The Yes We CAG Movement - Now to win the Presidency!

[quote name='thrustbucket']Actually I'm pretty biased when it comes to this subject. I'm very opposed to any religious leader or preacher discussing or advising politics over the pulpit. It's morally wrong in my book.

A religious leader should simply advise their congregation to read about candidates, compare them to scripture, and pray about them.

As soon as any preacher starts praising or decrying a candidate or discussing political issues, I am disgusted.

And I don't think they should get to keep their tax exempt status if they do. (What's taxes on 22,000 dollars?)[/quote]As someone who will be a pastor in about 2 months, can I simply say:

AMEN

More than anything that man said, his use of the pulpit for political manipulation disgusted me. Believe it or not, the Bible doesn't support any candidate over and against another! Shocking!!
 
[quote name='daroga']As someone who will be a pastor in about 2 months, can I simply say:

AMEN

More than anything that man said, his use of the pulpit for political manipulation disgusted me. Believe it or not, the Bible doesn't support any candidate over and against another! Shocking!![/quote]

While I strongly agree with you both in principle, and am a passionate advocate of strong separations between church and state, the reality of the country we live in is that religion and politics are inextricably linked for most Americans (and most politicians). My sister-in-law has said, flat-out, that she will never vote for someone who isn't born again. And that's her right. But it demonstrates the difficulty in reminding Americans of the principles this country was founded on, i.e., a clear wall between worship and government. We have a hard enough time reminding folks that Christianity isn't the official religion of the U.S.A.
 
[quote name='Tybee']While I strongly agree with you both in principle, and am a passionate advocate of strong separations between church and state, the reality of the country we live in is that religion and politics are inextricably linked for most Americans (and most politicians). My sister-in-law has said, flat-out, that she will never vote for someone who isn't born again. And that's her right. But it demonstrates the difficulty in reminding Americans of the principles this country was founded on, i.e., a clear wall between worship and government. We have a hard enough time reminding folks that Christianity isn't the official religion of the U.S.A.[/quote]Very true. My point is not that religious thought shouldn't influence your voting. Rather, the leaders of a church have to not bind the conscience of their members using their authority (presumed or otherwise). As a result, I think religious leaders need to play their political cards pretty close to their chest.

It's unfortunate, but as a result of that office, the implication can be "voting for who/what pastor votes for is right; voting the opposite way is wrong" which, 99.9% of the time is wholly wrong. I'd hesitate to even mention to a member my political thoughts; never, ever ever ever ever would I verbally endorse a candidate from the pulpit. Rather, as TB said, direct them to their own personal thoughts, opinions, and see if Scripture might weigh in on an aspect of it.

Using the pulpit to do what this man did and espouse purely-political ideas is, at best, irresponsible.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ruined you can keep repeating yourself all you wish but you are deluding yourself if you think this is going to be a major factor in the long run.[/quote]

Oh, come now, people will be talking about this for 7 more months, right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ruined you can keep repeating yourself all you wish but you are deluding yourself if you think this is going to be a major factor in the long run.[/QUOTE]

I guess we'll see in the end by virtue if Obama is president of the USA by later this year. Personally I just don't think this sort of thing will just go away. People will have it in the back of their minds when they step in the voting booth, and I think it will have a real impact on which way they pull the trigger. We'll see, but I know from this point onward I will look at Obama in a very different light than I did originally regardless of what he says; you just can't explain away this sort of thing. Even in his new speech he basically agrees with the pastor on some points and does not disavow him, which is crap IMO.

I believe that racism will never go away unless everyone in the world becomes the same race - for a simple reason. Speaking from a psychological standpoint, we are more comfortable with those who are most similar to us - which includes factors such as race among other things (religion, ethnicity, upbringing ,etc). Therefore, on some level we are all a little racist - and I believe those who think they have conditioned this out of themselves are simply fooling themselves. However, on the other hand the hateful tirades that this pastor goes on are very racist IMO and will only serve to make that little bit of division we are conditioned with a whole lot bigger. So, I see it as not only counterproductive but destructive towards racial harmony. For us all to get along, we need to realize that we will always be a little racist and that this concept is okay; again, being more comfortable with those who are most like us - something that has been proven in many psychological studies and very much a natural process. We feel most safe with what we are used to. But we have to stop digging up the past and beating a dead horse otherwise that little bit of division gets inflamed into a whole lot more division, and the problem of harmful/severe racism persists on both sides.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Personally I just don't think this sort of thing will just go away. People will have it in the back of their minds when they step in the voting booth, and I think it will have a real impact on which way they pull the trigger. [/quote]

Do you think the massive recession the Fed is putting off by devaluing our currency will have any impact on how people vote?

