Poll: Obama Drops in Perception of His Capacity to Unite

CBS has released a new poll on how Barack Obama's recent speech on Jeremiah Wright and race affected voters' views of him. Full poll results are here (pdf.)

69% said the speech favorably addressed race relations, 71% said it adequately expressed his relationship with Rev. Wright and 63% agreed with him. But,

When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes - down from 67 percent last month.

Maybe he needs to stick to change and give up the unity theme. Someone should tell Bill Richardson, who seems to be a day late and a dollar short on unity as being a major reason for his endorsement.

His favorability rating: 43%. As to who was polled,

For this poll, CBS News re-interviewed voters who were first surveyed between March 15th and 18th, 2008, in the midst of the Wright controversy and mostly before Obama’s speech on race. The goal was to gauge their reactions to Tuesday’s speech and the continuing controversy over Wright’s comments. The poll was conducted on the night of March 20th.

(Updtate: Comments now closed.)

< Colorado Appeals Court: Actors Can't Smoke on Stage | Crier: Time for Journalists to Revolt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • OK here's my snark (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    If Obama gives up on the Unity theme... does this mean I don't get my pony?

    You seemed to overlooked (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    the first paragraph of the article:

    "Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race this week, in which he discussed his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial longtime minister, has received largely positive reviews, according to a new CBS News poll. "

    not overlooked (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    re-read my post. I quoted the numbers.

    Obama also recoups in the Gallup Poll (none / 0) (#147)
    by sar75 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    Clinton had taken a significant lead in this daily measure.  It's now Obama, 48-45.

    It appears that the speech has stemmed the bleeding and the press is tilting back again to Obama, especially in the wake of the passport fiasco.


    Other than Fox, (none / 0) (#175)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    the media has been running defense for BHO all along.

    The bias is startling at times. CNN is desperately doing Wright rehab on poor BHO, even tho his campaign keeps crying at every little perceived slight. Gawd, these guys are so not ready for the big leagues! Can't exactly accuse foreign leaders of racism or McCarthyism when we feel dissed, now can we?

    The uniformity of the bias has me wondering how much the corporate media honchos are calling the shots. It's no secret that Wallstreet likes them some Obama.


    The coverage of (none / 0) (#184)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    Wright issue was not biased.  It was on every news channel.  None of the media outlets looked at the context of the statements just played the videos over and over and over again.  I understand that their may be some bias in general but this story was not one of them.

    One should note (none / 0) (#197)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    I commented the press was running defense and doing all it can to "rehab" his rep. I didn't say they didn't run the story.

    Besides, stories of the Trinity and Rev Wright had been around for at least a year. The whole press chose not to pick up on it until recently. If its not a negative for Hillary, why bother? Too bad, because it would have saved the party a lot of pain.

    Which leads me to the "judgement" theme. Obama should have gotten out in front of the inevitable Wright controversy when he announced. his run. Keeping one's fingers crossed and hoping something doesn't become an issue is not a sign of good judgement.

    I didn't mean to write a book, but I must add that I am speaking of the Wright episode in political terms. There is much he says I agree with, but one can see why there are many who might take offense at his delivery.


    When will he reach out to Clinton supporters? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    Doesn't he want to unify with us?

    After he wins then he'll be gracious. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    But not one second before!

    That (none / 0) (#211)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:10:23 PM EST
    will be w---aaaaaa------y too late.

    You may be very correct, unfortunately (none / 0) (#215)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    I was all for voting for him if he ended up on top after the primaries. As the weeks go by, he does a fine job of chipping away at that thought. He's pretty much lost me at this point.

    If NY looks close, he'll get my vote, but I would prefer another reason to vote for him . . .

    I'm almost ready to start a 'Blue State' Party since he seems to be running for the Unity Party with a reverse message  ;)


    Not really. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    Well, just like Michelle Obama said she wasn't sure if she'd be able to support Hillary should she become the Democratic nominee, I'm sure Hillary supporters will give Obama the same sort of consideration. I, like Michelle, will consider the "tone" of the Obama campaign before I will be able to make my choice to support him should he become the nominee.

    i like your approach. (none / 0) (#126)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:33:34 PM EST
    what would you have obama say?  how do you believe he can evoke the tone that would persuade you to let bygones be bygones?

    How about (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    instead of talking about the negative tone of the Clinton campaign, he doesn't just talk about it, but actually changes the tone of his campaign. Instead of distorting the comments of Bill Clinton, how about he makes sure that none of his aides then compare Clinton to Joe McCarthy? How about he practices unity instead of divisiveness? How about he calls out the sexism in the campaign as vigorously as he calls out the racism? How about he makes sure that he, himself, does not engage in clearly sexist rhetoric? How about not creating more "bygones?" How many actions and statements does he expect to be forgiven? Don't tell us that there is nothing wrong with his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and then try to tar Hillary by producing a photo of Bill w/ Wright. If there's nothing wrong with Wright, then why produce the photo? How about not treating us like we're idiots, like we can't that he's trying to have it both ways?

    When do the current mistakes and slurs begin to be bygones that I'm required to forgive?

    I'm not saying that I won't let bygones be bygones, but the more he allows the negativity to continue, the harder it's going to be.


    Well said, Iphie (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM EST
    Great, great, questions - thanks for putting it so succinctly.

    Yeah that's (none / 0) (#186)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    the question I have. Regardless on whether you choose Clinton or Obama how will they get the others base to support them.  

    What do you want him to do? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    For your support?

    For me, he would have to take back (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    misognynistic comments and at least belatedly speak out in support of Clinton calling out media for the treatment of her daughter.  

    He has daughters, let him start speaking out about their gender and the horrible legacy of sexism they will face, not just about the majority of their racial heritage and what that means -- and means for all AA women.  He seems to not speak out for them.

    For the super-delegates, for the election?  He has to show that he can win more than a third of whites.  He has not done that.  Without that, he cannot win.


    For me, he needs to 1) apologize to Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by criticalthinker on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    for saying she has "character gap", 2) apologize to Geraldine Ferraro for pairing her with Rev. Wright's extremism (i.e. Obama said Gerraro's recent remarks as "the other end" of the spectrum on racial hatred.)

    I need for his actions (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by otherlisa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    to match his soaring rhetoric.

    I'll give you an example: talking about homophobia on MLK Day does not excuse the action of having McGlurkin campaign for him.


    Um, he can't get it, because he's not qualified. (none / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    He would get my vote, except that I'm in a red state where he is behind about 40 pts.

    I can't see him abandoning Unity. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    People will ask if not Unity, then what?

    It will be hard to keep up the meme of "divisive politics" as a slam against his opponent if he is no longer the Unity candidate.

    I think he's painted himself into a corner.  He's got to stick with it, although he can shift gears and promote real world issues like Teh Economy instead.

    He won't (none / 0) (#212)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    be able to unite the Democratic party, let alone Democrats and Republicans.

    I hope voters start to recognize (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    the enormous difficulties facing any concept of unity. First, how does one define unity? Is it compromise? Do the Left and Right need to find a centrist position together? Does unity mean bringing the Right into the Left? And, once you have the definition of unity established, how do you achieve it? Grassroots movement? Education on the issues? A top-down method that targets members of Congress?

    This isn't something that can be changed in one generation with one person leading the charge. It is an immensely complex issue, and I think so many voters believe the problem of politics in America can be changed swiftly--in one (or two) presidential term(s).

    Frankly, the dream of unity he is advancing is not viable. But hopes for it have seduced people into following the message--whether it is viable or not. Give me speeches in which he addresses the problems of politics with the nuances that the issue deserves, with clear and articulated plans for a political revolution and a nationwide grassroots network of activists engaged with the political structure, then I'll join.

    But talking about unity in vague postpartisan terms (as though the reality is just a step away and already destined to happen) with a vast network of DONORS and CAMPAIGN activists does not persuade me.

    I hope this unseemly episode serves as a wakeup call to campaign supporters (on both sides), fence sitters and political activists that the future of politics in this country is something that will only be changed with involvement and a higher level of intellectual discourse than is currently seen in our political climate.

