amused me greatly. :)

Pretty savvy way for Holy Joe to handle it, indeed.

Bot hooo-boy will it be fun, after the democrats take a super-majority in the senate this fall, watching Harry Reid strip Lieberman of his committee positions and not allow him to caucus with the democrats.

:p

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1707309)

All joking aside, I actually do believe that what slipped from Obama was what he actually believes and that's what those words implied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12

They are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests! Economics isn't everything. There are very, very strong social interests and blue collar folks voting Republican are definitely not voting against those. It's one of the problems I have with the Democrats. They want to blame these blue collar Republicans for voting against "their interests" when they don't even see what interests they are actually voting for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1707332)

So you want the Democrats to act like the Republicans and assume they'll never lose the majority? Pretty short-sighted if you ask me. They may need that vote at some point soon... and Joe does vote on most things with the Dems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1706624)

First off, can I be amused at Christopher Hitchens calling Andrew Sullivan a "lesbian" the other day? Because that amused me greatly.

Now, here's where Sullivan's off base. What Kristol actually wrote was:

And Sullivan's response:

Um, no. Sullivan's argument really falls apart there, but the fact that he neglects to even mention Kristol's larger discussion certainly doesn't do anything to bolster it.

Another example. Sullivan says:

But here's what Kristol wrote about Obama's "mask":

And again, the immediate paragraph preceding that was Kristol discussing the gun ownership. As a rebuttal goes, Sullivan's really leaves a lot to be desired.

Rats - can't quote a quote.

Suffice to say, I didn't agree with your characterization of either Kristol's message or Sullivan's rebuttal in the slightest (SHOCKER! :)). I'm guessing it boils down to how much you believe Obama's clarification of his "bitter" statement.

Personally, I take Obama at his word, that he wasn't putting people down for clinging to (guns, religion, American Idol), rather pointing out that when the system fails you, sometimes that's all that's left. So when Kristol tries to paint Obama as mocking people who "cling to religion" it's deliberatley misguided. Sullivan here is being a drama queen for sure ("lying, godless communist"), but his gist is right on - the comparison of Obama and Marx in terms of how they feel about religion and the population's dependence on it couldn't be more different and the attempt to tie them together is deliberately and inflammatory.

I think Sullivan hit Kristol hard on all the points Kristol tired to make - YMMV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1707344)

True, I meant economic interests but I should have specified that. Though to an extent the social arguments are sometimes, shall we say.....simplified and the actual positions of the parties distorted somewhat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12 (Post 1707393)

A little bit. But they are still important things. I mean, the Democrats aren't going to ban guns or anything, but they will put more legislation for gun ownership, which will make things a bit more onerous. And there are some Dems in positions of power who do want to ban them outright. That's a bit scary to those people, even if they realize it'll never actually come to pass (then again, their voting for people who believe contrary may be the reason it doesn't come to pass).

gun issue to the right is similar to the abortion issue to the left. Just a mild threat can really rally votes.

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ht-wrong-word/

Quote:

April 15, 2008, 6:08 pm Right Fight, Wrong Word

By Dan Schnur

Dan Schnur was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000. (Full biography.)

Ever since Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Pennsylvania voters first surfaced in the public sphere late last week, the scions of the political community have talked of little else. Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns focused on the word “bitter” — allowing Senator Obama’s supporters to engage in a largely semantic discussion about whether economically disadvantaged Americans were “bitter” or “angry” or “frustrated.” But this is a meaningless series of distinctions even in this super-charged political environment. It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words, though, is the world view underneath them. By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions.

For many people, that’s certainly true. But there are plenty of other voters who don’t necessarily base their votes solely on jobs and taxes, and many of them are quite financially successful. They have determined their political affiliations largely as a result of the same continuing battles over abortion, guns and same-sex marriage that have drawn so many working-class voters to Republican candidates over the years. The only difference is the side of the fight they’ve chosen. It’s hard to argue that a wealthy pro-choice Democrat is any less of a values voter than a pro-life construction worker who votes Republican.

Perhaps Mr. Frank’s book would benefit from a sequel. We could call it: “What’s the Matter With the Upper East Side?” or perhaps “What’s the Matter With Beverly Hills?” or “What’s the Matter With Martha’s Vineyard?” The answer is that there’s nothing wrong with these voters at all, nothing more than there is anything inappropriate about blue-collar Kansans or Pennsylvanians who have decided that economic issues are not the most important influencers on their vote.

The mistake that Senator Obama and Mr. Frank both make is that they assume that only the values of culturally conservative voters require justification. An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception. This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based.

So the more problematic language choice for Senator Obama was not the word “bitter,” it was his use of the word “cling,” which he seemed to use as a pejorative to describe why small-town voters prioritize their opinions on cultural matters like religion and gun ownership over economic issues. And when he lists religion and guns in the same sentence as his reference to racist and anti-immigrant sentiments, it becomes much more difficult for him to establish the emotional connection with working-class voters that he has forged with the more upscale and academically oriented portions of the Democratic primary electorate.

The current uproar is unlikely to prevent Senator Obama from winning his party’s nomination, although it certainly breathes new life into the Clinton campaign and probably extends the primary battle that much further into the summer. But like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. controversy that preceded it, Senator Obama’s tendency to erect cultural barriers between himself and this critical block of swing voters will become more of an obstacle in a general election campaign.

