BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 12:45 PM

There are a host of questions I'd like Hillary to have to answer. My current favorite is why she is taking money from a firm now under sexual harassment charges by over 100 women. And it's not Walmart---much smaller than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

What I want to ask her is why she has not openly considered Chongo as her running mate. He can pull in the entire primate vote. That would probably doom Obama's chances for good and all. Primates are sitting on the fence now, wondering which way to go, because Chongo has not given his official endorsement to either Hillary or Obama. He's making them both sweat it out and wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:20 PM

Obama and Grandma

Worth watching.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:49 PM

Can't Change America...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:51 PM

Life Long Republican ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8Sx1AEoGI

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:54 PM

Are ya ready?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:58 PM

Being proud of what's yours...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:02 PM

Rep. Lois Capps
2 hours, 29 minutes ago (APril 30 2008)



"Today, I am announcing my endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

This wasn't an easy decision for me. Democrats were blessed this year with many talented and capable candidates, and I believe both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama would make fine presidents. But Sen. Obama's proven judgment, his hopeful vision for America, and his unmatched ability to motivate millions of Americans eager for change made the choice for me.

I have enormous respect for Sen. Clinton. She is smart, dedicated and a champion of those often underserved and forgotten. She has a remarkable record of achievement that inspires us all. And her election would fulfill a life long dream for so many of us who have been fighting for women's rights. She would make a great president.

But for me, Barack Obama is the best choice.

There are a number of reasons I could cite. He has promoted smart policies to address our nation's greatest challenges. He was right on Iraq when so many were wrong. He speaks with an eloquence that most public officials can only dream of and is inspiring millions of Americans to reconnect with politics or connect for the first time. And he can win in November.

These are all true and good reasons, but I also believe Barack Obama is the better choice because of something larger and perhaps more important. Simply put, he has made a call to the better angels of our nature. He is challenging us to lift ourselves out of the ugliness that increasingly consumes Washington, where the heat of your argument counts for more than the light it should bring. He is asking us to stand together as Americans and transcend the traditional lines that have so often divided us by party affiliation, economic status, gender, or race. He is calling on us to rethink our approach to problem solving in the face of the enormous challenges facing our country, like Iraq, economic recession, global warming, record energy prices, and 47 million Americans without health insurance, to name just a few. I believe in his effort to put our country on a new path and want to help him make that happen.
..."


(Yahoo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:05 PM

"It may be that America will look back at this election and conclude that we owe a great debt to Rev. Wright. However painful the rebirth and perfection of a new 21st-century America may seem now, ultimately he may be the unheralded, indeed unpopular, "hero" who enabled us to reembark on a new journey of recovery for social justice, initiated earlier by Dr. King, the greatest moral leader in our country in the 20th century.

The millions of white people who have voted for Senator Obama in the democratic primaries may be telling us something that we are unable to "hear" and understand. They just might be saying, in spite of all of the negative media and a political pundits, the time has come when they want to finally cross over the bridge to a new 21st century based on a color/race-irrelevant and multiracial society. ..."

Clarence B. Jones is a former lawyer and draft speechwriter for Martin Luther King, Jr and author of What Would Martin Say?, published by Harper Collins. Currently he is a Scholar in Residence/Visiting Professor at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research & Education Institute at Stanford University.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:20 AM

May 01, 2008 7:19 AM

Joe Andrew was appointed to chair the Democratic National Committee in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

The youngest DNC chair ever endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential bid last year, saying, "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to compete and win across this country. I have seen up close her intellect, character, and fortitude, and I am convinced she is the best prepared to handle these challenging times. Her 35-year record fighting for America's families is as impressive as she is, and demonstrates why she will be a great President of the United States."

"Joe was a strong leader who put the Democratic Party on the right path,Ó Clinton said. "I'm honored to have his support."

Not so fast, senator.

Today Andrew, former chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, will announce he's switching to Sen. Barack Obama's camp, the AP reports.