I mean, McCain says he doesn't understand economics ...
 
[quote name='Ruined']I guess we'll see in the end by virtue if Obama is president of the USA by later this year. Personally I just don't think this sort of thing will just go away. People will have it in the back of their minds when they step in the voting booth, and I think it will have a real impact on which way they pull the trigger. We'll see, but I know from this point onward I will look at Obama in a very different light than I did originally regardless of what he says; you just can't explain away this sort of thing.[/quote]

For you to be right, two things would have to be true:

1) A majority of Americans will have to be Chicken Littles like you.

2) McCain and/or Hillary will have to go another 8 months without having any of the many skeletons in their closet introduced into the world.

Neither seems likely.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In other words, you believe in racism, yet deny hegemony?[/QUOTE]

Again, the term "racism" has many levels. You can have someone from the KKK who is very racist. Then, you might have someone else who, if only subconsciously, feels most at-ease or trusts the most with people who look the most like them. Both are making judgments based solely on race. The former, however, will obviously be much more interested in hegemony than the latter. So I think you can be just a tiny bit racist while not being a bad person, because in a way we are naturally conditioned to be just a tiny bit racist. This will only go away if everyone in the world becomes the same race, because then we will all be used to the same race, essentially. This might actually happen in the USA with our blend of cultures, for instance, however even if this is the case a person from the USA may then feel less "at ease" with someone of a different race from another country, so globally the issue of racism will persist.

I think we can work to the point where we can agree that there will always be division due to human nature, yet realize that we are still all human beings of equal potential and hence equal opportunity - eliminating hegemony. That is not going to happen, however, when a pastor goes on very racist tirades making broad and disgusting generalizations that angers people on both sides and drives the stake of division far deeper than it was in the first place.
 
[quote name='Tybee']For you to be right, two things would have to be true:

1) A majority of Americans will have to be Chicken Littles like you.[/quote]

You are very much minimizing the impact this turn of events has caused. Take a look at the politics news. All it has been for the past week is Obama's pastor, Obama's pastor, Obama's pastor to the point where Obama was forced to make a speech about it in an attempt to stop the negative perceptions. The damage has been done, though, because in this case Obama - based on his past speeches - ends up looking like just another typical hypocritical politician no matter what he says. Like I've said before, IMO the words were too strong to spin out of and I think quite a few people have lost trust in Obama as a result. Pretending I'm the only one talking about it is just that, pretending - nearly every news site has 1-3 news stories on Obama and his pastor in the top politics news stories.

2) McCain and/or Hillary will have to go another 8 months without having any of the many skeletons in their closet introduced into the world.

Neither seems likely.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure they will get their fair share, too. The question is, will whatever is dragged out of the closet for them be more severe than the damage done by the Obama/pastor incident and the future damage that will be done by keeping it fresh in the minds of voters through the use of future 527 attack ads?
 
Two points:

1) I am a firm believer that "race" is a wholly social construct. "Black" is one that we tend to consider universally biological, yet here we have a presidential candidate who, while there may be debate over whether or not he is "black," what is telling is the conversation we are not having at all: is he "white"? The development of "white" persons over time, the historical exclusion of, say, Irish and Italians (just to name a few - I'm sure Scandinavians had a tough time early on in US history), is telling also. Short story long, even in the long-off-in-the-future "we're all a mixture of races" scenario, there will undoubtedly be biological markers that folks use to foster socially-constructed, yet wholly believed to be genuinely meaningful, "racial" categories. Y'ever see that 1950's/60's instructional video where a teacher segregates her classroom by hair and eye color?