Except multiple polls in PA and the Gallup tracking poll have shown no effect from Obama's comments. The only people offended are conservative pundits and Hillary supporters. I expected this to hurt him, but as of today there isn't any evidence that rural Americans feel any anger towards Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1708003)

Like Schur said, this will likely raise its head in the general. It won't stop him from the nomination.

But, it isn't just conservative pundits or Hillary supporters. Maureen Dowd has been in the Obama camp for a while and she wasn't all that pleased:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/op...16dowd.html?hp

Quote:

I’m not bitter.

I’m not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)

My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren’t bitter; they were bonding.

They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket.

Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism’s epicenter, Barack Obama showed his elitism, attributing the emotional, spiritual and cultural values of working-class, “lunch pail” Pennsylvanians to economic woes.

The last few weeks have not been kind to Hillary, but the endless endgame has not been kind to the Wonder Boy either. Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.

His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in “Deer Hunter” and “Rocky” country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads.

He hasn’t pulled a John Kerry and asked for a Philly cheese steak with Swiss yet, but he has maintained a regal “What do the simple folk do to help them escape when they’re blue?” bearing, unable to even feign Main Street cred. But Hillary did when she belted down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey with gusto at Bronko’s in Crown Point, Ind.

Just as he couldn’t knock down the bowling pins, he can’t knock down Annie Oakley or “the girl in the race,” as her husband called her Tuesday — the self-styled blue-collar heroine who reluctantly revealed a $100 million fortune partially built on Bill’s shady connections.

Even when Hillary’s campaign collapsed around her and her husband managed to revive the bullets over Bosnia, Obama has still not been able to marshal a knockout blow — or even come up with a knockout economic speech that could expand his base of support.

Even as Hillary grows weaker, her reputation for ferocity grows stronger. A young woman in the audience at a taping of “The Colbert Report” at Penn Tuesday night asked Stephen Colbert during a warm-up: “Are you more afraid of bears or Hillary Clinton?”

Even though Democratic elders worry that the two candidates will terminally bloody each other, they each seem to be lighting their own autos-da-fé.

At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode. The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections — J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them. In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man — like Cary Grant’s C.K. Dexter Haven in “The Philadelphia Story.”

What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action — the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he’s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)

Obama did not grow up in cosseted circumstances. “Now when is the last time you’ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt?” Michelle Obama asked Tuesday at Haverford College, referring to Barack’s student loans while speaking in the shadow of the mansions depicted in “The Philadelphia Story.”

But his exclusive Hawaiian prep school and years in the Ivy League made him a charter member of the elite, along with the academic experts he loves to have in the room. As Colbert pointed out, the other wonky Ivy League lawyer in the primary just knows how to condescend better.
Michelle did her best on “The Colbert Report” Tuesday to shoo away the aroma of elitism.

Growing up, she said: “We had four spoons. And then my father got a raise at the plant and we got five spoons.”

Quote:

It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

Adverb?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1707995)

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ht-wrong-word/

I do like Thomas Frank's book getting some "love". However, the silly claims that a sequel should be called "“What’s the Matter With the Upper East Side?”" is kindof silly since he's from Kansas. ;)

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1707995)

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ht-wrong-word/

Quote:

The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words, though, is the world view underneath them. By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions.

Seems to me that the rich elite politicians (on both sides) don't understand that it is not a universal American goal to become rich and elite. Lots of people are satisfied with their current economic situation even if other people don't think they should be. Don't we all know tons of people who live a very modest lifestyle but choose not to work overtime or start job-hopping because they value their free time and time with the family more than the extra money they could be making? "Economic problems" don't make people cling to cultural ideal since people who are comfortable don't necessarily consider them economic problems.

It's so fucking stupid that discussions about Whole Foods and drinking shots of Crown Royal are seen as more important than policy positions. But it does help substantiate my belief that the Presidential election comes down to little more than likability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1708175)

+1

When polls show more people think the guy who suggests eliminating the federal tax on gasoline during the summer is the most qualified candidate to handle the economy, it makes policy seem pretty damned inconsequential.

Is it me or does it seem like they are attacking Obama?

Obama is looking very weak right now and in my opinion has lost the election tonight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1708815)

Is it me or does it seem like they are attacking Obama?

I agree totally.

Also I am watching this debate because i am interested in what these two have to say and how they think they would make the country better. I wont lie if I were to vote today i would vote McCain, but i still could be swayed. But they havent talked about any issues yet.

All they talk about is what Obama's pastor said...or what Hillary said about being under sniper fire. I dont give a fuck about that stuff...talk about the issues. What the hell do you stand for and what would you do to implement it to make this a better country.

Am I wrong in wanting them to talk about actual issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsak16 (Post 1708818)

Am I wrong in wanting them to talk about actual issues?

Obama made mention to the same thing. He said that people are making big deals over not important issues. I agree with him in that respect but he doesn't look as cool as he has in his other appearances. They have kept him on the defensive the whole night.

As far as Iraq goes I like Obama's answer alittle bit more then I like Hillary's...