    I think your (none / 0) (#188)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    missing the point.  Supporters of Obama are not naive.  They know that change and unity will not be easy and that it is bigger then one person.  But they believe that you need to start somewhere and that the candidate they support is the individual who might not be able to fan the flame of Unity and Change in his term(s)but might be able to start the spark that will lead to these nobel causes beginning.  

    WTF? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    to call a spade a spade

    Not even using a dog whistle here, but a foghorn.


    I like... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    How we can't even use common expressions anymore, lest we be called racist.

    We must be niggardly in our use of slang, (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    so that we do not offend.

    I think in the context (none / 0) (#32)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    Squeaky is correct. nobrainer (aptly named) is a far-right Republican.

    Apologist For Overt Racism (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    You have to be kidding. Given the context of nobrainers remark this is hardly an innocent comment. It is overt racism. Either you agree with nobrainer's racist sentiment or you are so drunk on HRC kool aid that you are going into late stage blindness, hard to tell.

    If you need a lesson to help you detox here is one:


    what's disgusting? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    assuming you are asking seriously.... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Tommyd on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    assuming you are relatively young and the term is not as common today as it used to be....   but ...

    The term "spade" was a derogatory slang word used by whites to refer to African Americans...  most commonly used after the Civil War....  Though it's use did persist through much of the twentieth Century....   personally I heard it commonly being used during the '60's and 70's essentially as an alternative to the "N" word....  


    Politics....explain this logic to me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    The Obama supporters and campaign are totally missing a big gaping hole in their narrative of winning the GE.  

    1.  They are telling us that the AA and the millenial vote will not show up if Hillary wins.  Therefore Hillary has to drop out.
    2.  They are assuming that the Dem base (me aka typical middle aged white woman, typical white person,  Latinos, oh, what were some of the other choice names:  Lizard brains (from Huff Po) we are all in the bag and a given package.  

    Well, this is where I feel they fall apart and where the SDs will have to use their "wisdom".  I don't buy this.  I think an Obama win will cause greater defections.  This is where the discussion should be.  

    The speech solidified the already Obama voter (notice self restraint on not using any names).  I truly don't think it converted new voters.  To the non believers, it sounded just like the other speeches and the gaffes stand out beyond the virtues of the speech.  

    I don't see how he will unite if he is still attacking.  Does not make sense.  

    You forgot (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    low-information voter. That is maybe my favorite slur against Clinton voters. Low-information voter sounds so much more clinical and official than say, ignorant voter. That's what they were calling us back when they were still speaking so strongly about unifying the party around the nominee (which was of course going to be Obama). Now they just call us racists.

    Didn't I also read somewhere that the millenial voters were turned off by the Wright issue in larger numbers than almost any other group? I can't remember where, but it caught my eye. It would seem that that generation really does want to move beyond racial politics -- I wonder if that will have any long term implications for Obama's support.


    Wake up (none / 0) (#34)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    According to Democratic Party by laws, a candidate wins the nomination based on delegate count (not popular vote that cancels out the failure to plan and execute an effective caucus strategy).  

    If you can't win the pledged delegate race, how can you expect to win the general election.

    So, your logic is that the party should give the nomination to the loser because you won't vote for Obama?


    Waking up... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    So, for Obama to win the GE he has to retain his voters and add all the Hillary voters.  Obama said the same about Hillary.  Obama holds that if he is not the nominee, Hillary will not win cause his voters will not vote for Hillary.  The assumption being Hillary voters are a given.  I am saying that is not true.  I bet that 20%-30%  of the Hillary voters, a critical percentage for a win will not vote for Obama.  Prove to me, since you are awake that all Hillary voters will vote for Obama.  

    Look, I respect Michelle Obama and I am taking her advice to heart, I am considering the tone of the Obama campaign in my decision.  


    Drop out rate higher (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    for Clinton supporters.  Media did cover what had happened with the PN showing a large number of Clinton supporters will vote McCain or not vote.  The exit polls have consistently shown the Clinton support falls off more than the Obama support.

    I'm not too sure about maintaining the millenial vote either.  They live and die by youtube.  I would like to see the effect of watching the Wright videos over and over again is going to have.


    Wake Up (none / 0) (#79)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:56 PM EST
    So because you and others won't vote for Obama, the party should give the nomination to Hillary (has over 160 less pledged delegates and will not catch up)?  Is that a realistic option?

    If he starts losing his 'new' base (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    sure, why not? He needs to prove he can pull out a GE win. Basically, he needs to make inroads into her base aka the Dem base. So far, money and talk haven't done it and he may have just lost some of his indies and mod repubs.

    A strong finish would help his case. And a strong finish for Clinton would help hers. Especially if his poll numbers are dropping.

    The goal is a Dem in the WH, is it not?


    If he starts losing his new base (none / 0) (#140)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    What has Clinton really demonstrated outside her and her supporter's minds?

    Excuse me? I'm confused . . . his 'new' base (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    dropping off has nothing to do with Clinton. But everything to do with him. It's his to keep or lose.

    He (none / 0) (#213)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    could spend the rest of his life here in my state , PA, and not make a dent in the numbers.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#216)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    I wonder how much he will end up spending there?

    hopefully Clinton's lead stays more than solid or perhaps expands  ;)


    Nothing to do with me... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    Enough with the delegates, I am talking about the GE.  160 delegates, it's not over.  get over yourself and stop being a bully.  

    I'd have to go back to bed (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    and be asleep not to remember that the roolz require 2025.  Neither has done this.  They are both equally losers by a strict interpretation of the roolz.

    Unless and until (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    a delegate is worth the same in all states, it really is necessary to look at the popular vote from which those delegates were derived.

    If a Wyoming caucus delegate speaks for  approximately 800 voters, and a Maryland delegate speaks for about 9,600, why are they considered to have an equal say?  Yes, Maryland has more total delegates than Wyoming, but I don't see how that evens things out.

    If anything, this election has revealed the flaw in allowing caucus states to have what amounts to more say in getting a candidate to the nomination because the allocation of delegates is not proportional to the number of people who participate.


    the same process elected bill twice. (none / 0) (#148)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    john edwards got it.
    bill richardson got it.
    joe biden...you know the rest.

    concessions speeches work.


    Unless and Until (none / 0) (#155)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    What you and Clinton are saying is that we should change any rule that keeps Clinton from winning.  Is that right?

    Focusing on the popular vote discounts the caucuses and changes the rules to favor Clinton. Clinton completely blows the caucuses and now we should cancel out the effect of those failures.  Don't we have an administration that plays by its own rules now?  Do we want four more years of that?

    Is that really what we should do? Do we really need special rules for Clinton?


    No, that's not what I'm saying. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    I'm saying that in such a closely contested race, where pledged delegates will not decide the nomination, you can't look at the pledged delegates in a vacuum.  

    That's not changing the rules, because there are no rules for how or why superdelegates cast their votes.  Obama has pushed this narrative that the superdelegates should regard the pledged delegates as the will of the people and vote for him - but he has been silent on the fact that a number of superdelegates who support him - people like Kerry, Kennedy, and Richardson, for example - have defied the will of the people in their states to do so.  

    Which says to me that Obama is making up the "rules" as he goes along, in whichever configuration will benefit him.  When he comes out and announces that he wants SD's from states that Clinton won to support her, I will believe that Obama truly believes in the will of the people, but that's not going to happen.

    The truth is that Obama doesn't set the rules for the superdelegates - these are people who should have the space and the latitude to decide for themselves, free of threats from all sides.  Unfortunately, I have not heard any threats from the Clintons side of this, so make of that what you will.  I've never been fond of bullies, and I find it disturbing that Obama is beginning to resemble one; the votes of the superdelegates are not the equivalent of lunch money to be handed over to the schoolyard bully under threat.

    My larger point was that it is time for the caucus to go, and I would like to see the end of open primaries.  But that's me.


    SDs can vote forever they want (none / 0) (#190)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    but if Clinton wins by superdelegats that go against pledge delegates and popular vote.  Then god bless us we will lose.  Not to mention her push to count every vote in Florida and Michigan would suddenly make her look very bad.  I am a steward for Democracy, wait unless democracy doesn't give me enough delegates to win.

    overlooking the notion (none / 0) (#202)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    that you feel justified parroting a set of rules over 'super' delegates that doesn't exist, the notion that you feel a victory is possible while denying the voters of Michigan and Florida yet still professing a belief in democracy and finally, your assessment of appearances, I would suppose that I agree with what you said.

