True enough, not so far. I believe it did start to hurt him in Ohio, however, which he lost. It’s cumulative. And there will be more.
Blind Faith on these boards is a risky proposition.
((aaaahhh)) That was wonderfully cathartic 
Pelosi’s views. With enough scandals that have yet to ever be tested in a national context like a general election piled up to the stars, the superdelegates aren’t all going to switch to Obama. They’ll go for Hillary, Pelosi or not. They want to win.
That’s fine.
I’ll point out that you entered this thread with insulting generalizations about Obama supporters and continued with them when I tried to respond civilly. You accused his supporters of blindly following rather than thinking while you repeated the same ole crap we hear from a lot of other sources as if it was careful analysis. You may recall I’m not the only one who noticed.
Now that you’ve managed to tone down your dialog I’ve tried to ask some serious questions and give you the opportunity to explain and express your views. If you’d rather not that’s up to you.
Once again, I entered with a political view. You personalized and individualized your responses against me – go away, come back when you have something to say, etc. I didn’t tone anything down, you started up and have now switched gears after launching personal, dismissive attacks that were about me individually and not about Hillary supporters as a group as mine were about Obama supporters. There’s a difference.
So let’s not pretend you replied in a civil manner.
You also aren’t the master of ceremonies that “affords” others the “opportunity” to express and explain their views. Get over yourself.
I don’t want to participate in hijacking another thread so if you feel the need to get the last word, send me a private message instead of replying here.
I fail to see your rationale…Could you perhaps give us a cite so we could continue cordially? You do know the supergelegates have nothing to do with the general election right? They’ll go for Hillary, They want to win??? Are you looking at any news outlets? Or are you posting on blind faith like I mentioned earler.
Aside: Cosmosdan - is this even worth discussing with 9th floor? Because all I am seeing are blind rationalizations and nothing with any legs made of sustance…just straw.
You mean we can’t continue cordially without a cite? I know you fail to see my rationale. And I, likely, fail to see yours. Mine are straw, etc., etc.
Of course the superdelegates have everything to do with the general election. They decide who is going to GO to the general election from their party in this particular case where it’s going to go to the floor of the convention with, likely, Obama with a majority of delegates and Hillary with the popular vote after Michigan and Florida are re-voted. Looking at those two candidates, with two competing philosophies as to what should motivate the superdelegates to vote for each of them (delegates/conscience, electability, popular vote, etc.) a decision will be made.
Given that the superdelegates want their candidate to win against McCain in the general election, they will likely vote in a majority for the candidate that they best believe can do that no matter the delegate count.
By the time Denver comes, I believe there will be more Obama scandals, triplespeak examples like NAFTA and Iraq and Rezko and Wright and that given the fact that Hillary will have the popular vote by then and given the fact that the Dems are in many ways still sore over the fact that Gore had the presidency swiped from him even though he had the popular vote (and yes, I know the superdelegates didn’t have anything to do with that – my point is that the notion of giving a nomination OR election to the person without the popular vote in any context smells bad to many), they will vote for Hillary.
I think the longer this goes the more like a shallow and flaky candidate Obama appears especially now that the right has started to unload on him hard and fast and repeatedly and from all sides. Republicans that switched to vote in Texas for Hillary helped put her over the top in the popular vote. Ironically, I think they now see her as their firewall against an Obama presidency so that will help to get her the coming states that will contribute towards her narrowing the delegate count and overcoming the popular vote lead.
Let’s hope nothing in the above expressions of my views are understood as a personal attack against you. They aren’t.
I see. I understand your points now. I see they were not attacks. I don’t agree with your scenerio for how the rest will play out, but that’s ok too. Personally, I see the way Clinton has run her campaign into the ground as a precursor to how she will run a presidency, a lot of Democratic Muckety-Mucks see it too and are not voting for HRC, they are in fact turning towards Obama. If you’d like to overlook all that and think Scandels are going to ruin a very well run campaign that’s fine too. I don’t need to attack anyones views…I just prefer people are informed with facts when debating…I’m referring to others on this board not yourself 9th floor.
A. There’s absolutely no guarantee that Michigan and Florida will get do-overs, and I personally think it’s rather unlikely. B. There is also no guarantee that the results will favor Clinton, much less that they will be similar to the first try. Hint: If there is only one entrant in the primary, the vote probably isn’t going to reflect how people feel about the other people in the race.
When you enter a thread that obviously contains Obama supporters and make broad insulting generalizations about Obama supporters you might expect someone to take it a little personal. I don’t consider that a political view any more than I would if someone said Hillary supporters are stupid.
When I tried to make a point your response was more sarcastic dismissal directly to me in post 138 and to prattle on about things I never mentioned. So yes, my first response to you was civil to which you replied with continued sarcastic insults against Obama supporters in general and me in particular.
I am aware that I have no authority at all in this forum. I was expressing an opinion about your posts and returning sarcasm for sarcasm. I briefly entertained the thought that we got off to a bad start so I asked you some serious questions. Since we’re in GD I thought that was more to the point of this forum. If you’re not interested in that NP.
I don’t want to hijack the thread either so I’ll drop the matter here.
Thank you. In fact, I do think that HRCs presidency would be one headache after another in terms of mini scandals and I agree many are turning towards Obama at least partly on the anyone-but-her basis.
