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

[flere-imsaho]

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus.

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus.

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.

What? You don't believe in the Huffington Post?

[Grammaticus]

Hillary is apparently going on the O'Reilly show. She is pulling out all the stops. This campaign is really interesting.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Obama finally throws Wright under the bus.

I wonder when McCain will do the same with Hagee.

I don't think so. Hagee is just superficial to the McCain campaign. Nothing more than a guy trying to broker votes. McCain is better shrugging it off as a non issue.

While Wright is inner circle to Obama and part of his development as a person. He can't shake it off. In the end it costs him votes. It is just a matter of how many votes. It is really hard to say at this point. Once the general starts, it will get pushed again and who knows how big of an impact it will have.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Perhaps when there's a shred of evidence that Hagee's association with McCain is hurting his campaign? I mean, that seems to be what it took for Obama.

Bingo. However, the question of *why* Hagee's association with McCain isn't hurting his campaign depends on who you ask. It is either because (1) The relationship isn't relevant or (2) The press fawns over McCain to such a degree that - like most everything else - he gets a pass. Guess which side I agree with If you get it right, Cam will buy you a beer at the next FOFC meet-n-greet.

[Buccaneer]

So you really think that McCain has the same relationship with Hagee as Obama had with Wright? Wow. Perhaps you can buy some perspective on eBay or amazon. Not saying the relationship is or isn't relevant but maybe there are different levels?

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's the same relationship, but if Wright is poor judgment isn't seeking out Hagee after you know exactly what his views entail?

[ISiddiqui]

Well because angling for an endorsement and being in a church for 20 years & calling the person your spiritual advisor are like moons apart.

[JPhillips]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

[Toddzilla]

The fact remains that McCain actively sought out the endorsement of a guy who is virulently anti-catholic and anti-homosexual.

To say, "Well, the other guy's preacher is much worse" or "the other guy knew his preacher for a long time" is ignoring the issue.

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

+1

Welcome to politics.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Isn't the "Hey, look over there" thing exactly what's happening here? In order to deflect attention from the Rev. Wright thing, folks are saying, hey, look at McCain and Hagee!

This particular folk is saying it because Hagee is scary and batshit insane.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This particular folk is saying it because Hagee is scary and batshit insane.

Were you inclined to vote for McCain before Hagee's endorsement? And do you think there is a section of voters that that's true for?

[Arles]

Every candidate has some moonbat supporter who they've stood with or complimented at some point in time. But, expecting some chinese guy's relationship with Hillary or Hagee and McCain to be given the same level of importance as Wright and Obama is nonsensical. Thankfully, Obama finally understood this was the case and eventually dealt with it. Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

The fact remains that McCain actively sought out the endorsement of a guy who is virulently anti-catholic and anti-homosexual.

To say, "Well, the other guy's preacher is much worse" or "the other guy knew his preacher for a long time" is ignoring the issue.

"Hey, look over there! Something worse!" is not a valid argument against the claim that McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley are not pertinent. It is an argument that Obama has a much more damaging relationship with Wright - which is undeniably true but irrelevant to the main point.

If you really want to play this game, why don't you look up what the GLBT press is saying about another of Obama's "spiritual advisors", Reverend (and State Senator) James Meeks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

QFT.

I think we're going to look back on his multiple stances on this subject and say that his failure to make this move a month or two ago rather than now is going to be the ultimate reason that he's not elected president. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong reason to not vote for him, but it's a heavy seed of doubt that he's allowed to plant firmly in the voter's minds.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Were you inclined to vote for McCain before Hagee's endorsement? And do you think there is a section of voters that that's true for?

I'm conservative in the little 'c' sense. Small government, fiscal responsibility, states rights, leave me (and the rest of the world, and my guns) the fcck alone. If there's a country I think we should aspire to be like, it's Switzerland minus the nanny government.

On paper, and by what you read in the papers, I should be a solid republican and McCain supporter. In reality, McCain's positions and my own couldn't be more different, and his association with Hagee and Norm 'I pray we nuke Iran' only clarify them. Using today's rhetoric, I'm a liberty hating liberal.