    You make a great point (none / 0) (#205)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    but the problem is the DNC has denied the Florida and Michigan voters their delgates based on the Fl and Michigan's own choices.  This just another political ploy to attack Obama's electability.  I on the other hand believe that Clinton will have a bigger issue in terms of Electability on the same foundation "Democracy" if the superdelegates overturn the popular vote and state give delegates.  Just think of the commercials from the GOP for that one.  The candidate of the Democratic part elite!  To be honest I'm very concerned about Obama's electability as well, since the commercials attacking him on Wright are going to be of an epic proportion.  

    Electability (none / 0) (#209)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    is key...

    He is gonna get creamed in November - but that is my opinion, supported only by the polls...recent, subject to change of course at Rasmussen and Survey USA


    The pledged delegate count (none / 0) (#36)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    bears no relationship to the electoral vote count in the GE. You need to wake up.

    Wake Up (none / 0) (#69)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    If you can't win the primary, you won't be in the GE and why would the loser be in the GE.  That's the point.

    ignoring of course (none / 0) (#77)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:00 PM EST
    that neither candidate appears likely to 'win the primary' by getting enough 'pledged' delegates, that leaves the end result to the 'super' delegates.

    Regardless of everyone's attempts to box these 'super' delegates into rules that don't exist anywhere but their own minds, there is the notion that ignoring the realities of November likelihood in their ultimate decision would come at the peril of OUR candidate.

    I don't expect 'super' delegates to be lemmings.


    Ignoring of Course (none / 0) (#100)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    It is true that Clinton or Obama will not secure enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.

    Contrary to what the corporate media reports and the Clinton create a party civil war plan, this is not a close race.  Hillary knows that.

    Gaining 50% to the remaining pledged delegates and winning another 25% of the uncommitted Super Delegates will win the nomination for Obama. I think that is very likely.

    Even though this is not a done deal, it is much more probable than Clinton winning 65% of the remaining pledged delegates and 70% of the uncommitted Super Delegates. I call that a long shot.


    but the narrative (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    is becoming clearer now...he will have lost most the the closing states, some by huge margins, his negatives have gotten extremely high, his ability to beat McCain in November looking extremely doubtful casts a huge shadow over any numbers lead he might take to the convention.

    But - hey, we lost in 2000 and 2004 so supporting a losing ticket in 2008 is hardly going to be a new experience.


    but the narrative (none / 0) (#120)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    So give the nomination to Clinton, the loser? right?

    What are your predictions based on?


    this has been the case going to back to wisconsin. (none / 0) (#111)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    this is up on politico:

    "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

    Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party's most reliable constituency.

    Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote -- which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle -- and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else."

    the clinton's know they have lost.  the only way to the nomination is to destroy obama.  this approach is reflected in this thread.  he is anti-american.  he is unpatriotic.  the commander in chief threshold.

    bla,bla, bla.

    here is the entire story:



    yeah... (none / 0) (#125)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    you'd have to be brain dead not to have read this Drudge wortht flak since it's front paged on HuffPo and TPM and other unabashed Obama supporter sites.

    But that doesn't make it worthy. Heck, Jonathan Alter from Newsweek made the same point before HRC won OH and TX.

    I thoroughly disagree with your expressed notion that the clinton's know they have lost.  the only way to the nomination is to destroy obama.

    You are entitled to your opinion and clearly this wasn't even the opinion that was expressed on Politico's piece. You are just making a leap of faith.

    The fact is that the way things look now, Obama will be crushed in November and if that outlook doesn't change...do you really expect the 'super' delegates to just march over the cliff?


    from the house of clinton, (none / 0) (#137)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    more from the article:

    "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

    In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."

    make-believe and maybe don't make it so.  the party is going through all of this infighting for a ten percent chance in their own words.  i sold my clinton stock long ago.  

    personal ambitions do not unify a party.  


    as far as I can tell (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    Obama hasn't been the unity candidate himself - at least in deeds.

    This 10% figure is absurd - coming from some unnamed source - coming from known CDS people (Vandehei who wrote that 'flattering book' about Hillary released last summer). There are circles that don't believe these people have an objective view on the matter at all.

    As for selling your Clinton stock...I never owned Clinton stock in that fashion anyway, but I did vote for WJC twice and HRC once and if that makes me a stock owner, then I guess I'm in.

    Picking candidates is always a choice less than perfect. If it gets down to McCain v. Obama, I'll have no problem voting for Obama. I just don't see him as the best candidate now, and clearly don't believe that he can beat McCain in November.


    I keep telling myself (none / 0) (#196)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    that in 2004 I had no hope of Kerry beating Bush.  And although I was right the support that he was able to get make it close.  Obama or Clinton can increase that support greatly.  I believe the biggest problem we have is Unity, one both of these candidates houses come together it's they will be unstoppable.  

    Long shots (none / 0) (#189)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    have a way of taking out hot shots when the odds say 'no.'  That's why you have to run the whole race...to find out how it ends at the finish line...and not before.

    Don't take the egg money and bet the farm on Obama.  He's not Citation, Man o' War or Seabiscuit.

    I would suggest, however, that this could be 'Bill Clinton's Triple Crown winner!'  And a filly at that!

    We'll see.


    If Obama is the nominee, (none / 0) (#90)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    then he (but more importantly democrats) will most likely be the loser in the GE.

    Who cares who wins the nomination battle if the nominee can't beat Mccain?

    If you have your way, and you very well may, you will get to see Obama's loss in November.

    Then maybe you can go back and reread the many careful, intelligent arguments made in the comments here that have explained why Obama's losing in Nov. makes electoral sense.

    I am not happy he is going to lose but I dont think he will not beat Kerry's performance and he may not do much better than Dukakis did.


    If Obama is the nominee, (none / 0) (#109)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    So you are saying that Clinton can't win more pledged delegates but she can win the general election and that is based on what (outside of her mind and her supporter's mind)?

    sure (none / 0) (#119)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    Survey USA - Pick a state

    from 3/20
    Massachusetts - Obama puts MA in play
    Ohio - Obama a loser
    Missouri - Obama a loser
    Minnesota - Obama at least within margin of error
    others are pretty much toss up

    Then consider...
    FL - Obama a loser

    Just how is it that you expect Obama to win the general election if he loses all of the traditional battle ground states?


    sure (none / 0) (#122)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    To date, these polls have been right on the money. Is that right?

    some polls have been on the money (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    and some polls have not.

    Survey USA has been one of the more reliable polling companies.

    I suppose you can ignore the situation if you choose.

    The issue is that Obama's favorable/unfavorable have clearly shifted to the point where his candidacy is in great peril. His unfavorable rating of 51% is now in the margin of error of HRC's.

    But you can ignore the situation if you choose.

    And you can dis' the polls if you choose.

    And we can lose yet another presidential election...


    same way he won the nomination. (none / 0) (#123)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    speaking forthrightly with the voters.

    do you mean (none / 0) (#130)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    'typical white persons?'

    That's worked out real well for him hasn't it?


    Do you mean (none / 0) (#144)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    I think he was talking about his grandmother that he loves dearly. Do you love your grandmother?

    I did love my one grandmother (none / 0) (#157)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    that I knew because my other grandmother died before I was born.

    That said, I'm quite certain that I have never described her as a 'typical white person'

    I don't even understand the frame of reference for the term 'typical white person' but I have read the subsequent clarification from the Obama campaign after the utterance.

    Is this how it works? Obama makes completely stupid comments on radio and campaign cleans up his off the cuff comments afterwards? Have we become the train wreck candidate now?

    When you find yourself in a ditch, the best thing to do is to stop digging. I think we found out that Obama can't help himself when he has a shovel in his hand, he digs.


    Don't Understand? (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    That individuals may be typical of a group that they belong to.

    Is it that you are not the typical white person in that some of your best friends are black, and therefore 'typical' is not part of your experience?

    Most typical people understand that the word is a synonym for average and that it is used all the time.

