Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Well, my half-hour of searching came up with plenty of stories *about* John McCain saying questionable things, but no actual quotes. For example:

• McCain has claimed 3 times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.
• McCain consistently mixes up Sunni and Shi'a.
• McCain railed on the mortgage bailout, suggested homeowners should work 2 jobs and skip vacations to pay their way out, then less than 2 weeks later said the government should do all it can to help lenders and homeowners.
• McCain was against torture, then voted against banning it.
• McCain's "spiritual adviser" claims the United States is founded on destroying Islam.
• Despite claiming he was new to congress and learning his way, McCain was almost 50 years old when he voted against an MLK holiday, and he continues to vote against civil rights laws.

Again, nothing specific, just my general feeling - and a failure on my part to back it up with specifics. However still, it would seem to me if Obama made these same gaffes, the media outrage would be tremendous.

The media isn't going to run with these now because the race and attention is for the Democratic Primary. Once that's settled, they'll focus on McCain again. There's also the fact that at least 3 of these (the last 3) haven't happened recently. Partisans love to dig up the old stuff, but the news media generally goes for fresh, new revelations.

Don't want to get this thread off track, but on your first two bullets, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a isn't exactly cut and dry, and it's really about 4th or 5th most important thing after family, tribal affiliation, region and ethnicity. And if you want to look at some crazy sources, like say CENTCOM or Gen. Petraeus' congressional testimony, you'd see that Iran has (probably) been providing training and financial support for many groups in Iraq including al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they've even (allegedly) gone so far as to have Qods Force operatives directing tactics on the ground. But I don't want to go down that road in this thread.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The media isn't going to run with these now because the race and attention is for the Democratic Primary. Once that's settled, they'll focus on McCain again. There's also the fact that at least 3 of these (the last 3) haven't happened recently. Partisans love to dig up the old stuff, but the news media generally goes for fresh, new revelations.

Don't want to get this thread off track, but on your first two bullets, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a isn't exactly cut and dry, and it's really about 4th or 5th most important thing after family, tribal affiliation, region and ethnicity. And if you want to look at some crazy sources, like say CENTCOM or Gen. Petraeus' congressional testimony, you'd see that Iran has (probably) been providing training and financial support for many groups in Iraq including al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they've even (allegedly) gone so far as to have Qods Force operatives directing tactics on the ground. But I don't want to go down that road in this thread.

So, what you're saying is, we should invade Iran?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

If he's saying there are racists inbetween Philly and Pittsburgh, that's true. The KKK is still big in the North Central part of the state. There's no way Obama gets any votes up there.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We're talking about two different things. When I say single issue voters I'm referring to people who will disregard other issues and make their decision only on one factor. For example, voting for the Greenest candidate regardless of foreign or domestic policy, or voting anti-abortion regardless of all other issues.

You're talking about one issue changing the overall balance and I'm talking about one issue being the sole factor.

No, what I'm saying is that if I am a dem in Penn and like Obama's views on health care, environment, economics and the war over McCain. I may still vote for McCain if I feel my right to carry a gun is impacted by Obama. It's not that it was 4-4 on issues and the gun one broke the tie. It's that some may be 8-0 or 7-1 with Obama on other issues but may choose McCain if they are scared enough that Obama may ban guns.

It would be the same for pro-choice conservative women who may vote democrat if a pro-life republican runs. I don't know that there are a ton of people who are like these two, but I bet there are a lot more than we think. And, as I stated above regarding the minimal actual difference between candidates, I think it's fair for someone to throw away difference in other issues if one (gun control, abortion, ..) is that important to them and they feel it is threatened.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And who is McCain's "spiritual advisor"? Are you talking about Hagee?

Rod Parsley...

"On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide.""

That just summarizes the relationship - I'll get specifics on Parlsley if you need them.

So, to keep the spiritual adviser nutjobs straight:

Rev Wright - hates white America
Rev Hagee - hates Catholics and homosexuals
Rev Parsley - hates Islam.

Who is Hillary's adviser? I'm sure that guy's got issues too

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm unfamiliar with McCain's "continuing to vote against civil rights laws", which could simply mean McCain has voted against affirmative action or hate crime legislation or any number of issues that aren't really controversial.

Yeah, thats a pretty accurate summation IMO.

1983: Voted against MLK Day
1987: Supported AZ governor rescinding MLK day.
1990: Voted against the Civil Rights Act 4 times - primarily aimed at employer discrimination.

And then there are the partisan-ish votes against quotas, affirmative action, tax cuts for the rich, and the estate tax which are party-line issues.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Rod Parsley...

"On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide.""

That just summarizes the relationship - I'll get specifics on Parlsley if you need them.