2) I think you're vastly overstating Wright's power by claiming he's driving racial divides "far deeper than it was in the first place." If not, then you are very misinformed about social/economic mobility and achievement differences by racial categories in the first place (which I'm not saying is bad on you, as very few people know that sort of information - me? It's in my field). Looking solely by achievement differences, we can come to one of two possible conclusions:
a) Blacks are, on the whole, inferior to whites
b) The perpetuation of racism at the individual and institutional level against blacks is more than alive and kicking; moreover, it's so "under the radar" as to be very difficult to identify when it happens (this is a product of the 1970's/80's "colorblind" ideology, IMO).
c) Achievement lags since the passage of the civil rights act 41 years ago are still struggling to take root, and we just need more patience.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Two points:

1) I am a firm believer that "race" is a wholly social construct. "Black" is one that we tend to consider universally biological, yet here we have a presidential candidate who, while there may be debate over whether or not he is "black," what is telling is the conversation we are not having at all: is he "white"? The development of "white" persons over time, the historical exclusion of, say, Irish and Italians (just to name a few - I'm sure Scandinavians had a tough time early on in US history), is telling also. Short story long, even in the long-off-in-the-future "we're all a mixture of races" scenario, there will undoubtedly be biological markers that folks use to foster socially-constructed, yet wholly believed to be genuinely meaningful, "racial" categories. Y'ever see that 1950's/60's instructional video where a teacher segregates her classroom by hair and eye color?[/quote]

I don't think this necessarily disagrees with what I stated above in my first point, either. So I think we actually agree in some places here.

2) I think you're vastly overstating Wright's power by claiming he's driving racial divides "far deeper than it was in the first place." If not, then you are very misinformed about social/economic mobility and achievement differences by racial categories in the first place (which I'm not saying is bad on you, as very few people know that sort of information - me? It's in my field). Looking solely by achievement differences, we can come to one of two possible conclusions:
a) Blacks are, on the whole, inferior to whites
b) The perpetuation of racism at the individual and institutional level against blacks is more than alive and kicking; moreover, it's so "under the radar" as to be very difficult to identify when it happens (this is a product of the 1970's/80's "colorblind" ideology, IMO).
c) Achievement lags since the passage of the civil rights act 41 years ago are still struggling to take root, and we just need more patience.
Click to expand...

I think it may be a combination of factors, but I don't believe it is necessarily anyone's "fault" or that many people today are actively attempting to discriminate in a large way. Some things may require an overhaul, such as achievement tests that were normed only on a singular race. However, things like that take time to identify as faulty, re-engineer, re-test, and re-release. It may very well be more difficult for some races to "succeed" in certain areas than others. But that does not give one race the right to purposely penalize, unfairly judge, generalize, or otherwise attack another race because of this. All that is doing is prolonging racism, because the very act of doing that is racist. I believe over time remnants of racism will naturally recede as things naturally progress (Obama being the lead dem candidate with whites voting for him over Hillary is an example of this), however pastor's such as Obama are most definitely prolonging the time it will take for that to happen - as the words create anger in both races and hence both races become more distrusting/fearful of the other race than they were to begin with which again is inciting the racism we are trying to extinguish!

Its relatively simply IMO. You can't instigate anger and promote racist views in an attempt to reduce racism. Stuff like the "USKKKA" is baloney. The KKK is a joke these days, that's like me saying the USBlackPanthersA. Both are a falsity and FUD that will prolong the concept that you are at "war" with the other race and that the other race as a whole is trying to harm you in some way. Which is collectively a bunch of bull. We are nowhere near perfect, but that sort of rhetoric moves us backwards, not forwards for obvious reasons IMO.

We need to recognize our differences while similarly recognizing our equal potential - and realize that re-balancing what was originally a very racist society to meet that ideal will take many, many years - but may not necessarily requiring some sweeping change, just time for people to grow and re-learn things. That will be the key to solving harmful effects of racism, not shock-and-awe-the-other-race-is-evil-and-out-to-get-you-so-you-should-fear-and-hate-them tactics.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I don't think this necessarily disagrees with what I stated above in my first point, either. So I think we actually agree in some places here.