In an Indianapolis press conference he will so in order to urge his "fellow superdelegates across the nation to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Barack Obama," as he writes in a letter he's sending to superdelegates."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 09:51 AM

April 30, 2008
Categories: Democrats

Limbaugh calls for restart to 'Operation Chaos'


A day after he called for a pause in his "Operation Chaos" plan to keep the Democratic primary going, Rush Limbaugh today opened up his show by urging his conservative listeners to keep up the hijinks.

"You are to go out and sustain the primary season by virtue of voting for Hillary Clinton," Limbaugh said.

On Tuesday, assessing Jeremiah Wright's appearance at the National Press Club and a new AP poll showing Hillary Clinton's strength against McCain, Limbaugh considered a change of course.

"My gut reaction here, after hearing Obama, was to issue orders changing directives, i.e., vote Obama in remaining primaries," Limbaugh said.

But, he continued, it would depend on how the "Drive-Bys" responded to Obama's response to Wright.

Today he said "the operational pause is now lifted."

To explain why he played a montage of clips from reporters and pundits praising Obama's press conference, in which different individuals used the words "courage" and "anguish."

"Operation Chaos is back at full speed," he reaffirmed.

If Clinton clips Obama in Indiana by under one-thousand votes and the race goes on, this may actually matter.

---

What a country, eh? One of the loudest mouths in the mindless-leaders community runs a campaign dedicated to distorting the American political process by getting people to lie in their voting, and the Republicans block the Fair Pay act, and the nation watches TV.

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 01:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama has a 7-point edge over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential race for Democrats in North Carolina, though she has closed in on his lead, a new survey finds.

Obama has 49 percent, compared with Clinton's 42 percent in the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. poll.

Obama has the support of 87 percent of black voters, while Clinton leads among whites with 62 percent. He also has the backing of younger voters; he leads Clinton 63-26 among voters under age 35. The two candidates almost split voters over 50.

By party registration, Obama led 48 percent to 43 percent among Democrats and 55-38 among independent or unaffiliated voters. Fifty-five percent said they were looking most for a candidate who "represents change and a new approach," while 36 percent said they wanted someone who "has the right experience."

The poll was conducted April 28-29 for WRAL-TV in Raleigh and WBTV in Charlotte. It included interviews with 400 likely Democratic primary voters, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

(AP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Washington Post

Obama's Misplay

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, May 1, 2008; Page A19

"That is just terrible, absolutely dreadful," a prominent supporter of Barack Obama said Monday morning after listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's screed at the National Press Club. He proposed to me that the presidential candidate at long last must denounce his former pastor, unequivocally and immediately. It took 28 hours after a tepid early reaction Monday, but Obama finally did it Tuesday afternoon.

Did that solve Obama's pastor problem? Leading Democrats certainly hope so, but they are not sure. His vulnerability transcends relations with a radical preacher. If Obama comes to be seen not as a presidential candidate who happens to be black but as a black candidate in the mold of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, he will face a difficult struggle in the general election against John McCain even if he bests Hillary Clinton.

The problem goes back to the reaction Obama and his strategist David Axelrod crafted about two months ago, when videos of Wright's racist sermons first circulated. Insisting that Wright's incendiary remarks had been taken out of context, Obama took the high road in delivering a widely praised speech on race March 18 in Philadelphia. The issue surfaced again, however, at the widely criticized April 16 Democratic debate, leading Obama to rule out further debates with Clinton. The Obama campaign thought the pastor problem had been put to bed until Wright went on his little road tour.

Obama's danger is being perceived by white voters as representing a hostile, separate culture. My friend Armstrong Williams, the African American conservative, told me, "It is not unusual to hear in many black churches the same language that Reverend Wright is being criticized for." I raised this with NPR reporter and Fox commentator Juan Williams (no relation to Armstrong). "Not at all," replied Williams, who also is African American. "It's ridiculous. I never have heard that in church."