So, to keep the spiritual adviser nutjobs straight:

Rev Wright - hates white America
Rev Hagee - hates Catholics and homosexuals
Rev Parsley - hates Islam.

Who is Hillary's adviser? I'm sure that guy's got issues too

Without getting into the merits (or un-merits) of each of the positions, which one do you think resonates better with the voting public?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

Probably a fair assessment, although it's more like Philly or alabama. Pittsburgh has its big democratic regime too I suppose.

[Dutch]

Toddzilla,

If you can't stand John McCain because of these things, I don't see any possible way you could like Obama for the exact same reasons.

As for the spiritual advisor....to claim that this guy in Ohio is in McCain's inner-circle like Rev Wright is with Obama is grasping with the hopes that it sticks. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Again, nobody is giving Obama shit because Luis Farrakahn endorsed him. Rev Wright and Luis Farrakahn are two different levels of relationship to Obama (or at least I hope so, since Farrakahn and Wright go way back).

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Without getting into the merits (or un-merits) of each of the positions, which one do you think resonates better with the voting public?

Better define *voting* public, please

On the surface, the hating Islam probably plays better on Main Street, USA. In reality, all 3 ought to be condemned equally IMO.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Toddzilla,

If you can't stand John McCain because of these things, I don't see any possible way you could like Obama for the exact same reasons.

As for the spiritual advisor....to claim that this guy in Ohio is in McCain's inner-circle like Rev Wright is with Obama is grasping with the hopes that it sticks. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Again, nobody is giving Obama shit because Luis Farrakahn endorsed him. Rev Wright and Luis Farrakahn are two different levels of relationship to Obama (or at least I hope so, since Farrakahn and Wright go way back).

You're getting a little close to putting words in my mouth - so to clarify, my position is to illustrate how I feel McCain is getting a free-ride from the media, not to illustrate how much I "can't stand McCain".

Because, to be honest, we've all heard a thousand times about Obama and Wright, and I'd wager my post was the first time you'd ever heard about Rev. Parsley. And that isn't because McCain's relationship to Parsley isn't significant or newsworthy - it most certainly is. I haven't even brought up Richard Quinn - look that guy up.

[Arles]

I do think there is a difference when it comes to newsworthyness of known contacts. McCain has been in the public eye for over 30 years, run for president multiple times and been a staple in the senate for decades. Most people have a pretty good idea on his beliefs and character from watching him all these years. Obama pretty much burst on the scene in the past democratic convention in 2004 and has been looked on almost as a Messiah for the democratic party. There's going to be a lot more interest in seeing who he is and who he associates with than there is with someone like McCain or Hillary.

In the end, Obama will probably have the easiest time of it from the media on balance - but this personal beliefs/close friends issue is one where he may take more criticism.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

and I'd wager my post was the first time you'd ever heard about Rev. Parsley.

Nope. His name has been all over the liberal blogosphere ever since the Wright story exploded.

[JPhillips]

Obama talking about the same thing in 2004.

[CamEdwards]

Wow, these people have been bitter for a long time!

Interesting blog post from a Philly blogger.. with an exerpt from a NYTimes piece inside.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archi.../post_733.html

By Saturday morning, however, Mr. Obama was trying to contain the political damage. He told audiences that what he said about people's economic circumstances was true, if inartfully expressed, but that he was not trying to play down the importance to people of religion or gun rights.

"Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Mr. Obama said.

"So I said, well, you know when you're bitter, you turn to what you can count on," he added. "So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community."

He said this was "a natural response" for people to have but "I didn't say it as well as I should have, because you know the truth is is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important."

The natural follow up, is of course, are the other things that Obama mentioned that people "cling to"... antipathy towards people of a different color, anti-free trade sentiment, etc. also traditions that are important and passed on from generation to generation?

The story also says Hillary's been playing up the faith aspect of Obama's comments, because she's been campaigning with Philly mayor Michael Nutter, who just signed five EXTREMELY controversial gun control bills.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Nope. His name has been all over the liberal blogosphere ever since the Wright story exploded.

Ah! Touche`!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Does this Wright fellow realize just how much he's hurting Obama?

http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/041208wright.mp3

Just shut up already.

[Toddzilla]

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

When I studied cultural and regional geography, the biggest trap was that you will ALWAYS find what you are looking for.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

I saw that on TV. Pretty good little piece.

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting Op-ed on why Obama's comments rub the wrong way. Now, I fully admit that Bill Kristol is in no way unbiased, but its a very interesting article (and yes, I can fully predict the objections to comparing a statement by Marx to Obama's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/op...ristol.html?hp

April 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Mask Slips

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration — as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns — as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

[Young Drachma]

[miked]

I love how she was booed today for trying to slam the comments more.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by miked

I love how she was booed today for trying to slam the comments more.