I agree with you Noop, but I'm not keen on his either.

I am glad that they've finally started talking about the important issues, only an hour into the debate.

Why are they discussing Israel? This is an American election not the Israel election.

Dola...this is a little off topic but still interesting. We (The US) say that Israel is our strongest "alley" in the region. But I attended a security briefing today that said that Israel is one of the top 5 threats against the USA as far as Espionage goes.

I like Hillary's answer a little bit better but I still don't like the fact we are discussing Israel.

What is her website again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsak16 (Post 1708839)

What is her website again?

I am not sure if you are joking or not but I will say not...

www.hillaryclinton.com/

I was joking but thanks :)

It's a smart quip- "hey, all, we have answers- just go to the website". American viewer: "Uh, I'll do it later. She probably has real answers"

SI

Well Hillary is looking a whole lot better in my eyes, atleast some of what she is saying is logical.

So now the host is attacking Obama as well?

This last little back and forth was great. However, on the policy issue of SS, Clinton was, well, vague at beest.

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsak16 (Post 1708833)

Hmm ... the two things wouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive I guess.

Neither one is electable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1708880)

Logan, if you're reading, that means that they could be BOTH at the same time. ;)

MY BRAIN HURTS!

Obama's statement on capital gains taxes, if I'm reading the paraphrases correctly (haven't seen a transcript), is stunning. Even though cutting the rates produces more revenue, we should raise the rates as a matter of "fairness"?

Go to her website, HILLARYCLINTON.COM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1708902)

He wants to raise it back to the levels of the Clinton era. So it's not as if he's proposing to raise it to levels we haven't seen before. I don't agree with it and it's one of the main reasons I could never vote for him (or at least, one of the one's I always cite for my 'hope' sipping friends) but...that's his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1708902)

Ah, class envy rears it's familiar head:

Well, currently, long term capital gains (held for over 1 year) are taxed less than income tax levels, even though selling investments ends up doing the same thing as getting more money from your employer. So I can see the fairness argument (tax even long term gains as income).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1708955)

But why should fairness factor into it? Shouldn't the government be concerned about getting the most revenue to pay for programs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1708967)

But why should fairness factor into it? Shouldn't the government be concerned about getting the most revenue to pay for programs?

A ton of government programs are based on fairness. Asking why should fairness factor into it is a being a bit silly, IMO (now argueing that it shouldn't is another thing entirely).

And the question becomes will lowering the capital gains tax actually increase revenue?

After watching the debate, I actually found Hillary likeable. :eek:

As to the capital gains issue, it's a little like spitting in the wind. Raising it in a pending downturn is a little risky. If you want to raise taxes, I would look at marginal rates before capital gains.

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

They spent an hour attacking Obama about his pin, his reverend and his association with some professor. I think Obama was right when he said why is he being held accountable for the words of other people. This process is a shame and McCain will waltz into the white house; my only hope is he is a lot better then Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1709378)

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

He was all but the press secretary and a senior policy advisor. That said, he came off more of a tool but that's about par for the course for him. The big annoyance to me was Gibson who just sounded like a giant bullying asshat. And not in the "I want an answer to that question and be specific" way that we want debate moderators to actually be but little snide comments and belligerent questions.

SI

Some debate reactions

Quote:

–Andrew Sullivan:

It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I’ve seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he’s up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully.

Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn’t just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process. In some ways, I’m glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again. But this is still the arena we have. It is what it is. ABC News is what it is. The MSM knows no other way. Obama has to survive and even thrive under this assault if he is to win. He failed tonight in a big way.

And so this was indeed a huge night for the Republicans, and the first real indicator to me that Clinton is gaining in her fundamental goal at this point: the election of John McCain against Barack Obama. How else will she rescue the Democrats from hope?

–The Politico’s Ben Smith:

So, who won, who lost, how did Obama hold up under what was basically a public enactment of Clinton’s case against him.

AND: Didn’t those quotes from the Constitution really set the tone?

ALSO: How much money will Obama raise off his supporters’ perception that this debate was unfair?

–Americablog:

Wow. What the hell was that? Seriously, I’m a bit stunned. The level of discourse has reached a new low — a very new low. To be clear, I don’t think the debate was a disaster for Obama. He did fine. I think it was a disaster for our political system.

It was the worst debate ever. [ABC moderators Charles] Gibson and [former Clinton administration spokesman George] Stephanopoulos were horrible. The questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio.

–The Swamp:

Well, what we saw tonight was Hillary Clinton making a strong, last-ditch effort to pull her flagging campaign back from brink, get it back on track to victory on April 22 and make the superdelegates realize that she really is their last best chance to retake the White House.

She drummed on Obama not just for his remarks about small towns, guns and religion, but for his vast dearth of experience compared to hers–and that includes her experience of being ravaged by Republicans and living to see another day.

Obama, for his part, strove to defuse the negative ripples his aforementioned-ad-nauseum remarks might have engendered, not to mention the controversial comments of his former pastor–all of which appear not to have tarnished him much in polls.

Most importantly, he tried to get voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief, assigning “a mission” to his commanders–he’s the decider–although consulting with them re: tactics.