Wright's demagoguery is so unusual in Juan Williams's view that it was necessary for Obama to separate himself from it two months ago. Instead of orating about race in America, Williams says, Obama should have repented as a "sinner" partaking of lies from the pulpit. It was a post-partisan, post-racial opportunity lost by the candidate.

Although the Obama camp feared the worst when Wright went on the road last weekend, the preacher was restrained during his first two stops. Bill Moyers (an ordained Baptist minister) was polite on his PBS program, and Wright reciprocated. He raised his level addressing an NAACP fundraiser in Detroit, but that performance was sufficiently restrained to win commendations even from Clinton supporters. Not until the question-and-answer period at the National Press Club did Wright go wild, playing to a raucous black audience.

Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC immediately after the press club spectacle, was visibly unhappy as she disavowed any responsibility for Wright. Soon after, while campaigning in Wilmington, N.C., Obama hardly seemed exercised about Wright, saying merely, "He does not speak for me." Advisers then urged the candidate to react more firmly.

He did so the next day, in Winston-Salem, N.C., calling Wright's performance "divisive and destructive." But Wright's anti-American slanders at the press club were only a repetition of sermons that had not aroused such a disavowal. The difference was that with every word Monday heard over national cable television, Obama no longer could slough off the preacher's words as having been taken out of context.

Over the past two years, Obama on occasion has appeared with Wright and praised him as a valued counselor and dear friend of the family. The title of his best-selling book "The Audacity of Hope" is from a Wright sermon. But Obama on Tuesday summarily dismissed the man who used to be his spiritual mentor as a "pastor," just as Wright had dismissed him as a "politician."

Nobody knows whether Obama's performance has damaged his candidacy permanently, but his supporters hope the issue is out of the news. The difficulty is that Jeremiah Wright, thrown under the bus by his former parishioner, can reemerge any time he wishes and renew discussion of the Democratic presidential front-runner's real identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:29 PM

Washington Post:

A Pastor's Influence

By David S. Broder
Thursday, May 1, 2008; Page A19

In his achingly slow steps toward repudiating the repugnant words of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama has run the risk of serious political damage by leaving vague what it was that attracted him to this outspoken critic of American society.

In the rational part of Wright's appearance Monday at the National Press Club, before he got to the self-justification and the denunciations of our government and the nation's values, Wright offered clues to the answer to that question. They came in the form of his succinct interpretation of the historic goals of the black church.

These can be boiled down, he said, to three words: liberation, transformation and reconciliation.

To Wright, liberation means more than opposing oppression in all its forms. It also encompasses freeing oneself from any feelings of inferiority or superiority and recognizing that "being different does not mean one is deficient."

Transformation, in his terms, is all-encompassing: "Changed lives, changed minds, changed laws, changed social orders and changed hearts in a changed world."

Reconciliation, he concluded, "means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us."

Anyone who has heard Obama's speeches in this campaign will recognize these three concepts as the roots of the senator's thinking and the guiding principles of his life.

Liberation explains the young Obama's decision to take his first job as a community organizer, helping poverty-stricken people on the South Side of Chicago, and similar efforts that have marked his work in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate.

Transformation is a fancy way of describing the need for radical change, not just in policies but in the fundamental premises of politics, as Obama has been advocating since the start of his campaign. As he says, until Washington is thoroughly changed, the challenges of the economy, health care and even foreign policy will not be met.

And reconciliation, as translated by Obama, means not only an appeal to move beyond partisanship in policy debates but explains his friendships with people such as Tom Coburn, the staunchly conservative senator from Oklahoma who is passionately antiabortion and strongly supporting John McCain.

From their very different religious backgrounds, Hillary Clinton and McCain share some, but not all, of these philosophical perspectives. But neither, so far as we know, has had a pastor who is nearly as controversial as Wright.

Once the question-and-answer period began at the press club, it became clear that -- for all the academic tone of his formal speech -- Wright was seething with resentments that overwhelmed any possibility of reconciliation.