As for me, Obama has turned me into an anyone-but-him voter and I will vote for McCain over him (by the way a Pew poll showed twice as many HRC supporters going to Mac in the general if Obama is the nom. than Obama supporters doing the same if HRC is the nominee).
I believe I see through him and he seems like a nice guy that shouldn’t be POTUS yet. His campaign is in fact well run so far and run by largely Clinton campaign folks from Bills elections. Bill has apparently only recently started to have influence over HRCs campaign after Doyle left and I think the tide will slowly turn to a neck and neck lockdown at best/worst at the convention and depending on the scandal du jour at that time that will be largely decisive (like a gay sex thing that is actually credible or some such jawdropper) given that HRCs negatives are already figured in to polls against McCain and its not her first time at the rodeo. She can survive attacks and villification.
I don’t think he can.
Yeah, and I tell you what, it’s one hell of a ride isn’t it? My sister is a staunch Clinton Supporter and we get in our quibbles. She wouldn’t be devastated with an Obama presidency, as much as she would a McCain presidency. She and I feel like it’s better to have a democrat in there than another republican. By in large I agree. I feel Obama is young, but I feel he is very smart - and someone that will bring not drastic change, but enough of a facelift to make a difference.
To be honest, I just want a democrat in there. It’s going to be tough for Clinton or Obama after Denver, because the amount their campaigns are fighting amongst each other is not good for a party. I think that’s what Pelosi was saying more than anything in that link I posted upthread. No that Obama would be better necessarily, but that he has the momentum right now and we need to back someone soon.
Perhaps this whole thing with Wright will damage Obama irreparably - I’m having a hard time seeing it being irreparable, because I am intimately involved with his campaign in CT, and two of the people in my and my wifes circle of friends happen to be Superdelegates from southeastern Connecticut. I spoke to one of them about it and he’s confident this is a normal trip-up in a campaign roughly equivalent to some of the fodder happening in Clinton’s camp. Not a deal breaker but not the best of times either. About Obama’s win in Texas caucuses and his subsequent gain in pledged delegates. It’s a tough mountain to climb for Clinton. Insurmountable? No, but it would take a lot of dealings and it most likely wouldn’t happen before Denver. Either way 9th floor this will be a nail-biter.
What’s also interesting is the opinions I’ve heard from my friends (most of which are black) that vary from racial pride to a disgust at what’s perceived as racial groupthink. I think if Hillary started to reverse that vote to any degree, that would be significant politically as well and I’m hoping so.
We definitely have our squabbles with my friends but they’re slanderously over the top as jokes in order to keep it light. I find this whole thing exciting but also disheartening; particularly the willingness of so many to paint Hillary as an evil monster. That comment wasn’t the bizarre aberration of one person, it really is a point of view that’s out there that I think is not entirely earned but is an easy categorical concept that can be easy to but into.
I also have a fundamental cynicism about the notion that unity is better than fighting the good fight.
Obviously, the Obama side doesn’t believe theres never a time to fight but they do speak more along the lines of unity and I find that seductive and dangerous and ultimately either naïve or uber-cynical LOL Not sure which.
I just love that she can keep coming back everytime they say stick a fork in her. We’ll see.
Obama’s Minister Committed “Treason” but When my Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
by Frank Schaeffer March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST)
No kidding.
Oh, and the general will be a fight, not a unityfest. Obama is hoping to build a new coalition of positive thinkers while HRC seems to know it takes a 50+1 approach to win in the end. I think Obama inspires those parts of ourselves that hope against hope in resolutions to intractable conflicts and quasiutopian scenarios. I think its touching but I think its fiction.
We’ll see how this plays out. The worst thing for Dems would be for Obama’s appeal on that basis to start to sputter midway thru the general or after he became POTUS.
If theres one thing we know for sure, everything fades and becomes uncool and unpopular eventually.
So…both those right wing preachers and Wright are both wrong, or both right?
Theres enough hypocrisy to go around.
A fiery black preacher screaming nigger from the pulpit alongside god damn America in support of a technicallly black candidate isn’t going to play the same as the right wing denouncing the USA as godless for gays and abortion.
It won’t play well. Is that unfair? Perhaps, but its also additionally scandalous in that his candidate claims to feel the opposite…and yet puts him on the advisory board for his campaign while denouncing select statements. It reeks of wanting to have it both ways.
Reagan was pro-life. There’s less of a contradiction between Reagan and those fire brimstone preachers than Obama as he holds himself out and Wright.
Again, perhaps unfairly so. But nonetheless, not good for Obama.
Wow!! That’s a great article fopr putting things in perspective. Thanks for sharing, Thanks a lot.
Oh, they probably already have it but please forward it to the Obama campaign.
If I may be so clever, I’d say they were both.
What that does is put any sort of attack from the right in its proper perspective. Should Obama make the general, this would make the usage of the Wright avenue of attack at best a zero sum game and at worst give the appearance of hatred being acceptable from one side and not the other.
Of course, it matters little at this stage unless Hillary has sought out endorsements or encouragement from religious figures with beliefs similar to those listed in the article.
I’d like to know if any of the talking heads that have been playing Wright clips over and over have mentioned any of this or discussed this article. IMO this is the type of thing the media should be pointing out and giving as much air time as they did the clips. Let’s see if they do.
There was some mention on Huffpost of McCain’s spiritual adviser making outrageous statements about a war with Islam that scared me a hell of a lot more than Wright did. Did any of the talking heads mention that to contrast what Wright said?