….And, for Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. There’s a reason people think Clinton is dishonest as we saw today in the findings of the Washington Post-ABC News poll. She’s not only in this to win, she’s in it to win dirty — and to destroy Obama. She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason — just to say it. Give me a break. Throughout this campaign, Clinton has pursued GOP attacks against Obama. He has not gone there against her.

–Daily Kos (one of several progressive sites calling on readers to flood ABC News with protests):

I used to think Republican operative and Karl Rove mentor Lee Atwater had died in 1991, after a nasty career of Republican race baiting, culture wars, dirty tricks, and a illness-induced conversion to Catholicism and public repentance for his dirty and divisive politics. I was wrong.

Lee Atwater apparently works for ABC News in devising…questions to ask Democratic Presidential candidates.

The questioning in tonight’s debate–—mostly straight out of 1988—was an abomination. Gun control. 60’s radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action.

I’ll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton….The questions asked were not the kinds of questions Democratic primary voters care about. But they are the “gotcha” kinds of questions Republicans try to spring on Democrats in general elections.

I’m not afraid of those questions. I think Obama did fine tonight. Generally Clinton has performed best in debates, but as we first saw in the Texas debate, Obama appears to perform better one-on-one. I especially liked how he refused to get lured in to Charles Gibson’s conservative frames, and I like how he dismissed many of Clinton’s attacks on him as avoiding the substantive issues and hypocritical, as when he pointed out that Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground.

–Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey feels the debate was “Obama’s Waterloo”:

The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.

…The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight. And kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included.

–Josh Marshall:

9:46 PM … No Charlie. It hasn’t been a “fascinating debate.” It’s been genuinely awful.

9:50 PM … What happened to the League of Women Voters? Can we give the debates back to them? This sort of episode really sickens me. KB’s point above is sadly accurate. It’s stuff like this that really makes me think that whole big chunks of the established press needs to be swept away.

9:56 PM … As I noted above, I missed roughly the first half hour of this debate. But from what I heard about those thirty minutes and what I saw of the subsequent ninety minutes was basically debate by gotcha line with basically no discussion of any of the big questions the election is turning on.

–National Review’s Jonah Goldberg:

I’m no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a “fighting Dem” who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the “real issues,” I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

–Marc Ambinder:

Keeping the score card, there’s no way Obama could fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she’s perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her. So it would be unwise to declare that Hillary “won” the debate in the dynamic sense just yet. (How much money will Obama raise off this debate? $3m million? $4 million?)

…..This sets up a blowback scenario wherein his supporters will rally to his defense and lash out at the media very loudly. But Obama’s going to be the next president of the United States, maybe. The most powerful person in the world. And questions about his personal associations, his character, his personal beliefs, his statements at private fundraisers — the answers to these questions tell us a lot. Sometimes the questions are unfair (( — nothing about Colombia and Mark Penn — )), but this ain’t Pop Warner; the artificial distinction between politics, personality and policy doesn’t exist in this league, and if you’re uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don’t run for office.

–My DD’s Todd Beaton:

Although it was somewhat redeemed in the final half hour, I feel like taking a shower after that debate. It was tabloid hour on ABC, and certainly Obama did get the bulk of the more disgusting questions. Check out this post over at ABCNews.com: over 4,000 comments, the bulk of which seem to just rip ABC.

As for the candidates’ performances, neither was particularly inspiring and neither had his or her best night, although Obama did get plenty of opportunities to plead for an end to the issues of distraction and division and to call for a new style of politics and seemed to be the conscience of the audience as he called out the moderators. I think Clinton was stronger during the last half hour but not enough to tip the balance in her direction; certainly not enough for this to be a game changer.

It would almost be a shame for this to be the last debate, to go out on such a poor note.

–Chris Bowers:

Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn’t wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can’t win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn’t trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate.

…..It appears that live focus group polling of undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half. Hmmm… perhaps her campaign should learn something from that.

–NBC’s Chuck Todd:

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he’s not yet ready for the general, that’s why she should stay in, and that’s why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.

Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn’t step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn’t very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn’t have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we’ve noted in “First Thoughts” quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let’s see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.

Could tonight’s true winner be John McCain? We’re betting that’s the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

–Monica Crowley:

The final two Democratic candidates appeared to sleepwalk through tonight’s debate. I mean, quite literally, they looked so weary that they appeared to be napping while the other was talking. They swayed. They leaned on the podium. Their eyelids were heavy. Their speech was slow and deliberate, each response called up on auto-pilot.They moved as if through molasses.

They both survived. There were no earth-shattering gaffes or obvious slurring or devastating mangling of an issue. But to have both candidates looking ready to keel over is an indication of the toll this drawn-out campaign has had on them. A lot of Democrats are making an issue of John McCain’s age (71), but while he’s got 10 years on Hillary and 25 on Obama, McCain looks the most spry.

–Somervell County Salon:

Just got done watching the ABC Debate that was moderated by Charlie Gibson. Where were the questions about Bush’s torture, about executive signing statements, what about that permanent base in Iraq, what about the huge cost of the war, about bailing out investment bankers, about using PPPs (whether from this country or foreign) to lease out our infrastructure, what about the airline industry FAA problem? Nope. Had to listen to right-wing Republican talking points in a DEMOCRATIC DEBATE coming from Gibson and Steph. Now, on the one hand, maybe it’s a good thing because that’s what will happen when Gramps McCain goes head to head with Obama but you know, if I wanted to watch Fox News, I’d unblock it…

P.S. Hillary Clinton has a look on her face in much of the debate that reminded me of the pissy pursed look that Bush had in the second debate against Kerry.

