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

[JPhillips]

My only quibble is that NJ and NH should be safe Dem states regardless of the nominee. The demographics in southern NH make the more libertarian north less powerful and NJ seems to always be almost a swing state, but I imagine it will be +5 or more Dem.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with JPhillips. NJ, especially, has been trending very Dem for a while. Used to be a swing state, but not anymore really.

[Buccaneer]

I still have this feeling that California will come more into play than the past two elections.

I very much disagree with JPhillips about NH.

[Buccaneer]

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most influential black leaders in Congress, said Bill Clinton’s racially charged comments over the course of the presidential campaign have “incensed” the black community, according to an article Thursday on The New York Times Web site.

...

“When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that … this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

He added that black Americans are “incensed over all of this” and almost unanimously believe the Clintons “are committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Rep. Clyburn, perhaps you and others in the black community were duped by his fake sincerity into believing that Pres. Clinton actually cared about you?

[ISiddiqui]

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

[chesapeake]

Vic, I wouldn't say that some of those states are necessarily a lock for either candidate. OR and ME, for example, haven't been shoo-ins for recent Democratic candidates. Likewise AR, NC, TN and WV for the GOP.

But I would say that if you see caandidates having to sink some money into these "core" states once we hit the high campaign season, that a sign of trouble.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My only quibble is that NJ and NH should be safe Dem states regardless of the nominee. The demographics in southern NH make the more libertarian north less powerful and NJ seems to always be almost a swing state, but I imagine it will be +5 or more Dem.

New Hampshire and New Jersey will be very competitive this year. McCain is popular in New Hampshire, which has been close the past few election cycles (Gore narrowly lost it in 2000 and Kerry narrowly won it in 2004). New Jersey is a likely Obama state, but I don't consider it a "lock" at this point.

In the past, I would have automatically listed Virginia and Colorado as republican locks, and while I still think McCain will win them, I don't consider them locks this year. Likewise with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, which I used to automatically check off in the Democratic scorecard. They've been getting closer and closer every election cycle, and I think McCain has a chance in these states, especially in Pennsylvania.

[JPhillips]

Dems in NH are also aided by a Senate race that looks very competitive. By the end of election night NH will likely have a Dem Gov. and two Dem Senators. In the past four years it's slid decidedly blue.

MN is also a Dem lock as Obama is currently up in double digits and Hillary leads by five or six. The only way it comes into play is if Pawlenty is VP.

As for NJ, it was supposed to be competitive in 2000 and 2004, but it wasn't. It's a tease, but especially with the lackluster senate candidate for the Rep, I don't see it as close at all.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Vic, I wouldn't say that some of those states are necessarily a lock for either candidate. OR and ME, for example, haven't been shoo-ins for recent Democratic candidates. Likewise AR, NC, TN and WV for the GOP.

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

North Carolina - I grew up there, spent the better part of my life there, and there's no way that Obama wins in November, although he'll beat Clinton easily in the primary. Yeah, I know there's a big African American population and a higher than average percentage of college graduates (with the Research Triangle Park area), but this is still Jesse Helms country for now. Maybe in 15 or 20 years it will change over, but it's safe for McCain in November.

Tennessee - No way, no how for Obama. Solid republican territory. People make a big deal about Gore losing his home state in 2000, but fact of the matter is that he barely got elected to the Senate in the 80's, and by 2000 both senators were republican, the governor was republican, and 12 out of 14 congressmen were republican.

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Vic - I generally appreciate your takes and feel like you're on the mark more often than most folks, but I'm still not sure your analysis above doesn't sell voter motivation (or lack thereof) too short.

McCain got a whopping 1% of the GOP convention votes in WV, less than 1/3rd of the primary votes in TN, and is now down to arguing with the state party in NC (who would presumably know better how to appeal to their voters than he does) while Hillary is wisely on the stump there playing every moderate card she can think of, and in the Arkansas primary almost as many people voted for a candidate other than Huckabee as voted for McCain (although granted that primary is hard to take much from under the circumstances).