I think it may be a combination of factors, but I don't believe it is necessarily anyone's "fault" or that many people today are actively attempting to discriminate in a large way. Some things may require an overhaul, such as achievement tests that were normed only on a singular race. However, things like that take time to identify as faulty, re-engineer, re-test, and re-release. It may very well be more difficult for some races to "succeed" in certain areas than others. But that does not give one race the right to purposely penalize, unfairly judge, generalize, or otherwise attack another race because of this. All that is doing is prolonging racism, because the very act of doing that is racist. I believe over time remnants of racism will naturally recede as things naturally progress (Obama being the lead dem candidate with whites voting for him over Hillary is an example of this), however pastor's such as Obama are most definitely prolonging the time it will take for that to happen - as the words create anger in both races and hence both races become more distrusting/fearful of the other race than they were to begin with which again is inciting the racism we are trying to extinguish!

Its relatively simply IMO. You can't instigate anger and promote racist views in an attempt to reduce racism. Stuff like the "USKKKA" is baloney. The KKK is a joke these days, that's like me saying the USBlackPanthersA. Both are a falsity and FUD that will prolong the concept that you are at "war" with the other race and that the other race as a whole is trying to harm you in some way. Which is collectively a bunch of bull. We are nowhere near perfect, but that sort of rhetoric moves us backwards, not forwards for obvious reasons IMO.

We need to recognize our differences while similarly recognizing our equal potential - and realize that re-balancing what was originally a very racist society to meet that ideal will take many, many years - but may not necessarily requiring some sweeping change, just time for people to grow and re-learn things. That will be the key to solving harmful effects of racism, not shock-and-awe-the-other-race-is-evil-and-out-to-get-you-so-you-should-fear-and-hate-them tactics.[/quote]

You know, occasionally you make a salient point, and I can almost respect where you're coming from (even if I would never agree with you). But then I get down to the bottom your post and see your sig and I see you for what you truly are: an apologist for all the scared closet racists out there who think just because they're not burning crosses or have some friends of color that they're on the right side of history, all the while trying to minimize and explain away their own petty fears and prejudices with what essentially boils down to, "Well EVERYONE feels this way, so it's okay. Don't rock the boat. We'll get there. Maybe when everyone's the same race....or something."

I say fuck your boat. Better get ready to swim, because your kind is no longer welcome.
 
[quote name='Tybee']You know, occasionally you make a salient point, and I can almost respect where you're coming from (even if I would never agree with you). But then I get down to the bottom your post and see your sig and I see you for what you truly are: an apologist for all the scared closet racists out there who think just because they're not burning crosses or have some friends of color that they're on the right side of history, all the while trying to minimize and explain away their own petty fears and prejudices with what essentially boils down to, "Well EVERYONE feels this way, so it's okay. Don't rock the boat. We'll get there. Maybe when everyone's the same race....or something."

I say fuck your boat. Better get ready to swim, because your kind is no longer welcome.[/QUOTE]

Wow calm down dude. You do realize that America is pretty much the most tolerant country in the world when it's all said and done? Travel anywhere else in the world, even most European countries, and you'll find that most of them are much more racist. America leads in this respect. If you didn't get most of your information from the dailykos.com and moveon.org, maybe you'd realize this more easily.

Can we do better? Always. Ruined isn't saying otherwise. He isn't excusing anything. He's simply saying that rather than focusing on entitlement, victim grandstanding and reparations, maybe we should focus on the changes we as a people have already made, and encourage more of the same changes through culture - instead of depending on politics and government to force changes.

You really went too far with this post, putting words into Ruined's mouth, which seems to be the favorite tactic for the left. It must be an entire chapter in those lefty critical thinking brainwash college courses taught by grown up hippies that permeate our educational system now.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You keep fighting those strawmen thrust, maybe one day you will win a fight with one.[/QUOTE]

Your admitting your a strawman? Well... I can't be blamed for saying it then....:applause:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You are admitting you are a strawman? Well... I can't be blamed for saying it then.[/QUOTE]

2/10 You could at least try.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Wow calm down dude. You do realize that America is pretty much the most tolerant country in the world when it's all said and done? Travel anywhere else in the world, even most European countries, and you'll find that most of them are much more racist. America leads in this respect. If you didn't get most of your information from the dailykos.com and moveon.org, maybe you'd realize this more easily.[/quote]



i would have to disagree with you there, We are much more Racist, they are more likely to judge you on your Ethnic background than your race.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i would have to disagree with you there, We are much more Racist, they are more likely to judge you on your Ethnic background than your race.[/QUOTE]