    It seems typical for many HRC supporters here to not understand that Obama's grandmother may in fact be typical of certain white women in America.


    keep digging (none / 0) (#182)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    Digging? (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    Hardly. If anything:
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    Better stop digging. (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    Is It That You (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    Are uncomfortable discussing that many of harbor stereotypes?

    Or is it that you believe that Obama's grandmother is not typical of anything?

    Or is it that no one is typical of anything?

    My guess it that rather than examine what Obama and his grandmother said, it is much easier to shoot the messengers.

    No question that is shooting the messenger is the easier path. I  just want to examine whether it is a conscious choice or a knee jerk reaction.


    I'll try to explain it for you (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    'typical white woman' is simply a label.

    Like 'liberal', 'divisive' or a great many attempts at labeling, they seek to identify someone with a set of pre-conceived notions so that the person attempting to make the identification need not be bothered with getting into the details...to just leave the details to the listener/reader so they can supply the context.

    You are literally tying his grandmother to the comment which indeed was to whom he was referring but his meaning of 'typical white woman' and the radio listening audience were free to have entirely different impressions of what he meant.

    Worse yet, he implored us on Tuesday to put conventional racism behind us but then used the language so closely tied to that which he asked us to leave behind just 2 days later.

    Just as bad, is that he has now justified the notion that a 'typical white woman' is naturally afraid of the stranger, the black man walking down the street and made it 'typical'

    It doesn't sound to me like he has done anything to elevate the discussion of race at all. What he has done is acknowledge that one of his parents was black and that he is concerned that his identification to a certain preacher has the ability to hurt his ability to win his party's nomination.

    What he has done was to completely step on his speech from Tuesday and lend credence to the fact that it's typical for white women to fear black men...that's not change.

    As for those who want to keep digging in the hole, far be it from me to stop them.


    Typical (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    Obama identified his grandmother as typical in that she had a fear based on the stereotype of a black man. The fact that I can google in stereotypical black man, and find many entries suggests that there is such a thing, at least as a fiction.

    So Obama's words, shocking as they are because no one wants to discuss such things, are not something he pulled out of a hat, iow his example is believable. That does not mean or, even suggest, that Obama's grandmother was not extraodinary or atypical regarding other things, such as being a communist as oculus suggests.

    What you are doing, in order to closed down the discussion, is claiming that Obama reduced his grandmother to someone typical of all white women in all ways. That is absurd, and Obama did nothing of the sort.

    Is is painfully obvious that you are avoiding Obama's invitation to discuss race, and how we all harbor stereotypes, because you are either too uncomfortable discussing it, or your mission here is to shill for Hillary, which for you translates into trashing Obama.

    Sad. Considering that both candidates are both typical mainstream democrats, with nary a difference in policy. They are just different flavors of the same thing.

    I just do not get all the GOP style slime tactics going on here. Those who gleefully engage in it are only sullying themselves.


    I have read Obama's maternal (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    grandmother reported she was being agressively panhandled by an AA man and it made her wary.  Don't know if Obama was with her during that incident.  I have also read she and his grandfather were Unitarian, that there was gossip when they lived on Mercer Island that they were communist.  Sounds quite liberal to me, so I doubt she was a "typical white woman" with respect to her views toward minorities, espec. AA, as she and her husband seemed to have more hands on time raising Obama than either of his parents did. I would never deny there is racial prejudice, I'm just not convinced this woman exhibited it.  

    he won the nomination, (none / 0) (#156)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    if he won the nomination, by gaming the caucus states--most of which he cannot win in november. he's run a brilliant campagin to win the nomination. winning the nomination is his ceiling. maybe you'll understand later.

    here's a clue:


    he's not even the best candidate relative to the race run on that list. i say he does better than mcgovern. after that, i wouldn't hazard a guess.


    Obama supporters should study the electorial maps (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    from a few of those races. They may start looking at those 'blue' states a bit differently. They have a magical way of turning red . . .

    I expect him (none / 0) (#203)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    to unify the Democratic party, gain support from Clinton hence picking up some of her base. Talk about the issues all of which he wins hands down.  To be fair I expect the same result if Cinton pulls it out.  I would read too much into polls, his numbers are going back up after the week of bashing he took over Wright.

    those polls cited (none / 0) (#208)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    are from 3/20

    Just sayin'


    Wake up, yourself. Obama is not winning (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    almost two-thirds of those "typical white persons."  He is only winning about 36% of white voters.  

    Don't come back with talk of the AA vote, either.  He is winning a few more percentage points of that group than did previous Dem nominees, but only a few -- and AAs are only 12 percent of the population.

    So convince me, smooth, that Obama can win more of the white vote.  Both of our previous nominees, Kerry and Gore, got 41% of that vote.  So Obama has to do better than that -- and to raise his average even to that, he has to do a LOT better than that in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, etc.  

    How is he going to do that now, at this late date, smooth?  How is he going to convince the super-delegates he can win more of the MOST "typical" voters -- the white voters?


    No caucuses in the GE. (none / 0) (#194)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    Your comparison between the delegate race and the GE is absurd on its face.

    Unity (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    Somehow, this thread concludes that unity is Obama's problem. Divisions and the lack of critcal thinking are why we are in this hole.  After reading these so called progressive posts, it's clear that unity will be even harder to achieve and why wouldn't that perception change. I am learning that so called progressives are as hipocritical and zenophobic as the wrong wingers.  

    Way to promote (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    the unity ;-).

    I love it when they Reach Out (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    and Turn The Page.

    Could it be because they have no lead(er) to (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    follow on that?

    Exactly what does "unity" mean? (none / 0) (#81)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    Is it that Democrats should be unified, all be in harmony?

    That we should all be one?
    That we all have to think and agree with one another?

    Does it pertain to race, gender, in unity with the world?



    Unity (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    When all 5 of my cats sleep in one big pile with no cat fights.

    Sorry, couldn't resist. That's unity around my home, lol!~  ;)

    I 'think' Obama means it in a race, gender, Dem, Repub way (Cocoa-Cola commercial anyone?). Beyond that, I haven't quite figured it out. I'm not sure if an Obama admin would be one of compromise or what . . .


    Unity (none / 0) (#162)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    If we think unity on a team, family, business, party, or nation is not important, then what's the fuss?  If unity is important, why are we so divided?  How successful are divided groups?  If success is not important, then we should not care about unity.  If success is important, then we should figure out why we are divided and how we can get there.

    Why haven't we talked about this at this level before?  Is it in our interest to talk about and achieve this?  

    Why are U.S. citizens comfortable voting against their interest?

    These answers will not be broadcast of TV.


    Voting against their interest. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    There are way too many ways to parse that.

    Someone who thinks the government wastes their money may wonder why anyone would ever vote to raise taxes.

    Someone who thinks being tough on crime is the way to go thinks every criminal should be punished harshly but may not ever be convinced that good education and an economy that benefits everyone is worth spending money on. (Even if those programs are shown to reduce crime!)

    How do you "unify" people who can't even agree on basic points of view?

    Should the government put carbon penalty surcharges based on gas mileage of passenger vehicles?  Of should we just raise gas taxes?  Or should government give tax breaks on the cars that get the top 5% of gas mileage?  Or should we do nothing at all to reward those who conserve fuel?


    "Unity" is Obama's main theme (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    He either finds a way to stick with it and rise above the fray or he loses his raison d'etre for running.

    i disagree with main theme take. (none / 0) (#172)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    obama is the change candidate.  unity is a bonus.

    change? (none / 0) (#181)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    • as in using Deval Patrick's words?
    • as in labeling 'typical white women'?
    • as in 'not politics as usual' but sending the photos/etc. with Wright/Clinton to various newspapers?
    • as in race baiting his opponent to get an unreasonable percentage of the vote from those who are the same race?
    • as in demonizing NAFTA while his advisor is meeting with Canadian officials and telling them not to take these comments as anything other than politics?

    There's little surprise that the 'change you can believe in' candidate is bailing water from his sinking campaign.

    It's obvious what the very first question is going to be in the next debate...Senator Obama, is Hillary Clinton a 'typical white woman'?


    "Unity" is what Obama promises (none / 0) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    Therefore, yes, it is entirely his problem to deliver it.

    Who else?

    I haven't observed that his message is having much of an effect.