The only people I can think of that feel the same way are hard core libertarians who were against the war from the outset and people under 30 who are capable of thinking for themselves. Obviously, this is a very small group.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Arles

Every candidate has some moonbat supporter who they've stood with or complimented at some point in time. But, expecting some chinese guy's relationship with Hillary or Hagee and McCain to be given the same level of importance as Wright and Obama is nonsensical. Thankfully, Obama finally understood this was the case and eventually dealt with it. Unfortunately for him, the damage may have already been done.

You're right, actively seeking the endorsement and votes of hate-filled, hypocritical preachers and their followers isn't noteworthy at all.

I have been persuaded to not vote Rev. Wright for President though.

[Ksyrup]

This is way too big to post up, but this chart tracks the accuracy of presidential polls over the past 50 years.

http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/tran...lposition.html

[Ksyrup]

Oh hell, THIS should go over well in Indiana!

[JPhillips]

So he has no role in her campaign? Why does this matter at all?

[JPhillips]

I'll add that the captions seem wrong. The first phrase sounds like, "have got to be shitting" and I assume that's directed at the Bush camp. The second phrase is unclear, but given that it references the same poeple as the first phrase it would make no sense for him to say "worthless white ni##@$%".

[Ksyrup]

I'm noticing this with YT all over the place. Why are the videos no longer available, yet they're still on YT? I don't get it.

[Ksyrup]

To answer your questions: I didn't say they were relevant. I said this won't go over well there, and you know this will be attached to her, fair or not. As far as what he says, it's beyond clear that he says "those people are shit." He then looks at someone off camera and says, "Oh, excuse me." Maybe if all you heard was the audio you could get what you heard from it, but with video attached, it's clear as day. The rest of what he says sounds like "worthless white n....," but I can't be 100% sure. It's even possible someone whispered that over the video, who knows.

The first part is obvious, though.

[Young Drachma]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...02/972175.aspx

*** UPDATE *** Huffington Post quotes Kantor on what he meant by the expletive: "Indiana was not even on our radar screen," he said, "And I was talking about the polling and not the people... If you look at The War Room, this is not the way Carville or George interpreted my statement. This is frankly libelous."

[EDITOR'S NOTE: We've adjusted the language in the first paragraph, because it's not clear Kantor is referring to Indianans.]

*** UPDATE 2*** The director of The War Room tells Ben Smith the film is doctored. One portion of another produced clip -- not included in this post -- making its rounds, is certainly doctored. We are in the process of checking the original film to see about the first expletive.

*** UPDATE 3 *** We've checked the original film, which we link to above. Quietly, you can hear an "-ing" on the end of the expletive. Then Kantor adds "...in the White House." He was NOT referring to the people of Indiana.

[Ksyrup]

Man, you gotta love technology. The whispered stuff seemed ripe for being doctored. But I can't tell if he's saying now that the language is right, but directed at someone else, or if even that is doctored. It can't be both.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The first part is obvious, though.

Except it isn't.

[Ksyrup]

The clip that DC posted still sounds the same, but it's certainly possible that his explanation is correct. And interestingly, like I thought, the whispered part is suspiciously louder on the other version I've heard than the original. I can't make that out at all in DC's version.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except it isn't.

Yes, it is. Kantor confirms the language, but says it was directed at pollsters, not Indianans.

[JPhillips]

Kantor says he was talking about the polls, not the pollsters and if you listen he clearly says, "Those people are shitting." I think it's clear he's talking about the Bush camp, but I suppose it's possible he's talking about the pollsters. Either way it isn't at all what it was reported as being.

[Ksyrup]

On your last point, I agree. But he says he was talking about the "polling" - the process of taking the poll. I think he was talking about their accuracy in taking the polls. "They are shit." I don't hear (or see) anything between "shit" and "excuse me."

[-apoc-]

I dont see much with that video its far to hard to hear the last part and the first part the explanation about the white house shitting themselves makes sense to me. Besides who needs that crap when we have this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

How do you embed on here if someone doesnt mind PMing me the code.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

That's the way I see it. Of course I'm biased.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

That's the way I see it. Of course I'm biased.

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama’s lead in my old home state of North Carolina is down to single digits now, and I’m not quite sure why. This is precisely the type of state primary that he should win in a landslide over Clinton. 40% of the registered democrats are African-Americans, and there is a large concentration of “latte liberals” and college students in the Research Triangle Park area of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. Although he stands almost no chance here against McCain in November, there aren’t many other states where his three-legged primary coalition is stronger.