If by ethnic backgroud you mean nationality, perhaps.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i would have to disagree with you there, We are much more Racist, they are more likely to judge you on your Ethnic background than your race.[/QUOTE]

Go to any country in Asia and ask random people about what they feel about black people (and women).
Go to Japan and talk to people enough to understand how racism is basically built into their national identity.
Pick any 3 Eastern European countries, and randomly ask them how they feel about Arabs or Blacks.
Go to Scandanavia or Western Europe and ask random people how they feel about devoutly religious people.
Go to the middle east and ask random citizens how they feel about Jews or Gays and watch how they treat women.

Then for the last leg of your trip, go to any 3 African countries and talk to the average citizen about how they feel about other neighboring tribes.

I think after your journey you would not have the same opinion. As far as bigotry goes, America isn't so bad..... comparatively.

America, unlike almost all other countries, was created by the massive influx of many groups, religious, racial, and ethnic. And despite our rocky start and problems, I think that has contributed to us being the most tolerant of all nations, generally speaking.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think after your journey you would not have the same opinion. As far as bigotry goes, America isn't so bad..... comparatively.

America, unlike almost all other countries, was created by the massive influx of many groups, religious, racial, and ethnic. And despite our rocky start and problems, I think that has contributed to us being the most tolerant of all nations, generally speaking.[/quote]

It may disturb you to know that you basically just articulated a central tenet of the speech Obama gave yesterday.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I vote we allow ruined to live in his little fantasy world where this actually matters.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Seconded.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Thirded.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Ruined you can keep repeating yourself all you wish but you are deluding yourself if you think this is going to be a major factor in the long run.[/QUOTE]


Uh oh, looks like MSNBC and Reuters/Zogby are living in a delusional fantasy world, too!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23707924/
Obama's lead over Clinton narrows
Obama leads Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent in Reuters/Zogby poll

updated 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.

Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.
Click to expand...

The poll showed Obama continues to have strong support from the African-American community but that he is experiencing some slippage among moderates and independents.

Among independents, McCain led for the first time in the poll, 46 percent to 36 percent over Obama.

He was behind McCain by 21 percent among white voters.

Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.
Click to expand...

You were saying?
 
[quote name='Tybee']It may disturb you to know that you basically just articulated a central tenet of the speech Obama gave yesterday.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't. I thought I made that clear in a post yesterday, that his central message about his pastor echoed what I'd been saying, which, ironically enough, mykevermin and others were arguing against.
 
[quote name='Ruined']You were saying?[/QUOTE]

What I said still stands, you are being completely irrational if you think this is going to be a big factor a few months or even weeks from now.
 
Oy! I'm glad Ruined switched from a Pennsylvania poll to a national poll.

Let's review:

Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.

Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.

Do you notice the use of the word "and" before the beginning of the italicized text?

Also, am I reading this right?

Somebody (MSM?) says the loss of support is due to Commander in Chief fitness and Wright's sermons.

The pollster says the loss of support is due to the Ohio primary and Wright's sermons.

The somebody and the pollster don't agree on the exact causes of Obama'a loss of support except Wright's sermons.

Is that correct so far?

Do either Somebody or Zogby determine which cause (of the 3 given collectively) is more important?
 
[quote name='Ruined']You were saying?[/quote]

Yup. I was saying. And I still am saying that this flavor-of-the-week story will be about as current as Pearl Harbor a week from now, not to mention by the time the Pennsylvania primary actually takes place, and beyond. In fact, by it coming out now and being masterfully and elegantly addressed in Obama's speech yesterday (which yesterday's polls do not take into account), it effectively takes race off the table as an overt or covert justification of Obama's un-electability in the general election.

Meanwhile, John McCain, the candidate of experience who said recently to the WSJ, “I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated,” demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, or Iran and al-Qaida.

The point is, in today's 24-hour news cycle, there will be a lot more opportunities between now and November for all of the candidates to further alienate or win over the American people. To suggest that the events of this week somehow represent "GAME OVER" in any way shape or form only shows your political naivety.
 