    You can be "unified" only with other Obama supporters. If you don't support Obama, they don't want your unity. Obama is not doing much to convince people who aren't supporting him already that he can create unity. He's done nothing to convince me.



    And this is his problem (none / 0) (#170)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    I guess that is his problem and not yours?  Responsibility might be another good goal.

    Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#191)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    And he could work on responsibility too - I am so tired of him letting his surrogates and supporters do his dirty work for him - saying one thing and doing another.

    Unity? Here's unity. I'm a staunch Democrat. I'm supporting a staunch Democrat who is the choice of staunch Democrats. She makes it clear that this is about a Democrat winning in November. She has said numerous times that she will back the Democratic nominee for president. There's no equivocating, no saying she'll take her supporters and go home, no saying she'll never run again, no saying "I'll have to evaluate the tone."

    Obama? Not so much. He thinks Reagan is better than Clinton, he attacks the only two-term Dem administration since WWII, he thinks Republicans have been the party of ideas, he advocates being "Dem for a day" (no more) so people can vote for him, he says his supporters won't go for Clinton (giving them encouragement not to).

    Obama is for Obama. I don't even think he knows he's a Democrat, and he sure hasn't convinced me he is.


    Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by smooth on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    In a culture that is so brainwashed, I know it's hard to identify leadership. Like most of the pundits, many entries on this post completely miss what Obama speech was really about.  The speech was an example of how leaders communicate to the people they lead. If you think the U.S. is on the right track and should not make changes to successfully compete with other countries, you are not interested in what a leader will tell you.  If you think the U.S. will can be successful with all the baggage we have, you don't need a leader to help you process it and think about how we should change. The problem is not Barack or Hillary. The problem is the mindset of so many citizens. The corporate media controls so many minds. With all of the problems we have, why are so many smart people talking about all of this garbage?  

    History is full a countries that fail. Thinking the same old distorted thoughts and doing the same old dumb things are not recipes for success.

    Let's come together (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Melchizedek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    on some basic ground rules, fellow Democrats:

    1. Judge the other candidate by their worst supporters and by their aides' worst comments

    2. Justify our own camp's comments as small retaliation compared to what the other camp is doing.

    3. Promise not to support the other candidate in the GE as a message to the DNC, which OBVIOUSLY is in the tank for the other candidate.

    4. Provoke the other side into criticizing our candidate more than McCain, thereby exposing them as selfish rather than committed to a Republican win.

    5. Make sure if at all possible to make racism and sexism a zero-sum game-- criticism can never be launched at those (say, GOPers) taking advantage of both at the same time, unless of course there is reverse-racism and reverse-sexism going on, in which case full steam ahead.

    6. Always frame our candidate's calculations as "politics" and the other's as hypocritical and/or "calculating." Always cite these calculations as proof that the other candidate cannot unify, change, or solve things as they say they want to.

    7. Always accuse the other side of acting according to 1) to 6) more than your side does.

    Now, if you think these rules are unfairly aimed at YOUR side rather than the other, congratulations-- that's the spirit of playing by them!!

    Obama's Electability is Gone (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    His entire candidacy is based on the premise that he can appeal to moderates, which is especially paramount now that McCain is the GOP nominee.  Even though he has been unable to win white, Hispanic, or Asian Democrats in the primaries, we've all been assured that in the general these voters will go with Obama and that he would get a good chunk of the moderates. Now the moderate argument is gone and will only, in fact, get worse as his liberal negatives become more defined  and his ability to maintain enough non-African Americans Democrats is also in serious doubt because of his mentor Wright.  

    God Bless America (1.00 / 5) (#20)
    by nobrainer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    Obama 08.....on the road to the whitehouse....fresh out of school....aligns himself with the most radical, racially biased church in Chicago to prove how Black he is....gets himself a seat in the Senate with the help of his Black community....can''t stand the fact that he''s so Freshman and can''t get his time on the floor..he decides to run for President without really passing any bill...actually 130 times just voted present and a few times pressed the wrong vote button..no joke..he aligns himself with people and ideologies that are anti-american, anti-jewish, anti-white...he doesn''t pledge to the flag..or where a statesmens pin because he thinks thats a shallow way of expressing patriotism...his wife, until now, how never been proud of her country (NO WONDER HER THESIS IN RESTRICTED UNTIL NOV. 08) ....HMMM. ....wonder what it says....probably more anti-white rants..I truly can''t believe that the american people would elect a man with such questionable patriotism

    Lemme guess (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    John McCain is too liberal for you, right?

    Obama's right about the flag lapel pin (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    It is silly.

    I think that (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    from now on all candidates should be required to have Old Glory tattooed across their faces. Now THAT's patriotism.

    For some reason that reminds me (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    of Putty on Seinfeld, painting his face for the hockey game!

    Nope. I don't agree. (none / 0) (#163)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    So long as symbols are important as shorthand to comunicate values to voters (and they are) one casts them aside with impunity.

    Picking fights with universal political symbols 'branding American patriotism' is just politically dumb.  Why make enemies when you can make friends?  Why raise questions when you can display answers?  Why say 'no' when it's so simple to say 'yes?'

    Letting the Republicans steal universal American symbols like 'the flag' and appropriate them only to themselves is one of the more idiotic things Democrats have done.  It's everybody's flag...take it back!

    In politics, as in life, you have to pick your fights...you can't fight them all, so why not pick the ones you can win?

    Men running for POTUS (or any other serious public office)...show respect for your audience on more serious or formal occasions...suit, shirt & tie, flag pin!


    He does say the pledge (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    that is an out and out lie.

    Sorry to reply again (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    your diatribe is so filled with misinformation, it requires more than one read to take it all in.
    Michelle Obama's thesis is available. I have even dug up the link for you  here
    It was made available in February. Please try to keep your comments to fact, or state that they are opinions.

    lies... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    lets see if i can catch them all:

    • he decides to run for President without really passing any bill
    • he aligns himself with people and ideologies that are anti-american, anti-jewish, anti-white
    • he doesn''t pledge to the flag
    • his wife, until now, how never been proud of her country

    Why are such lies allowed to stay on this site?

    Because we need someone to mock (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    It should be reassuring to Obama supporters, that though some support Clinton, we can spot #$%% from a troll.

    It is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by magster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    has only himself to blame (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by nobrainer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    how could Obama NOT think his church was controversial and that Pastor Wright's teachings are divisive..  Doe's he truly think that no one  would notice the contradiction in his stance at UNIFYING this country.  One hand has his best friend, mentor,  who hates America and the other hand he's got a map to the white house.  Does he really think we are that stupid?

    I doubt The Rev. Wright "hates" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    America.  Rhetorical device.

    Stupid? Nah (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    He was just quoting your pal Falwell, not a direct quote but a similar sentiment.

    Not racist: ANTI AMERICAN (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    It is an inclusive "God Damn America!

    Raising Hillary's negative (none / 0) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    It seems the only way out for Obama is to raise Hillary's negative ... today on a townhall meeting Obama is quoting president Clinton as saying "Obama lacks Patriotism" ... Not sure if this story line would be good for him.. but the media is already taking cue on this and you can see the headlines on


    Bill: Hillary, McCain The Candidates "Who Love This Country"
    Obama Aide: Bill Is Like Joe McCarthy

    Hillary's campaign raises its own negatives (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by magster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    Carville: Richardson is Judas.
    Penn: Richardson irrelevant after TX.

    I think those comments are appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    Truth (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Some believe they are both true.  I happen to be one of them.  I watch Richardson's endorsement presentation and smile.  It was way to over the top and after the Obama campaign gaffed (again) and released the version of the speech which had the stage direction....

    [In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

    [Turn toward Obama and smile]

    Barack Obama, you are an extraordinary leader who
    has shown courage, sound judgment and wisdom throughout your career.]

    I just shake my head.  Rewatch Richardson.  Obama looks incredibly uncomfortable.  I wonder if the DNC forced this to try and stop the bleeding.


    I hadn't heard about the stage directions. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    That is too funny! It reminds me of the transcripts that got released to the press of a Dubya speech that had difficult names spelled out phonetically.

    Not THAT is hilarious! (none / 0) (#116)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    I bet he still didn't pronounce them correctly!