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, it's going to hurt Obama badly, one way or another. That is unfortunate because, personally, I really want him to get rid of the Clintons. In column today in cnn, it quotes from the NYTimes and it (the Wright controversy) appears to not be good.

So what happens after tomorrow? The Dems will be no closer to a resolution. Is the gash in Obama's shining armor big enough to kill him or will he be a wounded survivor?

[Ksyrup]

Obama is still going to win the nomination. The superdelegates seem to be siding more with him, ironically as the public seems to be sliding a bit towards Clinton. A couple months back, had the superdelegates made their moves then, perhaps Clinton wouldn't have had as easy a time of getting back into the race.

He's already conceded that the race is going to go through June 3rd, which means he knows she will do well tomorrow. A far cry from trying to get her to concede in advance of the TX/OH primaries, huh?

In looking at the RCP (Real Clear Politics) polling averages, the votes tomorrow should be interesting. In Indiana, the race has been back and forth since Clinton held a decent lead (about 7 points) about a month ago, but the RCP polling average shows her ahead by about 4.5 points today. In NC, I'm amazed at how small Obama's margin is now. Consider that less than a month ago, he held an average 17-18 point lead; right now that's down to 6.5 points. Isn't this going to be the flipside of Clinton's PA win - unless he wins by a lot, it's almost a victory for Clinton? As VV points out, this state's Democratic demographic is tailor-made for Obama. If Clinton only loses by 6-8 points, that's still a significant move for her. And keep in mind that undecideds seem to be consistently breaking for Clinton in the last 72 hours before a primary.

Aside from the politics of all of this, I have to admit I find the process and results fun to watch.

[Buccaneer]

K, I don't know if NC is "tailor-made" since it is one of the states at the core of the so-called Reagan Democrats. That is why, as VV said, it will be solidly red in November, particularly if Obama wins the Dem. I went to grad school there and studied the geography and demographics of the state (as well as the region) and while I know of the growth of the RTP, the left-wing enclaves are still pockets in the state surrounded by conservative Dems and many forms of Reps.

[Brian Swartz]

I at least think it's arguable that cozying up to a guy you know full well is an offensive jerk shows worse judgment than standing by someone you originally saw in a different light.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Wright is worse than Hagee.

All I've heard is 'well, he's just playing politics and getting support', which seems a lot more craven to me than having a pastor or former pastor who says controversial things.

But I get the feeling more and more that I am way out of touch with the majority of the country these days, so take that with a grain of salt.

Against my better judgement, I'll wade in here. A couple of these are from the Rev. Wright thread, but in the interests of respecting the wishes of the OP there I think the discussion is more appropriate here.

The first thing is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that the accusation here against Obama is guilt by association: Wright says X and knows Obama therefore we can assume Obama believes everything Wright says. That's not the case at all, and I reject that argument.

However, the big unknown in this race is who is Barack Obama, anyway. What are his core beliefs and principles. You can make all the speeches and release all the white papers you want, but who is he? Is he someone America can trust? Hillary Clinton and John McCain can only redefine themselves to a certain extent. We pretty much know who they are. Such is not the case with Obama. Therefore one of the most important questions you can ask is what do we know about him. One of the best ways to find this out, about anybody, is to examine those he is close to personally.

This is why there is a huge difference between Obama-Wright and McCain-Hagee. The latter is about votes. Relatively speaking, it's not that important whether Hagee endorses McCain or Wright endorses Obama. There is no long-standing relationship there. It is not even remotely comparable. With Wright and Obama the issue is that this is a person by the senator's own statements who is a powerful figure in his life, a spiritual mentor, officiated his wedding and baptism, etc. A key formative influence, personally.

The whole 'he's not who I thought he was' line recently given by Obama and his supporters and people on these forums is a laughable crock on its face. There is absolutely nothing in what the good reverend has said recently that is any more extreme than what was previously known. The ONLY thing that has changed is the political temperature and the exposure.

Barack Obama has set himself up as a candidate of change. A unifier. One who can bring back the spirit of America. A beacon of hope. A messiah. He speaks for all of us, not special interests. This is not a vision remotely compatible with the Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric. And you don't just have to take what Wright says at face value only. Black liberation theology and the black value system, both long-standing core tenets of the Trinity United Church of Christ, also fly in the face of who Obama has presented himself to be in this campaign.

