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

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

[JPhillips]

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.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

Originally Posted by path12

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?

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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.

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.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by 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:


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.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by path12

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.

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).

[Young Drachma]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...mate_0413.html

[Arles]

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

[ISiddiqui]

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/

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

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.”

[Passacaglia]

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

Adverb?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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/

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

+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.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL!

[Noop]

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

[Noop]

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

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Noop

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?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by bsak16

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.

[Noop]

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

[Dr. Sak]

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.

[Noop]

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

[Dr. Sak]

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.

[Noop]

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

[Dr. Sak]

What is her website again?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by bsak16

What is her website again?

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

www.hillaryclinton.com/

[Dr. Sak]

I was joking but thanks

[sterlingice]

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

[Noop]

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

[Noop]

So now the host is attacking Obama as well?

[sterlingice]

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

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bsak16

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.

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

[Raiders Army]

Neither one is electable.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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

MY BRAIN HURTS!

[CamEdwards]

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"?

[Raiders Army]

Go to her website, HILLARYCLINTON.COM

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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"?

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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"?

Ah, class envy rears it's familiar head:

[ISiddiqui]

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).

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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).

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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?

[Arles]

After watching the debate, I actually found Hillary likeable.

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.