–The Morning Call’s Pennsylvania Ave:

After the debate, both candidates surrogates rushed to the “Spin room” to field questions from a mass of media outlets about the debate.

The take from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was that enough serious questions were raised about Barack Obama in the first half of the debate to give voters second thoughts about his electibility.

“A number of questions were asked really for the first time of Barack Obama,” Wolfson said, putting Obama “back on his heels.”

Wolfson also said he didn’t think Obama’s statements about small town voters who he described as “bitter” and clinging to guns and religion, was a gaffe, but rather “What he believes.”

The Obama campaign countered that most voters were probably frustrated with the first half of the debate, which had very little talk about the issues, instead focusing on political games.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Bucks, said he thinks voters were more interested in hearing the candidates talk about issues like Iraq and the economy.

–Blue Ollie:

This night’s debate had potential to be very meaningful. Instead, it was a colossal waste of time.

No, I am not saying that because the moderators (including former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos) piled on Obama; I expect that.

It was because the piling on was over the warmed over trivial stuff: stuff Rev. Wright said, a party that Obama may have attended, why he stopped wearing a flag pin, etc. Yes, Clinton caught the Bosnia “sniper fire” question.

….ABC did more to make BHO’s point that today’s politics is petty and insubstantial….But as far as ABC debate: ABC News not a news organization but rather a tabloid organization.

--Ginger Snaps:

FLAG PINS? Is that what George Snuffalufagus thinks is one of the most important topics that needs to be discussed in a Presidential Debate?!?

Seriously, folks…the first 45 minutes of this debate really should have been relegated to Saturday Night Live. We were treated to questions about flag pins, the Rev. Wright issue that Obama has sufficiently addressed ad nauseum, implying that Obama should answer for the acts his friends committed 40 years ago, and, of course, the “b” word…

…and oh by the way, we have an economic crisis, a war, gas prices are through the roof, unemployment, veterans in crisis, a broken healthcare system…

You know…the things that affect us every single day?!?

…How are we going to get the right candidate in office if the media chooses to ask trivial questions that play on the FEAR of the country, when what we really need to know is their detailed plan for how they are going to fix the situation right now?

–Editor & Publisher Editor Greg Mitchell writing on the Huffington Post:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

–National Review’s Mark Hemingway declares McCain the winner and writes:

My prediction? The debate will be received so badly there will be increased pressure to kick Hillary out of the race. But since Obama was clearly the worse of the two in the debate, Hillary will win PA as expected and the goat rodeo will continue for the forseeable future with even more acrimony between the two candidates. Which only helps McCain.

–Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

The highlight of the debate tonight will be Hillary’s repeated efforts to use an electability argument as the basis for sharp attacks on Obama over Bittergate, Wright and 1960s radicals.

It was a tactic geared as much to superdelegates as to Pennsylvania voters, and Obama was not as sharp as he could have been in response. He seemed surprised sometimes, irritated others, and misspoke at least once (about disowning Wright, which he quickly corrected). So, if you’re scoring the debate like a prizefight, she wins a couple more rounds. But no game-changing moments.

–The New Republic’s The Stump blog:

For what it’s worth, I thought it was smart for Obama to go gracious on the Hillary-Bosnia scandal and suggest that they’re both entitled to make a mistake every now and then. Obviously, the choice of questions isn’t doing Obama any favors–bittergate, Wright, William Ayers!–but he’s doing a decent (if low-energy) job not getting dragged into the fray,* and Hillary is coming very close to over-reaching by rubbing his nose in it.

–Matthew Yglesias:

I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn’t sink any lower, but thus far she’s really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she’s making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she’s the one doing it now.

HERE IS A CROSS SECTION OF NEWS MEDIA REPORT REACTION:
–The New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the attack against Senator Barack Obama on a variety of issues during a contentious debate Wednesday, warning that he would be deeply vulnerable in a general-election fight if he won the nomination.

….
–The Boston Globe framed it this way:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took their hard-fought battle for the Democratic nomination down to a deeply personal level in a nationally televised debate tonight, trading barbs on honesty, their appeal to working-class voters, and who would be a stronger candidate in November.

Clinton, struggling to gain momentum in the dwindling weeks of the primary campaign, accused Obama of associating with unsavory people, including his own former preacher, and questioned whether Obama — whom she called “a good man” — could beat the GOP nominee in the fall.

“They’re going to be out there in full force,” Clinton said of the Republicans. “I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage and everybody has rummaged through it for years.”

Obama, meanwhile, criticized the New York lawmaker for running a negative campaign, and said Clinton herself could not pass the electability test she was imposing on him.

“By Senator Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it,” he said.

–The Globe’s blog political intelligence was far more blunt:

Barack Obama tonight staked his presidential campaign on the idea that the American people will look beyond the inevitable gaffes and errors and character attacks of a 24-hour campaign cycle to meet the challenges of a “defining moment” in American history.