The first question asked what Wright meant when he said, in a post-Sept. 11 sermon, that "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"Have you heard the whole sermon?" Wright shot back. "Have you heard the whole sermon?"

The moderator said she heard most of it.

"No, no. The whole sermon. That's -- yes or no? No, you haven't heard the whole sermon? That nullifies that question." It went steadily downhill from there, with Wright repeating or embellishing a litany of his most offensive statements, while insisting that the counterattacks on him were not a repudiation of himself but an assault on the black church.

The resulting furor confronted Obama with an issue he badly wanted to avoid as he struggles to defeat Clinton in Tuesday's Indiana primary, the latest test of his ability to win working-class and white votes.

So he came forward in successive news conferences, each one more sharply condemning his former minister and repudiating his words. In the final attempt, he called them "divisive and destructive" and signaled a complete break with Wright.

But he insisted that the preacher most Americans met through TV clips this past month was not the same man who brought him into Christianity 20 years ago. Voters who do not find that persuasive are not likely to accept Obama's current words as anything more than political positioning.

We do not know how destructive this association will be to Obama's chances. But as much as Obama may have found inspiration for his political views in Wright's sermons, the damage from their friendship has now been far greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 03:48 PM

There's a lot of noise-to-signal stuff on the Wright business, and I see no need to post it by the yard.

Essentially, Wright's ultimate misconduct cost him his friendship with Obama, for good and sufficient reason, and Obama stood up tot he issue and showed his mettle in doing what had to be done.

He tried, honorably, to distance himself from Wright's views without discounting the man, who has his own virtues. But when Wright forced the issue, Barack stood up and pushed back with integrity.

So, as far as I am concerned, he has demonstrated he has the spine to deal with issues honorably and decisively.

End of story.

That won't satisfy the wind-machines, of course, but...well, why listen to the wind?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 04:00 PM

Amos,

I intend to give Obama the same level of fairness and evenhanded quotes as YOU have demonstrated to be acceptable by your own post on the Bush administration. Sorry if you find that to be annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:37 PM

Don't worry, Reverend Wright will find some way to get his face back in front of the television cameras. He'll say anything he has to; truth means nothing to him. He is, after all, a preacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 May 08 - 07:29 PM

Riginslinger-

Why not take this a little further and suggest that Rev. Wright be crucified or lynched?

Hell, why not ALL preachers?

Well, just in case you can't figure that out, because that would be wrong.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 08 - 07:41 PM

Karma being what it is, Riginslinger will probably be a preacher in his next lifetime, railing against the "godless" in society and calling down Divine wrath upon all atheists... ;-)

Boy, I can just hear it now. LOL! He will make Reverend Wright sound wimpy in comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:27 PM

Well, Bruce, I am sure you feel I deserve that.

So far, however, I think you will find that Obama does not merit the kind of bashing I gave bush. He has not engaged in massive public deception, nor promulgated violence, nor lied about inequitable policies, nor publicly mispronounced words. He has demonstrated a higher moral fiber than Bush has.

So wait until he actually DOES something before you start tarring him with my Bush brush, for goodness sake!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:31 PM

Bush does not merit the kind of bashing you gave bush.


But YOU have set the standard of proof- so be careful what you complain about when Obama is criticized...

He gets full responsibility for his worker's missteps, and his own moral choices. The articles I have posted are nowhere near as biased as the ones YOU put up against Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:37 PM

OK, Big Guy, go ahead and drool.

You know that it is my opinion Bush deserved every shelacking he got, should have been impeached, and was two-faced and underhanded in the extreme. Surely, knowing the kind-hearted soul I am, the overflowing vessel of bonhomie and human compassion, you do not think I would have gone to all that trouble if I didn't feel it was deserved!??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:15 PM

"the overflowing vessel of bonhomie and human compassion"--Amos, I stand in awe. That's just wonderful--and so much better than my "the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein". And mine's not even original.

And "bonhomie" is a word just not seen often enough.