I can't imagine any of those states ending up more than 54-46, and there's still some time between now & November. A few points of change between now & then and suddenly they're all toss ups.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

Kerry lost 54-45 and Gore lost 51-46. I wouldn't call that being destroyed. It's a winnable state for a Clinton or a candidate that isn't comatose like those two were.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

I agree with you about the gun loving and, somewhat, on the faith clinging. Still, I don't think it is a red state, by any means. Both US senators, 2 of 3 members of the house, the governor, 72 of 100 state reps, and 23 of 34 state senators are Democrats. WV went for Carter in '80, Dukakis in '88, and Clinton in '92 and '96.

I agree that it leans towards McCain, but I don't think it is in the mortal lock category.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

Well, let this be a lesson for Bill as to how Hillary felt when Monica gave him a hummer in the White House.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Personally, I do think Clinton cared about black Americans... he just felt betrayed when they flocked in massive numbers to Obama over his wife.

I just don't get this Clinton thing where the feel everyone who supported Bill (10 years ago) should now automatically support Hillary. I saw Carville on Larry King saying that he didn't care about people supporting Obama, and he would support him should he become the nominee, but that Richardson had no excuse for supporting Obama. I think Richardson hit the nail on the head when he was talking about Clinton entitlement. Rather than persuading the voters to choose you based on policy and what you can do, they should support you because your husband did so much for them. Granted, that's not her attitude now, but that certainly is what Bill's been trumpeting on the campaign trail.

And I agree with electoral-votes issue, that right now a lot of dems are saying they won't vote for the other dem candidate, but now that McCain is pushing himself more toward the right in terms of tax cuts, war, etc, people will vote party line more than is suggested now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

Rather than persuading the voters to choose you based on policy and what you can do, they should support you because your husband did so much for them. Granted, that's not her attitude now, but that certainly is what Bill's been trumpeting on the campaign trail.

Well, I think it is because Bill is feeling unappreciated. Instead of people falling all over themselves and saying, look how good we had it under Bill, we should line up behind him... they aren't. He's feeling more and more irrelevant and is dismayed that folks aren't more loyal to him than he expected.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Oregon is a mortal lock for Obama, and he might even get close to a double digit win there. Maine will be closer, but it's safe for him.

Arkansas - Solid republican state unless there's a Clinton running for president. Gore and Kerry got destroyed in this state.

North Carolina - I grew up there, spent the better part of my life there, and there's no way that Obama wins in November, although he'll beat Clinton easily in the primary. Yeah, I know there's a big African American population and a higher than average percentage of college graduates (with the Research Triangle Park area), but this is still Jesse Helms country for now. Maybe in 15 or 20 years it will change over, but it's safe for McCain in November.

Tennessee - No way, no how for Obama. Solid republican territory. People make a big deal about Gore losing his home state in 2000, but fact of the matter is that he barely got elected to the Senate in the 80's, and by 2000 both senators were republican, the governor was republican, and 12 out of 14 congressmen were republican.

West Virginia - This used to be a democratic state years ago, but that's becoming a fading memory, and it's a red state now. There are a lot of "gun loving", "faith clinging" folks there, a lot of "Reagan Democrat" types, and a very low African American population. Bush destroyed Gore and Kerry there, and McCain should win there as well.

I don't disagree that this is what should happen. My point is that if these things don't happen -- for example, if McCain has to make a sizeable ad buy in TN or WV in early October -- that means that his own internal polls show that he is in serious trouble. Likewise, if Obama has to spend some time in the fall shaking hands in either Portland, he's got some problems, too.

TN, by the way, has only 9 reps, 5 of which are Democrats. NC also has a majority of Dems in its House delegation, and a long history of electing Democrats to statewide offices. Both states can very easily come into play. The NC Gov and Sen races will also have some effect on the race, depending on the quality of candidates that emerge.

[Young Drachma]

John McCain is Bob Dole 2.0

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history. Any other candidate runs this year and maybe it's a different conversation. But I'm just not convinced, no matter how many statistics you cite or how many years you want to go back in history that a 72-year old white man is going to trump either a woman or a black guy to become President.

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

But again, we'll see what happens in November and then we can play that game where we go back and quote people and say "what says you now?" Should be a good time regardless...at least from the pundit game players standpoint. As for the direction of the country? That's another story.