First Guitar Hero, now this. Mike Huckabee is siding with Obama on the Wright issue. And he's not only defending Obama, but Wright as well. Some highlights:

On Obama's speech:
... I think that, you know, Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it’s a very historic speech. ... And I thought he handled it very, very well.
Click to expand...
And on the Rev. Wright:
... One other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would, too. I probably would, too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Tybee']
Meanwhile, John McCain, the candidate of experience who said recently to the WSJ, “I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated,” demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, or Iran and al-Qaida.[/quote]



McCain said the same thing this week on conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt's radio show: "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq."


its intentional bushspeak
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']McCain said the same thing this week on conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt's radio show: "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq."


its intentional bushspeak[/quote]

I keep waiting for one of them to be even more blunt than that and just say, "If you're brown and you live in the Middle East, look out."
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']McCain said the same thing this week on conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt's radio show: "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq."


its intentional bushspeak[/quote]

Yes, but now we can laugh at McCain.

Our collective stupidity needs some time to cool down before we believe Al Queda and Iran are in the same team.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What I said still stands, you are being completely irrational if you think this is going to be a big factor a few months or even weeks from now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, completely irrational. Obviously.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc

[quote name='Reuters 3/20/08']
Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

The poll was a snapshot of current popular feeling, but Clinton trails Obama in the state-by-state contest which began in January to select a nominee to face presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the November election to succeed President George W. Bush.

The nominees are formally chosen by delegates at the parties' conventions in the summer.

Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.

Gallup said polling data also showed McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant.[/quote]

Hmm, I wonder what the major event could have been to trigger Obama going from first right to last behind both Clinton and McCain in the polls in a matter of weeks???? ;)
 
[quote name='Ruined']Yes, completely irrational. Obviously.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc



Hmm, I wonder what the major event could have been to trigger Obama going from first right to last behind both Clinton and McCain in the polls in a matter of weeks???? ;)[/quote]

Polls are lovely and all, really they are (and again, I'm overlooking the fact that you're citing a poll that was completed well ahead of Obama's speech), but they aren't a substitute for hard numbers, and those numbers show clearly that Hillary is on the outs.

Front page of the NY Times this morning: Clinton Facing Narrower Path to the Nomination

And just in case that was a little too genteel for you, Slate gets down to brass tacks:

...All this being a long way of saying, Hillary’s path to the nomination is not “narrow.” It’s barricaded. Yet still there seems to be a hesitation among the media to declare Clinton dead. Maybe it’s her zombielike ability to rise again—first in New Hampshire, then in Nevada, then most recently in Texas and Ohio. But people have to understand there will be no knockout blow, no head shot. Rather it will be a long, slow exit that causes pain to everyone involved.

The question is, who is going to tell Hillary it’s over? Certainly not Bill. Certainly not her aides. Only the superdelegates matter. Given that, Gov. Philip Bredesen’s proposal for a superdelegate primary in June—a manufactured knockout blow—seems like a remarkably good idea.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Ruined']Yes, completely irrational. Obviously.[/QUOTE]

The faux outrage has already started to die down and Hillary is still not going to get the nomination unless she has some incredible tricks up her sleeve.

Who do you support anyway? Who was your ideal candidate and who do you support now Hillary or McCain?
 
[quote name='Msut77']The faux outrage has already started to die down[/quote]

O RLY?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/

[quote name='Associated Press 3/21/08']
Obama's minister's remarks won't fade
Reporters, talk-show hosts, keep asking about relationship to pastor

WASHINGTON - Even if Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides do not mention Barack Obama's fiery-tongued spiritual mentor, don't expect the Illinois senator's well-publicized speech Tuesday to make the controversy disappear, political strategists said this week.

Reporters, talk-show hosts and others will keep asking about Obama's close and long-standing relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose most bombastic comments came to dominate the Democratic presidential contest recently, the strategists predicted in interviews. In video clips playing on Internet sites, Wright can be heard arguing that HIV-AIDS was a U.S. government plot to wipe out "people of color," and that God should "damn" the United States for its racist policies.

Should Obama become the Democratic nominee, conservative activists are virtually certain to remind voters of Obama's ties to Wright, perhaps by using the videos in TV ads, several strategists said.[/quote]

Hillary is still not going to get the nomination unless she has some incredible tricks up her sleeve.
Click to expand...