My hat's off to you, friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:57 PM

I am glad to see that Bruce is not wasting his time deciding to vote on the merits and is going straight to revenge against Amos. His candor is quite refreshing.

I am not however, pleased to see the traitor, Novak, quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:53 PM

Jqack,

Again, YOU ATTACK the person instead of the message- the mark of a peron LOSING the arguement.

I observed that Amos has set the tone that is acceptable in "Popular View of..." threads, and has no right to complain when it is HIS ox being gored. He has taken exception to any critical remarks I have made about Obama, yet seemed perfectly happy to make ( IMO, far more unjust) claims about Bush based of just as partisen sources.

Amos seems to understand my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:13 PM

May I also compliment you on that phraseology, Amos...it was the damned funniest thing I have read here in quite some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:19 PM

I will admit it might be in the top 5 posts of all time...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:30 PM

I do understand your abstract point. But anyone can see, Bruce, that whilst YOUR ox was cross-eyed, sway-backed, bloodshot, ravenous, brutish, and hydrophobic, and ate chickens and babies, MY ox is obviously well formed, seven-gaited, glossy-coated, perfectly conformed, gracious of manner, speaks English and eats recycled dandelions while meditating.

I think these are important differences, surely you can see that!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:31 PM

Depends on whose ox you are!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:00 PM

I understand your point perfectly. It is that your problem is not with Obama but with what Amos has said about George W. Bush. If you take that as an attack that is your problem. But from my point of view it is not an argument, just a summation of your posts previous to my last one.

By the way, it is complete folly trying to paint Obama with the same brush as Bush and McCain. He has his problems but he is not at all similar to those two.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:15 PM

My PROBLEM is that I do not agree that it is ok to have different standards ( of proof, reporting, and judgement) based on whether one agrees with someone or hates them.

I do not claim to be perfect in this, but there seems to me to be a view that anything goes in criticising one's opponants, and NOTHING is permitted that might be critical of the ones that are supported.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 06:09 PM

Bruce,

If your arguments are like those presented in the last few posts then you are opening yourself up your positions to criticism. You don't like "McWar", fine you have said so. But countering with "O'bama" is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt. If you have a valid criticism of Obama, it is your right to bring it forward. But that criticism will most likely be answered. After all Amos did start this thread to praise Obama. Also countering a practice you claim to dislike with what you admit to be more of the same does not put you in the best light.

You might also keep in mind that you are one of the very few here that read the opinions of the traitor Novak. Those who choose not to read his opinions have their own good reasons to avoid reading his columns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:26 PM

". After all Amos did start this thread to praise Obama. "

And I started "BS: CIA agrees with Obamba - Hit Pakistan!" to point out that Obama and the Bush CIA were in agreement. so???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:46 PM

At first Bush called Obama Naive for even suggesting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:45 PM

"ll this actually tells us something about the Democratic candidates, which has nothing to do with fuel prices. Obama believes voters want a sensible, less-divisive political dialogue, that the whole process can become more honorable if the right candidate leads the way. Hillary really doesnÕt buy that. She has principles, but she doesnÕt believe in principled stands. She thinks that if she can get elected, she can do great things. And to get there, sheÕs prepared to do whatever. That certainly includes endorsing any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas. (See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.)

On Tuesday, root for the Democrat whose vision of the political process comes closest to matching your own. And I do not want you to be swayed by the fact that Hillary and Barack are finally having a policy debate, and itÕs about the dumbest idea in the campaign."

(NYT)

---

I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to hear others praise him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:47 PM

"...The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black DemocratsÕ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesnÕt necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways."

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:35 PM

>>I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to hear others praise him.<<

Shouldn't that be "I started this thread, not to praise Obama, but to SHARE others praising him."

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:04 PM

The Empire Strikes Barack

Good for a grin.

Yes, Jack, I stand corrected.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:48 PM

Senator Barack Obama appeared to win the Democratic caucuses in Guam on Saturday, defeating Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by seven votes.