[ISiddiqui]

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history.

Um... that's why Jesse Jackson won the Democratic nomination in 1988?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

This kind of comment still amuses me to no end. The thought that Hillary Clinton is anything but the 'old guard' struck me as very funny. Putting a skirt on a leopard doesn't change its spots.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This kind of comment still amuses me to no end. The thought that Hillary Clinton is anything but the 'old guard' struck me as very funny. Putting a skirt on a leopard doesn't change its spots.

I'm with you. But people have short memories when they have a chance at "history."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... that's why Jesse Jackson won the Democratic nomination in 1988?

I'm not going to explain it to you just because you don't understand the point I'm making. We'll just let time run its course and in the end, we'll see what happens.

Carry on.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm with you. But people have short memories when they have a chance at "history."

I think that the 'history' effect has worn off over the course of this primary season. Seeing these two bicker and backstab each other over the course of a few months on a national stage quickly reminds people that these are still just politicians at the core in a different outfit.

My mom, who is 60, is a Republican who was gung-ho in January about voting for Hillary to be the first female president. Contrast that to just the other day, where she called her 'the bitch that does nothing but argue' and stated that she would vote Republican in the fall because she couldn't stand Hillary. It's amazing how quickly women voters will turn on other women in any aspect of life, including politics.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm not going to explain it to you just because you don't understand the point I'm making. We'll just let time run its course and in the end, we'll see what happens.

Carry on.

It's an absolutely silly idea to say people won't ignore a chance to make history. Almost naively idealistic.

If anything, people who "make history" have to fight against old prejudices to do so (ie, JFK becoming the first, and only thus far, Catholic to be US President).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's an absolutely silly idea to say people won't ignore a chance to make history. Almost naively idealistic.

If anything, people who "make history" have to fight against old prejudices to do so (ie, JFK becoming the first, and only thus far, Catholic to be US President).

Yes, the opression of Catholics and the Kennedy family is well documented. You have to feel sorry for them due to the barriers that they had to conquer.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

The problem with your McCain/Obama comparisons are that Obama started out as this "mythical candidate" that became whomever a certain person wanted him to be. Run a business? He'll help small business. Sick of politics? He'll bring us all together. Unhappy with health care? He'll fix the system. But, as time has gone on, we are actually getting to know Obama and his policies. And, the more we know about him, the harder it is to mold him into this perfect politician many saw him as. Take the "bringing together" issue. Just look at the Rev Wright, fighting with Hillary and other comments he's made. It's much tougher to view Obama as a uniter after the past 2 months. Once we hit the regular election, even more info will be thrown out on him. There's a good chance Obama transforms from the perfect fiancee to the ole' ball and chain by November.

As to McCain, most people already know about him and most of the initial opinions were negative. Conservatives didn't like his working with Dems in the Senate, democrats were blown away by Obama and looked at him like an old peo-war fossil. Now, conservatives are starting to warm to him (almost out of necessity) and democrats are starting to get tired of seeing their candidates fight each other in the mud.

I still think it's anyone's game (and Barrack will get a nice bump in the polls when he officially wins), but the time between August and November could be harder on Obama than McCain without any "gotchas" being played. No matter what happens in that time, it will be hard for him still be able to transcend politics and be everyone to all voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He's feeling more and more irrelevant and is dismayed that folks aren't more loyal to him than he expected.

Which was pretty pointedly played upon in the (awful & shouldn't have been done IMO) skit the WWE ran on Monday night.

Obama-as-The-Rock "IT DOESN'T MATTER what you think"
Actor-as-Bill (walking away sadly) to Hillary: "He's right"

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

John McCain is Bob Dole 2.0

People aren't going to ignore a chance to make history. Any other candidate runs this year and maybe it's a different conversation. But I'm just not convinced, no matter how many statistics you cite or how many years you want to go back in history that a 72-year old white man is going to trump either a woman or a black guy to become President.

It's seriously the old versus the new and no matter how much Hillary and Barack "fight it out" I think in the end, everyone will come together and realize that "we'd rather have one of these two, than the old guard."