If the Dem party thinks that the Obama/pastor outrage will be damaging enough to make Obama a less likely presidential election victor, I am guessing the superdelegates will put Hillary over the top.

Who do you support anyway? Who was your ideal candidate and who do you support now Hillary or McCain?
Click to expand...

Originally I liked McCain and Obama's platforms the most though I was undecided. Obama is a wonderful speaker. It is sad to see he is affiliated for 20+ years with a radical, racist, hateful, and kooky pastor - to the extent of putting him on his campaign. That has greatly tarnished Obama's image for me and makes him look like another spinning politician; I also think what has basically turned into a scandal also makes him a sure-bet loser for the presidential race. The 527s will go to town with the Wright/Obama videos swift-boat-vet style. So now I'd say I'm for McCain or Hillary but I think McCain has the edge for me due to his moderate policies and previous war experience.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I'd say I'm leaning McCain or Hillary but I think McCain has the edge for me due to his moderate policies and previous war experience.[/QUOTE]

You really want to stay in Iraq 100 years? Or go to war with Iran?

You do know McCain has repeatedly shown his ignorance about the situation in Iraq and the economy?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You really want to stay in Iraq 100 years? Or go to war with Iran?[/quote]

I'm not sure what the optimal Iraq/Iran response/plan is right now as I am not a military strategist with the inside info to make a proper decision. However when it comes down to it, McCain has real life war experience and Hillary does not. That gives McCain a significant edge IMO.

You do know McCain has repeatedly shown his ignorance about the situation in Iraq and the economy?
Click to expand...

I think McCain just speaks off the cuff more, while Hillary's remarks are more often prepared. I'm not sure who will do a better job with the economy, but in terms of the war McCain's real life war experience will at least give him a picture of what our soldiers are up against.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Originally I liked McCain and Obama's platforms the most though I was undecided.[/QUOTE]I've got to ask -- how is that? They don't have very similar platforms, I wonder how it can be down to the two of them based on platforms. I mean, I could understand if it were another reason to narrow down to the two of them...but platforms?
McCain
  • Pro-life
  • Supports War in Iraq
  • Supports restrictions on earmarks
  • Supports broad based tax cuts, including Bush tax cut continuance
  • Supports letting parents send their children to whichever local school they wish
  • Spells healthcare as two words
  • Supports health insurance purchasing across state lines, akin to car insurance
Obama
  • Pro-choice
  • Opposes War in Iraq
  • Supports restrictions on earmarks
  • Opposes Bush tax cuts
  • Supports federal grants for 0-5 year old pre-school
  • Spells health care as one word
  • Supports establishment of a national, federal healthcare system
The list of differences goes on.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ruined, could you possibly have less substance?[/QUOTE]

Hey you asked my opinion, I'm not going to go on a long-winded rant on a gaming bargains website :p
 
[quote name='Ruined']Hey you asked my opinion, I'm not going to go on a long-winded rant on a gaming forum :p[/QUOTE]

Whatever, you are using McCain's "experience" as an excuse for his complete ignorance of everything important.

I could tie this into a larger point about how about how substance and anything longer than a sound bite is anathema to some but why bother?
 
This one's for you, Ruined:

Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces

20clintonwright1.533.jpg


O NOES!!!!!! TEH SCANDAL!!!!
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ruined, could you possibly have less substance?[/quote]

You ask his opinion, then attack him again.

Focus the attack on the argument, not the man.

For example:

McCain doesn't understand the differences between Al Queda and Iran. He already has access to classified documents and he still doesn't get it. How do you flunk a test with the answer key in front of you?

McCain says he doesn't understand economics. Yeah, we need somebody who doesn't understand economics at the beginning of a recession just like Ray Charles made a better driver than Dale Earnhardt.

McCain speaks off the cuff. Do we want a president who'll tell Putin to go fuck himself?

McCain has more military experience than Hillary. Yeah, Bush has more military experience than Hillary, too. Being a good general is great for dictatorships, not so much for republics.

McCain also intends to die in office during his first term. Maybe he'll make GWB his VP so we can have another glorious 8 years of GWB.

McCain knows damn well he won't have to live with the consequences of his actions. Do you honestly want to elect somebody who can't be held accountable?

Isn't that a better critique, Msut?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top