    I didn't like Carville's comments (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    But I rarely like what comes out of his mouth. The Judas comment was provocative, and he even tried to conveniently equate the whole thing with this being Easter season.

    Obama Camp pulled the Communist Card! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    by equating BClinton with McCarthy.
    Them's fighting words! - and proves Obama wants Hillary to stay in and FIGHT!

    Fascists and biblical figures (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    I bet the biblical figure at easter trumps the fascist.  Carville used to be entertaining, but he now is just annoying.  

    Well I think it tells how betrayed they feel (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    and justifiably..

    All do you know the Richardson's own Just words moment:

    He a month back said.. his vote will go to who ever wins his state.. well Hillary won his state.

    He then said endorsements do not matter.. but that is what Hillary camp suggested.. but he now takes offense !

    He says Voters say should count.. but wants the Hillary to step down without counting the rest of the states.


    I'v missed Carville saying outrageous (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    things to stir everything up bigtime.  Got to admit he makes things interesting.  Of course, there is the whole Catholic/Jew divide; now that the Pope has sd. its o.k. to do the mass in Latin, there are some pesky references to the Jews are the source of all evil.  I wonder how versed Carville is in history of religions.

    But honestly... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    If I hold Obama accountable for his Rezko relationship I have to hold Carville accountable for his marriage.  

    Ha. I assume they keep each other (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    "grounded."  I wonder if that psychiatrist who says he can predict how a relationship will turn out by how people fight has ever heard tapes of these two.

    They now look alike (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    which is rather creepy.  

    Here we go again. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by mm on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    Honestly, this Obama fellow has got to have the thinnest skin of any pol I've ever seen run for POTUS.

    First they turn President Clinton into some sort of closet Grand Wizard of the KKK and now he's the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy.

    One thing about Mr. Clean - he don't do subtle.

    Ever since this Wright stuff went crazy, Obama has been waiting for any pretext to pounce on Clinton for trying to press the advantage.

    But don't worry about Barack.  I'm sure all of his friends in the media are even as we speak working up a good sense of outrage over this latest nothing of an event.


    Obama stays above it all (none / 0) (#75)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    while his followers do his dirty work on the ground - spreading lies about Hillary, smearing and mischaracterizing her.
    They did it with the Edwardses too.

    Throughout last year, voters reported to the Edwards campaign that Obama supporters were spreading the meme that Elizabeth Edwards was dying. Elizabeth addressed it last fall, without mentioning the Obama Camp.


    I'm having this argument elsewhere (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    with an Obama supporter who says "he is not his campaign."


    What he means is, you can't say "Obama said" or "Obama did" when it was an aide or a co-chair or a surrogate.

    I say, if it comes from the campaign, Obama owns it unless he specifically disowns it. McPeak called Bill McCarthy-like? Obama said it. Obama campaign gave Wright photo to NYT? Obama did it.

    Otherwise, what kind of a leader is he? He's got to take responsibility for what his campaign does and/or says, because ultimately, they do it with his permission unless he says otherwise.


    Obama stood on the stage looking down (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    while his former Bushie tore into Bill Clinton. I'm surprised they didn't have a moment of silence in honor of the Reagan legacy.

    I cannot bring myself to vote for this man.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by mm on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    It really is amazing.  I've seen Obama time after time giving his standard stump speech about he's so new and different.  He doesn't "demonize" the republicans like those evil Clintons.

    And then anytime one of the Clintons says something nice about McCain, Obama squeals like a stuck pig.


    Character (none / 0) (#4)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    Their strategy this week is going after character.  He's being hit on judgement for his relationships, so they are going after her for the 'will say anything' and 'real character issues'.  It's not been an attractive week and it's going to get worse.  

    Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    I was under the illusion that someone who "has it all sewed up", "has it in the bag" etc, would not need to destroy the loser.  Does attacking character of the "loser"   look like he is a winner?  

    No (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    It looks like desperation.  It has made me very uncomfortable watching it and listening to the press statements coming from the Obama campaign.

    The transparency of HuffPo (none / 0) (#13)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    That article had first appeared lower on the page a couple of days ago. I guess with only negative press surrounding Obama, they decided to bump that headline up and give it a big ol' picture.

    Fair and balanced! Maybe that's why Arianna and Bill get into such vicious fights with one another: they're too alike for either to accept!


    You know, the media does not like Bill (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    And Ariana has been upset with him since MonL. That is interesting because when her X-husband was running for the Senate as a Republican (He tried to buy it)against Feinstein in California, she was pushing him to run and to continue. He should not have even been in the running because he was that weak.

    Aside from her though, the media does not like Bill and it transcend down to Hillary. Having said that, the people still love Bill. I think he should just stay away from cross talk and let someone else do that. He needs to be less con traversal so the media, right or wrong, can't fault him and stick with the remember the good economy and the paying down debt and the balance budget. Those were important then and they still are now. He can point out the differences from 7 years ago before we started running the country's credit cards. He said that in the last convention speech. People were looking the other way. Now he should have their attention.


    I meant Bill O'Reilly, haha, sorry [nt] (none / 0) (#135)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    Ooops LOL (none / 0) (#206)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    But it fit the other Bill too.

    I read (none / 0) (#15)
    by tek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    that article on HuffPo and the comments.  One person said he looked at the transcript and the whole video and Clinton did not say anything about Obama's patriotism.  Clinton made clear in the speech before 80 invited attendees that he was only speaking about Hillary and McCain, no reflection on Obama.

    who was the first (none / 0) (#47)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    to interpret Bill Clinton's remark as calling Obama unpatriotic?
    The Obama Camp or the media?

    Obviously the Obama Camp... (none / 0) (#85)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    Obama camp: McPeak, who was pro-Bush (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    in 2000, a state chair for Bush.  Consider that.

    Clearly, the race card can't be played anymore, after the Wright speech.  

    So now we are back to the "red scare," to calling out as a Communist the only two-term Dem president we've had since Joe McCarthy.

    Now, a journalist who models himself on Murrow ought to be just the one to expose this.  But KO won't.


    You know (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    what? Obama's attacks on Clinton are to the point of making me laugh. Obama sounds think skinned and extremely defensive all the time now.

    Here comes Magster (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    with the Gallup poll.  

    The media is also reversing how they are presenting the data, which helps.  The opposite number of 29% and 31% is a significant number when applied to the Repub and Inde support of Obama.  70% ok with voting for him, 14% more likely, leaves 16% less likely, still not a good number.  I will watch for more polls and a consistent bounce back.  One issue addressed by other pollsters was they didn't believe people would be honest.  I'm holding out until PN.

    I hadn't even posted in this thread yet (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    ignoring of course (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    that Obama's unfavorable has now crossed the 50% mark (51%) and just barely under HRC now.

    They're still neck and neck (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    within the margin of error, according to Gallup, just 3 points separating them. And Hillary is still up significantly from the first of the year.

    Still, it's a 10 point swing (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    since the speech.  

    Ultimately, I agree with waldenpond (gasp) that we need more polls to prove an Obama recovery.  


    This race has become what I dislike (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    about political races - polls, horse race analyses and debates about electability.

    The good news is that this time, at least, these really are relevant and significant topics.  Usually, all this number crunching is just a distraction from debates about real issues.


    You had dropped (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    the poll in at the end of the last item.  So I figured you would drop it in here to discuss.  I didn't think the Gallup outweighed the Rasmussen which has Clinton up to.  Yep... it's a matter of waiting and watching.

    These are (none / 0) (#16)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    interesting polls as well bearing in mind they
    came out Thursday March 20, 2008 (after Obama's speech)

    SurveyUSA of a matchups between
    Clinton McCain and Obama McCain in

    Missouri  ( presidential winner?)

    McCain 53 , Obama 39    Und. 9    McCain +14

    McCain 48, Clinton 46    Und. 6    McCain +2

    Obama is not even in the ballpark of the satistical error.

    Massachusetts (Dem. stronghold; amazing...)

    McCain 47    Obama 47    Und. 6     TIE (OMG, Obama would be the first Democrat to lose MA)

    McCain 42    Clinton 55  Und. 3      Clinton +13

    You are missing OH (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    where McCain is creaming him and HRC is leading McCain - does OH count?

    Great! Absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    Let's add OH.

    Obama is unelectable in Nov.