Hillary Clinton staked her campaign on the idea that Americans won’t — and that her tougher, more strategic approach to countering Republican attacks is a better way for Democrats to reclaim the White House.

The first half of tonight’s debate in the august National Constitution Center in Philadelphia was a tawdry affair, as ABC news questioners called on Obama and Clinton to address a year’s worth of dirty laundry, and each combatant eagerly grabbed at the chance to befoul their rival a little more.

But while some in the audience groaned, the litany of nasty questions — about such matters as Obama’s comments on the working class and Clinton’s exaggerations about dangers she faced in Bosnia — helped to flesh out a long-simmering subtext to the Clinton-Obama battle: The Clinton campaign’s insinuation that Obama is more vulnerable to GOP-style attacks on his patriotism.

….Clinton wasn’t so high-minded. At times, she seemed to revel in her tough-gal statements, sounding like a character in a 1940s film noir.

….The tit-for-tat comment showed how off-message Obama was for most of the evening, able to conjure up little of the hopeful energy that has marked his campaign for much of the year.

…What did come through, however, was how crucial Obama’s self-described “bet on the American people” will be to the future of his campaign.

Obama has said on countless occasions that he believes the American people want “an honest conversation,” and not a campaign of charges and countercharges.

–The Washington Post’s news report on the debate includes this:

With the race for the Democratic presidential nomination mired in a form of trench warfare that has left party leaders searching for a way to bring it to a conclusion before the party’s late-summer convention, Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) began their first head-to-head encounter in nearly two months focused on political disputes rather than their relatively narrow policy differences. Obama, who leads in the delegates needed to claim the nomination, fielded tough questions about his relationship with his former pastor, his patriotism and his description of small-town voters as “bitter,” the latter a controversy that has engulfed his campaign for much of the past week.

Obama argued repeatedly that voters are smart enough to differentiate petty issues from important economic matters.

“So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person’s statement, if it’s not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death,” Obama said. “And that’s what Senator Clinton’s been doing over the last four days. And I understand that. That’s politics. And I expect to have to go through this process. But I do think it’s important to recognize that it’s not helping that person who’s sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.”

–The Washington Post’s The Fix blog:

The choice between the candidates crystallized tonight. It is not, fundamentally, a choice about issues or even ideology — it is a choice about approach. Obama is an idealist, using nearly every question to appeal to the better angels in people; Obama sees the world as he wants it to be and believes he can make it. Clinton, on the other hand, is an unapologetic pragmatist; she has been through the wringer that is national politics before and knows how to play the game.

*The longer the Democratic campaign goes on, the more clips Republican Sen. John McCain’s campaign can harvest for use against the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s one thing for McCain to take note of ties between Obama and a former member of the Weather Underground; it’s quite another for McCain’s campaign to roll tape of Clinton making those accusations. You can bet Steve Schmidt of McCain’s campaign was Tivoing every minute of tonight’s proceedings for use when summer turns to fall.

I find two things interesting about the feedback from last night: First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews. Second, the questions were exactly the same that every mainstream network has treated republican candidates. Remember the kook with the Bible on the Youtube debate and the unending questions about lead paint in toys and what crime women who have abortions should be charged with?

Mainstream media debates have now become the prime example of "gotcha" politics for both sides.

I think this debate really shows that this Democratic campaign needs to have a bullet put in it or the general election is going to be done before it even starts. Everyone is used to R taking shots at D and D taking shots at R and we can all take it with a grain of salt and go "well, clearly, as they are on different sides of the political spectrum"- there's a mental disconnect there for us. But this is going nowhere but down for the Dems.

SI

In class today we had a debate about this debate and the general feeling was Obama got setup. A few students who lean to the right even said as much, in fact I remember going to the cafeteria to get something to eat and listening to people talk about this debate.

I didn't know it meant that much to people. I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it. The only hope would be Al Gore or maybe John Edwards.

Sorry for the rant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1709706)

First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews.

Yep. That bothered me too. Obama was treated as Clinton has been treated and all of a sudden, its an uproar, and "bias" being charged and all that. It took SNL to shame the MSM into realizing they were fawning all over Obama and dumping on Clinton earlier in the primaries.

Let's focus on the real issues here, not lying about sniper fire!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1709819)

Yes, I'm sure SNL, particularly modern SNL with the giant pile of notfunniness they manage to assemble on a weekly basis shamed the big boogeyman "Mainstream Media"

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1709812)

I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it.

No presidential election is going to be "easy" for the modern Democratic party. Starting with a hardcore base of 40% and trying to win over enough independents to get to 270 Electoral votes is extremely difficult with the far left wing in control of the party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/ar...yt&oref=slogin

Quote:

Over the past three weeks “SNL” has put itself back into the national discussion — not a bad place for any television show to be, as Mr. Michaels acknowledged — first with a series of sketches that have centered on the premise that Mrs. Clinton has been the target of a vengeful press that sees Mr. Obama with stars in its eyes

Quote:

A study by the Pew research organization found that critical coverage of Mr. Obama had increased in the news media after the sketches.

And, of course, that wasn't the only story in papers and on the internet about the SNL sketch's impact.