When hand-counting finished shortly before 9 a.m. Sunday, delegates pledged to Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had received 2,264 votes, compared with Mrs. ClintonÕs slate, which had received 2,257, according to The Associated Press.

Turnout at the caucuses was about three times greater than it had been in previous years

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:20 AM

So if Obama takes NC and Indiana the "3 Strikes" rule will cone into play and Hillary will have to quit and shut down the noise machine...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:41 AM

She's making noises about possibly not going all the way to the convention. But more to the point is that as long as he at comes close to breaking even in NC and does not lose in IN by a lot, the relentless math grinds on.

And there are signs the superdelegates do not want to lose the chance to harness the energy of the new voters, the independents and liberal Republicans, and a higher black turnout. Which they know they will not get with Hillary as the nominee. Whereas her strongest voters will come out for him, both because his campaign has been far more positive than hers, and especially to keep a Republican from naming any more Supreme Court justices.

Even if he winds up at the end of the primaries with just one more delegate than she has, he will be the nominee. The DNC knows the consequences if they do not do this.

And MI and FL will be exactly split--they will have a voice, but still be punished for disobeying the DNC--a gamble they knew they were taking at the time they did it.

If her campaign had not been so negative, his supporters might well have been willing to vote for her. But Team Clinton, as I've mentioned many times, has poisoned the well she intended to drink from in the fall. Now the only way for her to try to climb back to the former good reputation enjoyed by Bill and her is to campaign--hard--for Obama, once he is officially named as the nominee.   And she will.

But regardless of this, he will not pick her as VP--a position she wouldn't take anyway. He needs a person with strong military and foreign policy credentials, not somebody who would guarantee that no Republicans and few independents would vote for the Democratic ticket. Webb, in my opinion, is a great choice--and might even help bring VA along.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:16 AM

Straw in the wind. In LA the Democrats have just won a seat where the Republican argument was that the agenda of Obama and Pelosi was too radical for LA.   Obama obviously did not hurt the ticket in LA--that is, in the Deep South---and may have helped.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:59 AM

Yes - Webb is the man to seal the deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Obama was on Meet the Press

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:33 AM

I like Webb, also...

He is a former Repub and was an up-'n-comer in the Reagan administration so he can jolly those moderal Republicans along...

Bill Richardson is my first choice, however because he has so much foriegn policy experience and there is a big difference between foriegn policy experience and military experience...

Obama needs to articulate those differences alot better to overcome McCain's strength, not that getting shot down and being a POW gives McCain this great military background... If I am not mistaken, I think he was a below average Midshipman and the Nvavl Academy so I'm not too sure what part of his militart experience qualifies him to be president???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Hillary now is emphasizing popular vote as the right metric to use in picking the nominee.

1) Yet another example of her changing the rules after the game is in full swing. It started out all about delegates--and that's the way it will, and should, end.

2) If popular vote was one of the main criteria, Obama's team would have spent more energy running up the popular vote in Chicago and other big cities.

3) It sure is a bit suspicious that in certain precincts in Harlem (NYC, of course), zero, that, is ZERO votes were cast for Obama. Somewhat unlikely, to say the least,--and Bloomberg was supposed to look into this. Never heard any results of this investigation--did anybody?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:23 AM

Washington Post...

Wright And Ridiculous

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, May 5, 2008; Page A17

Of all the strange features of this presidential race, the tarnishing of Barack Obama has got to be the most ridiculous. First Obama was accused of anti-religious elitism. Then he was accused of identifying with the underclass anger of his spiritual mentor. Excuse me, but which is it? Am I supposed to believe that Obama is a supercilious elitist or a menacing ghetto radical? Is he contemptuous of religion or too close to a religious leader? Obama's critics don't bother to say. Meanwhile, real character issues go relatively unheeded.