    According to Insider Advantage (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    Voters were less likely to support Obama after his speech.


    "Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?

    Less likely (52%)
    More likely (19%)
    About the same (27%)
    No opinion (2%)

    The disturbing numbers for Obama are the independent voters. By 56% to 13%, they said theyre less likely to vote for him because of the speech."

    signs of big trouble for Obama in Ohio (none / 0) (#53)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    So says Columbus Dispatch

    But we're not supposed to notice...

    Yeah but SE Ohio is (none / 0) (#87)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    the South and I don't think Obama was expected to win there anyway.

    ignoring of course (none / 0) (#98)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    that the article considered the polling results of the entire state which I quote the 2nd paragraph (I'm glad you read it...)

    Clinton beats McCain 50-44 but McCain tops Obama by virtually the same margin, 50-43 - meaning Clinton is performing 13 points better than Obama in the Buckeye State.

    Is this now the 48 - another state strategy?


    I was refering to (none / 0) (#114)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    Columbus Dispatch states"Obama loses to McCain in southeast Ohio by a stunning 85-14.  Clinton, who ran up large margins in the primary over Obama throughout the region, wins the same area 58-38 over McCain."

    OK but (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    if Obama writes off MI and FL by disenfranchising the voters, then writes off OH because he's not supposed to win there, and is so weak that he even puts traditional strongholds like MA into play, which states does he win in the general election?

    OK, NY, NJ, CA, IL...

    PA and VA are toss ups.

    Apparently, so are OR and WA.

    How does he get to 270 electoral votes?


    WA is not a tossup. (none / 0) (#223)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    This Was Interesting In Ohio Poll (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    Clinton and McCain are deadlocked among whtie voters, while McCain leads Obama by 19 points in that demographic. The Illinois senator's appeal to young voters has faded to a 1-point edge over McCain, who would be the nation's oldest president.

    I think that once Obama's personal appeal (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    is diminshed, he'll have nothing.
    Look, there are plenty of people who don't like Hillary at all, but they may vote for her over McCain, because they respect her. Obama? If you don't like him, you won't vote for him. What's he done? Almost nothing (in politics). How much experience does he have? Very little.
    He's a fragile commodity.

    Which is why I don't see how he (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    would be a better choice in 8 years than he is now.  

    Well, he will have had 8yrs to roll up his (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    sleeves and get busy doing work to promote 'change'  ;)

    Because in 8 years he could have (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    experience and a record to run on.
    He IS politically gifted---no question about it.

    But I thought his appeal was is (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    doesn't have much a track record to trip him up.

    lol.. that's the shtick.. and it's (none / 0) (#76)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    an old, old, routine too.
    Anyway, I'm modestly confident about Hillary's chances now. Let me put it this way: if people are still talking about Wright and Obama in two weeks, with more revelations about what Obama heard coming out, he's finished.

    Unfortunately, now the focus (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    is turning to comments re McCarthy and Judas, of all people.  

    That's not going to last.. and the (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    McCarthy business might be the silliest thing I've heard yet.

    Which is why I liked the dismissive remarks (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    from the Clinton campaign.  A gnat.  Just brush it off.

    I HOPE there are no photos of (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    Hillary sitting on Joe McCarthy's lap. That would be the end!

    Now, now. Don't give the Republicans (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:18:17 PM EST
    any ideas.  

    Silly? Desperate. And dangerous. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    And CNN actually is buying into this calling a former president a COmmunist -- called that by McPeak, who was a state chair for Bush in 2000, but CNN is not reporting that about McPeak's background.

    Now that Obama's camp can't keep calling everyone racist (although his speech claimed again that it's Clinton using the race card, such a lie) they've resorted to the "red scare" again -- and I remember a bit of it.  It is dangerous, and the media played right into it before.  

    It needs to be denounced again, taken seriously, and now.


    Weathered the storm (none / 0) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    He will have survived the media scrutiny.  They can go after him on these same issues and it will be 'been there, done that'.  His other strategy of staying low in the senate is what I see as a problem.  He will have to take on an issue to develop some bona fides (sp).  He won't necessarily have to win, but he needs to show some commitment and determination.  It is reported he had legislation handed to him in the Illinois legislature to pad his resume.  He's got to get past that.  He's been called a 'dilettante' by others.  He's got to change that.

    Oh, I don't know. Wasn't if just the week (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    we learned Hillary Clinton was in the White House when Lewinsky and Bill Clinton were also present?  

    Lost me on that one (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    As long as she wasn't in the room... was she on record as being somewhere else?  I don't care about the Lewinsky thing myself.

    I don't either. Records released (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    this week by National Archives and Clinton Library apparently established HRC was present in the White House at a time Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were trysting.  This was actually a headline on Huff Post.  

    When they released her schedule (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    Folks went right in to check on what she was doing that day.  {sigh}

    for the record (none / 0) (#80)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    Rasmussen Reports today has Obama's 'unfavorable' at 51%

    Come on now.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by smb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:14 PM EST
    Maybe he needs to stick to change and give up the unity theme.

    Are you seriously trumpeting a drop in numbers for people who believe Obama can unify the country. Is that what it comes down to... Yay, maybe Clinton will win if we can destroy the message of unity that might cause people to want to come together. Yay team! This is why Obama supporters would not be super excited about supporting Clinton; its because of this ideology. If you can be 'em, destroy 'em... Yay! Makes me sick...


    If you believe Barack Obama, as (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    President, will be able to unify the U.S., please explain why you think this and how you think he will accomplsh this.

    Not that naive... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by smb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    I am not that naive to think Obama can unite the country. Clearly thats not the case. But that message was clearly resonating with the American public (look at the polls up until recently). The fact is THIS ISN'T THE GENERAL ELECTION. As Democrats, as a party, we aren't supposed to be cutting each others messages to shreds and personally destroying each other. Won't we see enough of this in the general without giving the Reps all the ammunition. I will ask all of you this; is the important thing to have a dem president or is it more important to have Clinton as president? As I see it right now (and so does the rest of the country) there is little to no chance of Clinton winning in either the delegate or overall vote count. Is the plan to try and destroy Obama so she can maybe have a 10-20% chance of winning the popular vote count? Is she our Huckabee? Do you want her to win badly enough, that you would risk general? This makes no sense.

    I see the bigger risk with Obama (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    getting the nomination and McCain winning the GE.  Either way, I won't vote for McCain due to fragility of Roe v. Wade and my fear he will not only keep us in Iraq but expand to Iran.

    Here's your problem: (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    As I see it right now (and so does the rest of the country)

    You're assuming the "rest of the country" sees things exactly the way you do.

    They don't.

    Now, if you spend most of your online time reading sources that are uniformly Pro-Obama, I can see where you might get this idea.

    But it's not the reality.


    Politics of personal destruction. (none / 0) (#180)
    by mm on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    As Democrats, as a party, we aren't supposed to be cutting each others messages to shreds and personally destroying each other.

    You mean like this?

    BACON (10/27/07): Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

    Even though she did answer, quite clearly.

    BACON (continuing directly): The statements marked the latest escalation of campaign rhetoric from a candidate who earlier this year declined to criticize his chief opponent for the nomination. Increasingly, he is taking on not just Clinton's policy views but also her character, and is casting the Democratic front-runner as someone who makes decisions based on polls and calculation, rather than on her convictions.

    But you see, that was when Obama was trailing badly in the polls.  


    Miracles.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    you have to believe in miracles, cause Oprah says, if you believe in something, it will happen.  

     I want it therefore it happens.  Religion of the milenium.  


    The unity thing (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    is nonsense. Republicans aren't looking to unite with Democrats. It's not going to happen. The real meaning of unity is 'capitulation to GOP demands'.

    What if the real meaning (none / 0) (#121)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    is the GOP will capitulate to Dem demands?

    I see (none / 0) (#129)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    no evidence that that's what Obama has in mind. Pure fantasy.

    It's just as likely as your statement n/t (none / 0) (#132)
    by independent voter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#139)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    It's not, given recent history. Your interpretation is as likely as pigs growing wings.

    Um... (none / 0) (#149)
    by smb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    Based on current number aren't we going to end up with control of all house / senate? Who exactly will he capitulating to? We just have to bring our congressional caucus together behind a set of ideas... Oh right, thats unity...