Good stuff from Jon Stewart:

Quote:

Doesn't elite mean "good?" Is that not something we're looking for in a president anymore? ... I know elite is a bad word in politics. You want to go bowling and throw back a few beers. But the job you're applying for---if you get it and it goes well---they might carve your head into a mountain. If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the fuck are you doing? ... [N]ot only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me.

We'll be waiting a long, long time for someone to come around that has no weaknesses, drawbacks, skeletons in their closet, etc.

IMO, anyone that fits that description from Stewart above should be smart enough to make himself not come off as elite numerous times. That's the difference between John Kerry (thinks he's elite and comes off as elite) and Bill Clinton (thinks he's elite but seasoned enough to come off as a normal guy).

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

Like Arlie said, I think there's a difference in being an elite and exhibiting an elitist attitude.

Frankly though, I don't think Obama's coming off as an elitist, as much as he is demonstrating he's out of touch with the everyday experiences of many Americans. I don't necessarily see that as a huge drawback, because I don't think any of the three candidates is the automatic "man (or person) of the people" in this election.

They are elite. They think they know what's good enough for 300+ million people. You have to have lots of money to run. These aren't normal people, they are elite. If you think a few comments is what makes people "realize" it, you are quite foolish. If people are looking for one of the guys (or gals) to lead our country, they must have not been paying attention to last 10,000 years.

On a side note, it's funny because most of what you said about being pompous and out of touch applies to our current leader, who you probably defend.

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

We need Ron Paul, he would of gotten rid of debates and solved this problem entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1710446)

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1710458)

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

Dude, that was 100 years ago. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1710404)

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state.

Or giving them backrubs.

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1710474)

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

No, I'm just talking intelligence here. These people are elite. They are not one of the guys. You don't vote for W because you think he's going to come to your local bar and throw back a few with you. He may live on a ranch, but he hasn't been "one of the guys" for decades. None of these people really have, it's just silly for them to be calling each other elitists (especially Romney who is in the news throwing the "E" word at Obama).

Journalist, heal thyself...

"What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them"

George Stephanopolus, 1993.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1710588)

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

Maybe some people get off more on massive power and notoriety than massive money. Dubya's not exactly been an overwhelmingly popular President but he's still more well known than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

How many of the top 20 do you recognize by name if I take Gates and Buffet off the list? I knew all of 1 other (#14):
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/ric...?partner=links

So there's something to be said for want of fame and power vs wealth and power.

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1710617)

To be very fair, that was before the Clinton Administration was really hit hard by all these "side issues" scandels. It may have soured Stephanopolus to what the American people actually care about.

And... of course, that's when Stephanopolous was in the Administration (and had to speak carefully for political reasons) and not in the private sector.

From Obama's speech today in Philly:

Quote:

"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."

The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.

"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.

That's actually pretty good. I can see lightbulbs going on in some voter's minds with these good analogies.

Quote:

Obama: Being black confers no advantage
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
[email protected]

I bet Hillary Clinton wishes Bob Johnson would stop trying to help her.

Johnson is the billionaire BET founder and Clinton supporter who embarrassed his candidate and himself during the South Carolina primary by clumsily attempting to inject Barack Obama's self-confessed youthful drug use into the campaign and then clumsily denying he was doing it. To judge from his latest comments, he still hasn't learned to engage brain before operating mouth.

In March, Johnson told The Charlotte Observer he agreed with comments that forced Geraldine Ferraro to resign from Clinton's campaign last month. Ferraro essentially called Obama the affirmative action candidate, saying that if he were not black, he would not be the political phenom he is.

Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not.''

Naturally, Johnson is wrong. If being black conferred, as he and Ferraro seem to think, some mysterious advantage in politics (unlike in virtually every other field of endeavor), Jesse Jackson would have been president years ago. He is, after all, black. As are Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes. All tried, yet none came close to winning the presidency.

Johnson is also wrong about black support for Obama. As recently as December, Gallup pollsters found Clinton had significantly higher favorable ratings among black voters than Obama. Of course, that was before Obama's resounding victory in Iowa, Clinton's gaffe about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement, and clanking attempts by Clinton surrogates like Johnson to kneecap Obama.

For the record, Obama became a political phenomenon for the exact reason a political novice named Ross Perot did: He moved voters. But Perot is white. I'd love to see how Johnson fits that into his crackpot thesis.

It's not just that he's wrong on the facts that's galling but, rather, that he is wrong on something deeper.

An easy hook

If you are black, after all, you are used to this, used to having your achievements -- and failures -- lazily conflated with your skin color. It's an easy hook for those who lack the imagination or intelligence to dig deeper. Like Rush Limbaugh, who said in 2003 that Donovan McNabb only became a football star because he's black.

You'd expect Johnson, as a black man, to know better. Especially since he's surely seen his success diminished this same way. You think no one ever said Johnson (who, according to a Washington Post report, went to Princeton on an affirmative action program) only became a billionaire because he's black?

But then, Johnson has never identified overmuch with black folks' struggles. He once told C-SPAN he acknowledged no responsibility to be a role model for his community.

''What are my responsibilities to black people at large?'' he asked. ``If I help my family get over and deal with the problems they might confront, then I have achieved that one goal that is my responsibility to society at large.''