[JPhillips]

I was shocked when she said Pennsylvania and America. Is she trying to say Pennsylvania isn't part of America? What does The National Review think?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

An interesting Op-ed on why Obama's comments rub the wrong way. Now, I fully admit that Bill Kristol is in no way unbiased, but its a very interesting article (and yes, I can fully predict the objections to comparing a statement by Marx to Obama's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/op...ristol.html?hp

And here's a rebuttal from Andrew Sullivan - probably equally free from bias: hxxp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/now-hes-a-godle.html

Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama's remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the "real Obama" - and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably "masks." The reason for inferring Obama's Marxism is the following point Obama artlessly made about the way in which economic distress can alter people's tolerance for others:

"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Is this indistinguishable from saying, along with Marx, that all religion is an obviously false consciousness caused by the alienation of the world-historical class struggle? No, it obviously isn't. It's saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of "the other." Since large swathes of human history have shown this to be true - and perfectly arguable without any materialist understanding of religion - Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

You could argue, as Kristol and others hilariously will, that Lou Dobbs has no base,

that fundamentalist Christianism has no problem with "the other" in a globalized world, that dozens of state constitutional amendments banning civil marriages that had never and would never have taken place were just spirited forms of civic engagement, rather than scapegoating or politicking on resentment. You could also argue, as others legitimately will, that spasms of economic distress and social discontent are unconnected. Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler. But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.

A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already. And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?

[CamEdwards]

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:

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

And Sullivan's response:

Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

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 Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.

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

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Cam beat me too it. Sullivan is making WAAAY too many leaps in logic in evaluating Kristol's article. Kristol's main point isn't really addressed by Sullivan.

[JPhillips]

Thank God a bunch of rich, Washington and New York columnists are setting me straight about small town America. They're much more informative than my experience growing up in rural Ohio.

[ISiddiqui]

So you speak for all of Ohio? I'm guessing it is you we have to blame for voting for Bush in 2004, giving him the state, then?

[JPhillips]

DId I say I speak for all of Ohio? I just find it ironic that a bunch of grossly paid newspaper and television prima donnas who have never lived outside of a major city are suddenly the arbiters of life in small town America. Bill Kristol doesn't know shit about about life in the rural midwest. This is just a convenient way to play the same partisan attack game he plays against every Democrat.

Hillary supporters should be very careful about their new found friends on the right. Here's an insight, they really don't like you and will stop at nothing to destroy you if Hillary is the nominee.

[ISiddiqui]

And yet, a lot of people in the midwest and small town America like and respect Bill Kristol.

I find this type of argument akin to saying men can't have a valid argument on abortion because its not their bodies that they are deciding upon.

[Raiders Army]

Hillary had better remember her comments about it's okay to have guns and enjoy them. Get the votes any way you can, and then support gun control.

[JPhillips]

I'd wager the percentage of people in small towns who even recognize Kristol's name is minimal. The vast majority of the people I grew up with and live around now don't subscribe to either the Weekly Standard or The New York Times. He's the elite, writing political opinion for a very good living and hobnobbing on the Washington cocktail circuit. He's certainly entitled to his opinion about small towns, but his column is nothing more than his typical hit piece. He certainly has no insight into the lives of small town Americans.

Using Kristol, who has quite literally been wrong about every fucking thing he's ever written, as a way to attack a fellow Democrat is shameful.

[Young Drachma]

I found it really ironic that Bill Kristol was giving Obama crap for "not having done anything" when the only reason he's where he is because his father was Irving Kristol. (the godfather of the neoconservative movement) (Unless you think there is some merit to having been Chief of Staff for Vice-President Dan freaking Quayle.) There are plenty of well-reasoned ways to dismiss Obama as a cheap suit built on marketing and PR prowess, rather than substance, but...Kristol's piece wasn't a particularly good example of that.

[Passacaglia]

So is he the godbrother of the neoconservative movement?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So is he the godbrother of the neoconservative movement?

The Godson, then.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The Godson, then.

Nah, I think he has to be at least the halfgodbrother. If his father is the NCM's godfather, they would be godbrothers.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not sure where Harshaw or Kaus are from, but they seemingly have a similar opinion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ml?ref=opinion

“Fumble” and “gaffe” have specific connotations, ones that likely seem inappropriate to those (and by “those,” I mean Slate’s Mickey Kaus) who have long been alarmed by Obama’s tendency to ascribe economic motivations for some voters’ social beliefs.

Lost amid the talk about racial and religious conciliation in Obama’s March 17 speech in Philadelphia was his argument that “anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition” and that “these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed.”