But again, we'll see what happens in November and then we can play that game where we go back and quote people and say "what says you now?" Should be a good time regardless...at least from the pundit game players standpoint. As for the direction of the country? That's another story.

I have no idea how many people would vote to "make history", but that has to be one of the dumbest damned reasons to vote for someone and I really hope it wouldn't be a factor for the vast majority of American voters.

I get, btw, that you're not suggesting it's a good thing to base your vote upon. I just hope you're wrong in your assessment of the American people. Personally, I think Obama could be the next McGovern... though he may end up being the next Jimmy Carter.

[Young Drachma]

Drop Out, Obama

Even as Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, she has made it clear that she plans to stay in the race for the nomination. All of which brings me to this logical conclusion: It is time for Barack Obama to drop out.

If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election.

But Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton’s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.

McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama’s favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don’t rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama’s utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete. QED.

[Young Drachma]

I saw it and just had to laugh.

[Young Drachma]

Dems suspense may be unnecessary

[Young Drachma]

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

Wonder what affect it'll have by September.

My conspiracy theory of the day is that they want Obama to lose, so that the civil rights establishment can be all self-congratulatory as if "there was no way that 'white america' was to elect a black guy." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ISiddiqui]

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

The moron even said he had been "crucified" by the media... trying to tie himself as a Christ like figure. I'm sure Obama is wishing he had ordered the code red right about know.

[CamEdwards]

I'd really like to read a transcript of the speech at the National Press Club today, but haven't been able to find one yet. This piece from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post suggests it really needs to be seen to be believed.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rough.../?hpid=artslot

For Obama, a Voice of Doom?
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.

Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?

Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").

And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"

Capisce, reverend. All too well.

[CamEdwards]

dola

Another piece from the Washington Post that had me rolling my eyes. It's a Q & A with a couple of contributors to The Root (one of them also attended Rev. Wright's church for seven years).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=artslot

Given that they both seem to be fans of Obama (and I'm not), it's an odd read. I really don't get the antipathy that this question provoked:

Annapolis, Md.: How is the black church different from a white church?

Melissa Harris-Lacewell: There is no one church of either race. I would not, for example, go up to any white person on the street and ask them to explain the polygamous cult that is currently in the news. That said, there are a number of unique racial traditions that emerge in many historic African American congregations. There is a voluminous literature on this topic. A quick Amazon search will lead you to some great texts.

Jack White: Do you really expect an answer to that question?

Given that Wright has said this controversy isn't just an attack on him, but an attack on "the black church", it seems that this is a question we should expect to be asked. And instead of trying to impart some sort of knowledge about black liberation theology, these two Obama supporters poo-poo the idea of a "black church" to begin with.

I realize this has nothing to do with the Democrat nomination (other than the fact that we're talking about this because of Obama), but I'm really fascinated by this issue.

[CamEdwards]

double dola: Here's a link to the transcript of his speech at the National Press Club.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04...al-press-club/

Just skimming over the speech... I think his prepared remarks were a heckuva lot better than the Q and A afterwards. But my favorite moment had to be this:

MODERATOR: OK, we are almost out of time. But before asking the last question, we have a couple of matters to take care of.

First of all, let me remind you of our future speakers. This afternoon, we have Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association, who is discussing trading up movies in the global marketplace. On May 2nd, Bobby Jindal, the governor of the state of Louisiana, will discuss bold reform that works. On May 7th, we have Glenn Tilton, CEO, United Airlines, and board member of the American transport association.

Second, I would like to present our guest with the official centennial mug and — it’s brand new.

WRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you.

It's brand new. That line cracked me up.

[Warhammer]

Wow, I thought Obama would have a chance to take down McCain. Wright is going to ruin his candidacy.

[Swaggs]

I agree.

You almost have to believe that Wright does not want Obama to become president.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I agree.

You almost have to believe that Wright does not want Obama to become president.

I think he doesn't. The civil rights establishment know that Obama would put them out of business.

[Vegas Vic]

This is an interesting Newsweek article from a guy I really don't like very much, Karl Rove. He does make some good points.