And the rest of y'all Negroes is on your own.

Johnson proved his regard for his people for years by exploiting them, poisoning our kids with a video parade of gyrating backsides, gold grills, and pimp values, a caricature of black life so unremittingly racist as to make the Ku Klux Klan redundant.

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

On the plus side, I don't think he has to worry about being called a role model.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/co...ry/501952.html

Quote:

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

What an appalling example of the attitude "if you disagree with me then you're racist - even if you are black" :rolleyes:

The stats speak for themselves - 80% of the black voters vote for Obama, 50% or so of the overall democrat vote is for him (the white voters must be less than 50%).

One of two things can be deduced from this:

1) some black voters are voting for Obama because he's black - ie the black vote should be ~50%

2) some white voters are voting against Obama because he's black - ie the democratic vote should be 80% for Obama

Somewhere in between I suspect but there is clearly some aspect of Obama that appeals to the black population and/or turns off the white population and it is reasonable to assume that at least a part of that is the race factor. Johnson is not wholly wrong - merely expressing a view that offends the self-righteous mentality of the pc thought police.

We might have expected a similar "sexist" vote for Clinton - women/men voting/not voting for her because she's a woman though the stats are not as extreme on this as far as I can see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1710404)

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.

I don't think the Bob Johnson quote is accurate. This would have been better for him to say:

Quote:

Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the TV/print media behind him? And the answer is, probably not.''

Obama had been the media darling since his DNC convention speech years earlier. And, to be honest, I can't really blame the media. Here was a well-spoken, idealistic, young, attractive black man with a great message. That's like political gold to newspapers, magazines and network stations. The problem for Obama is that he hasn't been able to turn the corner and close out the race since mid-Feb. Which is no small feat against the Clintons, but it is something he should have been able to do given the momentum he had early on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12 (Post 1711527)

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.

I'd like to think that someone out there could be in the "neither" case. Still, in this youtube age, every president from here on out will have atleast a handful of "dumbass" moments during his tenure.

Quote:

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.

I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1711591)

I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

YMMV I guess. I get smug way more off of Clinton (and McCain for that matter) than I do from Obama. What I get from Obama is someone actually not speaking to the lowest common denominator, which is both startling in its rarity and a refreshing change.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D906FPN01.html

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A smackdown among presidential candidates?

Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain will appear on World Wrestling Entertainment's live "Monday Night Raw" (8-11 p.m. EST on cable's USA network) but instead of smacking each other down, they separately will deliver some wrestling-themed stumping in taped messages before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

"Tonight, in honor of the WWE, you can call me Hillrod," Clinton says in her message. "This election is starting to feel a lot like 'King of the Ring.' The only difference? The last man standing may just be a woman."

Obama borrows The Rock's famous catchphrase during his appearance.

"To the special interests who've been setting the agenda in Washington for too long and to all the forces of division and distraction that has stopped us from making progress, for the American people, I've got one question: Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" Obama says before flashing a smile.

McCain, meanwhile, looked to Hulkamania for inspiration for his message.

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"

The candidate appearances will be used to promote "Smackdown Your Vote!" - the WWE's voter registration drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12 (Post 1711649)

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1711684)

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I take it your positing that what one gets from all three is bullshit. I don't know that I'm quite that cynical (though I certainly am getting there), but in that case yes, I'd prefer to have the erudite bullshit as opposed to the lowest common denominator bullshit. :)

Quote:

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"

Don't know why I still quoted the quotes around the quote, but that's Flair and Hogan put together, not just Hogan! He has my vote!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1711684)

My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I mean, let's face it, you pretty much have to take what you can get these days.

I'm curious. Clinton just used Osama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1711672)

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D906FPN01.html

If Obama ever Barack Bottom'd Hillary, he'll have my vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1711754)

I'm curious. Clinton just used Obama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

I have not seen that ad. I just tried searching YouTube for it and can't find it. Wonder if it just came out.

I would think doing something like that (putting "Obama bin Laden" in an ad) would be political suicide.

Edit: Did you mean that she used OSAMA bin Laden? ;) I have seen that ad.

Although I'll crack a joke about it over in the wrestling thread, I have to admit that it seemed kind of tacky that the WWE got the legit promos from all three candidates for their voter campaign but still couldn't resist a somewhat harsh parody of both Obama & Clinton (okay, rougher on Clinton really).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 1711767)

Shit. Did I say that? I really didn't mean to. Sorry.

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1711923)

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.

I think that's spot on. Different Q - at what point will there be enough pressure for Hillary to bow out? I can't see her winning NC. So, after that primary, do you think she'll be forced to concede?

I would think if she loses NC big, and loses IN, I can't see any reason for her to stay in. She and all her supporters keep talking about needing a delegate lead, or at the minimum a vote count lead. She will have neither, and after NC/IN, I believe OR has Obama ahead in the polls as well.

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

The irony is that the reason many thought she'd be a good Dem candidate (her tenacity and never say die attitude) is causing major problems in the Dem primary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1711950)

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

I sincerely doubt that she'll get another shot at the presidency. It's now or never for her. Obama could get another shot in future years.

I'll agree with JPhillips and guess Hillary by 9.