    Then you explain to me (none / 0) (#159)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    why Obama is saying he will work with Republicans, instead of saying he is looking forward to working with a Dem majority in both houses? Hmmmm?

    What you are talking about isn't unity, it's partisanship.


    Sure... (none / 0) (#166)
    by smb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    It may be partisan, but explain to me how Clinton tearing that message down helps dems in general? Much better to go to the general saying "yes we will work together, unity.. etc.." Everyone know Clinton is a polarizer, Obama's message is one of change/unity, and its been shown that they brings new people into the party and strengthens our position (just not Clintons). Is it good for our chances to do this?

    I strenuously object to the characterization (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    that Everyone know Clinton is a polarizer

    Only those that accept the meme's floated by many years of right wing foolishness buy that.

    She hasn't been polarizing in the Senate.

    Just sayin'

    As for bringing in new people into the party...he has clearly added young adults to the party and she has brought in a lot of women into the process. I don't think that there's much of a difference except that the youth are more Internet active (and probably polarizing as has been suggested in some of the accounts of caucuses).

    The whole notion of 'unity' is a myth.

    You have Republican's voting in solid blocks in both the House and the Senate. Are you so naive to believe that Obama's election would change that?

    Can we be any more gullible?


    I see lots of evidence it's what he (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    has in mind, but no evidence he will be able to accomplish such a goal.

    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#143)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    with you on this.

    Is that your "Unity" message? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    "This is why Obama supporters would not be super excited about supporting Clinton; its because of this ideology. If you can be 'em, destroy 'em... Yay! Makes me sick..."

    Nope its not... (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by smb on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    Clinton has done a good job though at making it so... Yay.. no more unity.. excellent work...

    Obama advisor tied to Passport-gate? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    Obama may regret (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    calling for a Congressional investigation.  Clinton and McCain were more circumspect in their responses.  Isn't, the head of the contract Co cited, Brennan one of Obama's advisors that supports retroactive immunity for Telecoms?

    if people want to hang (none / 0) (#151)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    on the hope that since Obama is ahead on the delegate and popular vote count he should be the nominee, they have not gotten behind the 'çhange' that Obama wants to bring.

    Blame the current state of the campaign on the two strategies (50 state vs. Top down or whatever they call it)

    consequently, we're forced to look at this campaign under this prism. It certainly doesn't bode well for the "change" meme that Obama's people are holding for their guy. If anything, it says they want to change the perception of the rules,mid game, and that they should go his way, like in Florida and Michigan. We're going to see how that matters at convention time.Not good IMO

    If I were a superdelegate, this position on those 2 states would not seem fair or inclusive.  Maybe he is aware of his little/some, but not enough political clout among the super delegates.

    Consequently,Obama can't attempt to  claim ANY victory or call on Hillary to step aside, since we have yet to hear from the  superdelegates. Until then, this thing is UNDECIDED despite all the second guessing.

    But its going to have to be decided on or before August to have a reasonable chance at McCain. Not that he'll win, because I believe he has lost already, despite what polls say.

    sar75 (none / 0) (#169)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    please post a link re: your Gallup poll.  I just looked at both Gallup and pollster.com and did not find the poll you cite.

    Also, in terms of "passport-gate":  BO was not the only victim--all three presidential candidates were (though that didn't stop his campaign from first pointing fingers at HRC).  And, FWIW, there's a new story out there that links a BO advisor's company to those who committed the security breech.  LINK

    About "unity" (none / 0) (#176)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    IMO--once HRC gets the economy working, delivers UHC, and restores our respectability around the world, we will be "unified" as a nation because we'll all be happier.  

    That's why many people look back at the 90s as good times--peace and prosperity make us feel good, regardless of whether or not the Clinton's were "polarizing."  

    Comments over 200 (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    this thread is closed and will be cleaned later.

    I am more than a little tired (none / 0) (#220)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    of hearing the commentators fawning over the speech Senator Obama gave on Tuesday. To listen to them (as some apparently have if the polls are correct) that speech is the modern equivalent of The Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural speech, and Washington's Farewell. Well, I do think it is similar to the Gettysburg Address in one respect. The pundits' initial reactions to both speeches was incorrect. In Lincoln's case, they were dismissive. In Obama's, they had to get out their thesauruses to find more superlative words of praise, praise that won't stand up to much scrutiny.

    In my opinion, the speech was:  OK.

    I gave it a B for content, a B minus for delivery, and a C for applicability to the mess Obama is in regarding Pastor Wright.

    What angered me, however is:

    I didn't sit in Wright's church for twenty years listening to racist, anti-American vitriol and downright lies.

    I didn't donate thousands of dollars over the course of those twenty years to a church whose Pastor espouses such opinions.

    I didn't bring my impressionable young daughter to this church exposing her to such diatribes.

    I didn't lie about what and when I knew about Wright's "controversial statements" when my campaign began sinking.

    But, in that speech, I am being challenged to overcome my racism?

    My racism?

    Have any of you actually seen the whole sermon? (none / 0) (#221)
    by Raheem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    its on youtube now... and it was blown out of proportion... but this is the Left's Fox news, so you all will refuse to acknowledge that

    The new Gallup Poll (none / 0) (#222)
    by Raheem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    Wrong about Wright? (none / 0) (#224)
    by bwv on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:42:40 PM EST
    I am totally disgusted.  I just learned of a blog about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church called http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com and I feel as though I can no longer trust my favorite news sources CNN and MSNBC.  Apparently the endless loop of hate from Rev. Wright was a quote from a white US Ambassador named Peck and the rest of the sermon was logical, and get this loving sermon (albeit passionate).  I am so disgusted with American media, I expect this from Fox, but not CNN and MSNBC.  I now, actually feel sorry for Rev. Wright, he is being dumped on for purely political gain.  Somehow, I don't think God is going to like this.  

    Please visit http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/ and you will probably feel as disgusted as I do, I feel responsible for helping to get the truth out!

    Glad u you see it now (none / 0) (#225)
    by Raheem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    Too bad the media refuses to hold themselves accountable...

    the sad this is, they are just going to turn the heat on Hillary instead of admitting their error... even tho Im an Obama supporter, 2 wrongs do not make a right

    The Audacity of Truth (none / 0) (#226)
    by mjkoch on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    I found Pastor Wright's comment's distasteful and his embrace of Louis Farrakhan abhorrent. That said, trying to belittle the anger of black Americans is not only misguided, it is wrong. The worst evil the world has faced was the Nazis in World War II. Black soldiers fought and gave their lives but were not allowed to stay in the same barracks with white soldiers and were treated like third-class citizens at best. Yet, when they died, their blood was no different from their white counterparts'. They returned home to water fountains they were not allowed to drink from, restaurants they were not allowed to eat in, and had to sit in the back of the bus.

    The Tuskegee episode had the American government using blacks as experimental guinea pigs. While I, too, find accusations of the government manufacturing the HIV virus to murder blacks outrageous, any black American that was taught about the Tuskegee disgrace has reason to doubt their government. Voter suppression of blacks was rampant and even as recently as the 2000 election for President there were allegations of attempts to turn away black voters. The entire world saw black bodies floating down the flooded streets of New Orleans as the federal government stood by and did nothing while the Black neighborhoods of New Orleans were destroyed. Today, in 2008, black men are still stopped at random by policemen for the sole reason they are black. A black man trying to catch a taxi in most major cities in America has a less than 50 percent chance the taxi will stop for him.

    Yes, I abhor what Reverend Wright says. I am white and I am Jewish, but I still can understand his anger and the anger and doubts of most black Americans. We can criticize him all we want for hating us, but history shows his animosity is most definitely not make believe. There were wrongs that were righted and wrongs and injustice that still must be righted, but we do our country a great disservice by dismissing everything the man said as ranting and raving. We cannot move forward if we cannot understand our past, and we must embrace one another as equals and treat one another as we would like others to treat us.

    MJKOCH (none / 0) (#227)
    by Raheem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    Listen to the whole sermon by Rev. Wright... if you abhor his comments, than you are anti-America... he protested our foreign policy and treatment of minorities... and questioned the government... nothing was really wrong with his comments... dont let the media fool you