"Even liberal commentators who adore you warn you can't win with a McGovern coalition of college students and white-wine sippers from the party's left wing."

Newsweek Article: "Dear Senator Obama..."

[Buccaneer]

I was going to post the same thing. I do believe he is right on in all points, esp. #1. I like the way he ended

You have talent, intelligence and tapped into something powerful early in your campaign. But running for president is unlike anything you've ever done. You're making mistakes and making people worry that you're an elitist. So while you'll almost certainly win the nomination, Democrats are nervous about the fall. You've given them reasons to be.

[JPhillips]

Well I disagree. Rove knows damn well that there isn't a thing that Obama could do in the Senate during an election year that would help him. The only way the Republicans wouldn't attack him or filibuster it so it died and he looked ineffective is if it was so core Republican that he'd alienate his base. Whether or not he has done enough in the Senate, there's nothing he can do about that now.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, I'll give you that but you have to admit that it would look good if he had done something there. What about the other points?

[miked]

I think it says a lot about the way this country feels about "senate experience" and the current state of politics that a guy who is perceived as having little experience has been running ahead of people who have a "lifetime" of it. I don't see what going back and contributing to the lowest-rated congress (in approval terms) can do.

[ISiddiqui]

Lowest rated Congress, but I bet over 90% of 'em will be re-elected. It's the other Congressmen that's the problem, not mine!!

[JPhillips]

The Senate stuff is tricky. I argued a long time ago that Obama had to run in 2008 before he had a long Senate record that was easily distorted. He doesn't have a big media friendly accomplishment, but he has worked with Republicans and the Independent Democrat on a number of issues.

With Dick Lugar on securing Russian nukes and pandemic preparation

With Joe Lieberman on protecting taxpayer privacy

With Tom Coburn on lobbying reform and no-bid FEMA contracts and making public all government contracts

With Olympia Snow on Veterans Health Care

I don't know why he doesn't publicize this stuff as it would really help with both the "he didn't do anything" and "he's a crazed radical" arguments.

As for the specific points,

1- I don't think it's the words of his stump specch as much as he seems to have been beaten down. The past couple of days he's sounded better and the Fox interview was very good. He can change his speech all he wants, but I think the bigger issue is getting back in control of the discussion. As long as he's constantly on the defensive it really doesn't matter what he says.

2- I don't believe there was a way to handle Wright that would have worked any better. I remember how many people were saying that Obama threw Wright under the bus for political gain. The attacks would have been there regardless.

3 and 4 I've covered.

5- I'd like to see some evidence that he lost ground because of attacks. It may be true, but I'd want some polling data to back that up. My sense is the attacks on him have been far more damaging than any attacks he's made. Again, what's hurting him is that he's on the defensive right now and he looks weak, not that he's being overly aggressive.

6- He does need to highlight his record and policies better, but the 2006 Russert interview stuff is strange to say the least. That sort of gotcha in a supposed advice column erodes his credibility.

But the bigger issue is that Rove is still deeply tied to Obama's opposition. Would you really trust advice for McCain from Mark Penn or James Carville? I just don't see how following Rove's advice will help Obama secure the nomination.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, right now, Obama's opposition is the Clintons, which Rove et al wants him to beat.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Those of you that said Rev. Wright wouldn't go away are right. Not because the media wouldn't let it die, but because the man himself decided to keep surfacing. He's looking all proud of himself and trying to sound King-like in the media over the past three days.

Wonder what affect it'll have by September.

My conspiracy theory of the day is that they want Obama to lose, so that the civil rights establishment can be all self-congratulatory as if "there was no way that 'white america' was to elect a black guy." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

[JPhillips]

I don't think so Buc. Hillary is much more likely to leave pieces of the Bush policy in place than is Obama.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

Interesting take. So, this could be Obama's "Sister Souljah moment".

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think he is going off so Obama can have an opportunity to come out and denounce him like everyone is saying he should have in the first place.

It's basically a photo op setup for Obama. Just guessing.

Doesn't Hillery's campaign claim Obama isn't capable of doing something like that.
She is the one best able to matching the republican's dirty tricks.