And so the question must be posed: is Obama who he says he is, or is he a fraud and a charlatan? It's fair to ask, and it's reasonable to expect him to credibly answer how someone with his type of vision could be comfortable in such a congregation and with such a pastor/spiritual mentor for 20 years. Logically, it would seem that either he's not at all what he pretends to be or he's an idiot who had no idea what was going on. Either results casts serious doubt on his fitness for the office he is running for.

Why, if Obama believes what he says he does, would he have considered it the least bit appropriate for him to remain a member there? He hasn't answered that, and by far the most probable reason he hasn't is that there is no good answer to that question.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

K, I don't know if NC is "tailor-made" since it is one of the states at the core of the so-called Reagan Democrats. That is why, as VV said, it will be solidly red in November, particularly if Obama wins the Dem. I went to grad school there and studied the geography and demographics of the state (as well as the region) and while I know of the growth of the RTP, the left-wing enclaves are still pockets in the state surrounded by conservative Dems and many forms of Reps.

I'm talking about from the Dem standpoint. I know big picture, the Dems won't take the state. But within their own party, Obama should take this state easily.

[JPhillips]

Brian: One of McCain's closest advisors helped set up a crowning ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon in the Senate office building. How do we know whether or not McCain is a fraud or charlatan?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Brian: One of McCain's closest advisors helped set up a crowning ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon in the Senate office building. How do we know whether or not McCain is a fraud or charlatan?

Welcome to the world of missed points.

There's a reason that the Wright story gained traction while the attempts to push the endorsement of Hagee/Moon/whatever other idiot into the limelight have fallen on deaf ear. It's not even close to the same thing as Brian stated so well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Welcome to the world of missed points.

There's a reason that the Wright story gained traction while the attempts to push the endorsement of Hagee/Moon/whatever other idiot into the limelight have fallen on deaf ear. It's not even close to the same thing as Brian stated so well.

Exactly. As pointed out, we know who McCain and Clinton are. They've been central on the national political scene for over a decade. Obama is completely new. Now, if Obama hadn't run for President until 8 years from now, the Wright stuff may not have been so important, because most of us would have known what kind of person Obama was and what he really did believe in.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm talking about from the Dem standpoint. I know big picture, the Dems won't take the state. But within their own party, Obama should take this state easily.

My point was that it would be the conservative Dems that would vote Clinton today.

[Swaggs]

Just got back from voting in the NC primary.

I live in Durham, which should be in Obama's wheelhouse (nearly 40% African-American and high level of college graduates), but it didn't seem like there were a lot of voters out (granted I voted before 9:00 AM). If Obama doesn't get a huge turnout in Durham, Wake (Raleigh), and Orange (Chapel Hill) Counties, he may be in for a long night.

[JPhillips]

If Moon had dumped as much money on and gotten as much back from the Democrats as he has the Republicans it would be the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. Moon is a convicted felon, alleged brainwasher, friend of North Korea, self-proclaimed messiah, advocate of abolishing the Constitution, but because he gives huge amounts of cash and has a media empire that supports mainly conservatives, he's been legitimized and honored by by nearly every prominent Republican.

Everything that people are worried might happen with Wright has happened with Moon. I understand why the media is focusing on Wright, but if you're honestly concerned by Wright you should be more concerned with Moon.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. As pointed out, we know who McCain and Clinton are. They've been central on the national political scene for over a decade. Obama is completely new. Now, if Obama hadn't run for President until 8 years from now, the Wright stuff may not have been so important, because most of us would have known what kind of person Obama was and what he really did believe in.

You know what McCain believes in? Please, share it with the rest of us.

[Brian Swartz]

Everything that people are worried might happen with Wright has happened with Moon. I understand why the media is focusing on Wright, but if you're honestly concerned by Wright you should be more concerned with Moon.

You continue to miss the point. Moon, like Hagee, is about pandering to influential figures for the purpose of votes/contributions. That's certainly not something anybody should be proud of, but it is a totally, completely different issue from Wright-Obama. Had McCain been a 20-year member of the Unification Church or spouted platitudes about Moon being his spiritual mentor then yeah, it would be similar. It's about who Obama is. It's not about political contributors. It's about personal associations and assessing what those say about the man himself. I don't know how to make it any clearer.