Kaus’s response at the time was sharp: “It’s hard to believe we’re about to nominate a Democrat who doesn’t acknowledge the lesson of the 1990s — that voters are worried about issues like welfare because they are worried about welfare, not because ‘welfare’ is a surrogate for ‘lack of national health insurance.‘ ” [emphasis by Kaus]

[Young Drachma]

Obama needs to release an ad that talks about his history in ways other than how he globetrotted and instead how he earned scholarships to good schools, how his family was poor and how if it weren't for the promise of America he'd be nothing. If John McCain's narrative is "I'm married to a rich chick and my family's business is being war admirals" and Hillary's is "I married well and that gave me lots of experience" then..I don't understand why he's not beating home the point that he's NOTHING like these people and that it has nothing to do with race.

Who are these people running his campaign?

[JPhillips]

But anger over welfare and affirmative action did help to create the Reagan coalition. Are we not allowed to say that anymore?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But anger over welfare and affirmative action did help to create the Reagan coalition. Are we not allowed to say that anymore?

You are missing his point... ie, the second quotes part, where attention to welfare was distracting from other aspects. This is why Democrats have failed recently (aside from Bill Clinton who actually "got it"), because they seem to think these social issues are simply Republicans trumping up bitterness over economic losses and directing it somewhere else.

As the ed says, people were upset over welfare because they were upset over the concept of welfare (part of the concept of cradle to grave government caretaking), NOT because of bitterness over other economic issues.

[JPhillips]

The small town rubes don't understand how much they've been insulted. Three polls out today show no little or no movement from polls taken before Obama's comments.

I guess the elites need to work harder at convincing people Obama's an elitist.

[JPhillips]

Isddiqui: I'll grant that some of the frustration over welfare was due to the nature of welfare, but it absolutely was caught up in a general anger over economic conditions. Welfare has never been that big of an expenditure, but it recieved oversized attention due to the way it was demogogued. This year the entire social safety net, excluding Medicaid, is roughly equal to the service on the national debt.

Saying people don't always like welfare and that the welfare issue became bigger than it's cost merited aren't mutually exclusive. Remember the whole "welfare queen" idea?

[CamEdwards]

I was debating about whether or not to post it, but I'm hoping to elicit more snark from JPhillips.

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/pun...mas_a_marxist/

I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

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.

[Young Drachma]

Lieberman is a turncoat if there ever was one. Obama campaigned for his insurgent campaign and this is how he repays him? Wow. I hope Harry Reid strips him of his chairmanship at the end of this term. He's really lost his mind. And this from a non-Dem, I just think...I can understand being bitter that you managed to lose a primary and then ran on the "name you know" to get elected, but...this guy is off his rocker more than ever. '04 had a worse effect on him than we initially believed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isddiqui: I'll grant that some of the frustration over welfare was due to the nature of welfare, but it absolutely was caught up in a general anger over economic conditions. Welfare has never been that big of an expenditure, but it recieved oversized attention due to the way it was demogogued. This year the entire social safety net, excluding Medicaid, is roughly equal to the service on the national debt.

Saying people don't always like welfare and that the welfare issue became bigger than it's cost merited aren't mutually exclusive. Remember the whole "welfare queen" idea?

Some of it was racial motivated, of course, but I'd bet good money that folks like JIMG and other conservatives in suburban/rural America hated the idea of the government supporting folks. There is an idea of what government should do for the people, and to a lot of people in this country, welfare comes close to crossing that line.

[JPhillips]

I agree completely, but I also think the issue was put to the forefront in a way that was designed to split voters. Some of the same politicians railing about welfare are also the ones who don't have a problem with exempting overseas contractors from fraud regulations. Welfre was never the massive expenditure that it was portrayed as.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I agree completely, but I also think the issue was put to the forefront in a way that was designed to split voters. Some of the same politicians railing about welfare are also the ones who don't have a problem with exempting overseas contractors from fraud regulations. Welfre was never the massive expenditure that it was portrayed as.

I'm thinking this is part of the problem. You are trying to frame it in terms of "massive expenditure", but a ton of people didn't care how much it cost, just that it was wrong. Like I'm sure there are loads of people out there who don't care if its only 1 illegal immigrant who comes in every year, they still believe it to be morally wrong practice.

[JPhillips]

On an individual level you're right. My point is that it was exploited by politicians who knew it wasn't the cause of budget deficits. Just because some people oppose it on ideological grounds doesn't mean it can't be exploited. I can't find them now, but I remember a number of polls where people grossly overestimated the cost of welfare. The sizable amount of people who believe in a small, temporary assistance program were targeted with misleading and false claims designed to peal off some of them so that they would weigh welfare reform higher in their voting criteria.