Start with Obama's turbulent preacher. Yes, Jeremiah Wright says some disgraceful things. But can anyone explain how that changes Obama's qualities as a candidate? Is anyone suggesting that an Obama administration would view AIDS as a government plot to kill African Americans? Or that it would govern from the perspective that the United States is a terrorist nation? Obviously an Obama administration would do no such thing. Which makes the storm over the preacher an absurd digression.

The Wright affair tells us that Obama bonded with someone whose political views are sometimes toxic. But as a young man trying to make sense of his mixed heritage, Obama looked to Wright for spiritual guidance, not political tutorials; as a community organizer, Obama focused on Wright's admirable social work, not his resentment of the white establishment. Indeed, Obama's own views on race and politics were diametrically opposed to those of his pastor. This is the candidate who campaigned for as long as possible as though race were irrelevant -- as though the tantalizing prospect that the United States might elect its first black president were merely incidental. A few months ago, there were those who suggested that Obama was not black enough. Now he is too black? This is preposterous.

If Obama clearly does not share Wright's views, of what precisely is he guilty? Of befriending someone with repugnant opinions? Anyone who condemns Obama on that basis should examine his own circumstances. Real human beings present one another with complex social choices: The dependable work buddy may be unfaithful to his wife; the salt-of-the-earth neighbor may despise Hispanic immigrants. How many Obama critics have themselves been friendly with someone with misguided views? What about Bill Clinton, who counted the one-time segregationist William Fulbright among his mentors?

George W. Bush has taught us that "you are with us or you are against us" is not a good basis for a foreign policy, and the same is true of much human endeavor. It would be impossible for people to join a political party if they had to agree with everything it stood for. It would be impossible for liberal Catholics to worship if they had to storm out of the church the moment they disagreed with something uttered from the pulpit. As a matter of political tactics, Obama should have avoided tying himself to Wright. But, rather refreshingly, Obama is not one of those politicians who obsessed about his presidential viability from the moment he entered college.

Which brings us to that other attack on Obama: that his comment about blue-collar voters "clinging" to guns and religion makes him an elitist. The remark may have been untactful, as Obama himself said. But what did it tell us about Obama's fitness to be president? Would he use his power to discriminate against churchgoers? His own churchgoing suggests not. Would he control guns? One hopes so. And is he really an elitist snob? After Harvard Law School, Obama could have pursued a career that involved contact only with hypereducated brainiacs like him. But by working as a community organizer and in state politics, he chose a life that put him among ordinary folk. The elitist label is ridiculous.

The real character issue, in this campaign as in others, comes down to one thing: Does a candidate have the guts to espouse positions that are not politically expedient? Here there are serious questions about Obama, who pledges to pull out of Iraq no matter what, and who promises both to increase spending and not to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year, ensuring the perpetuation of crippling federal deficits. For that matter, there are serious questions about Hillary Clinton, who proposes an irresponsible gas-tax holiday, and about John McCain, who couples gas pandering with a flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts, which he once (correctly) viewed as unaffordable. But these genuine character issues have been shunted aside by the spectacle of Obama's falling-out with his preacher.

The Obama-Wright "revelations" are really a revelation about our political culture: About its failure to distinguish the important from the trivial and about the inevitability that the race card will eventually be played against a black candidate. If the once formidable Obama campaign is knocked off course by these "revelations" in tomorrow's primaries, it will be a travesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:04 PM

Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright Story
By Glenn Beck
CNN


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it's just the timing of it that is so odd.

A New York Times editorial described the recent developments like this:

"In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he [Wright] embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

Shocking? Every one of these opinions of Wright has been part of the public record for months. It's no more shocking than Angelina Jolie coming out in favor of adoption.

Even in the schizophrenic world of politics, it's unclear how to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to make sense of all of this. The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

When the tapes surfaced Obama informed us that much of the controversy had been caused not by Wright's views, but by our lack of understanding about the differences in culture. "Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear."

It wasn't Wright's overbearing volume, hilarious comedy, hand movements, or dance quality that made me think he was a dangerous peddler of conspiracy theories. It was his words that did that. I don't want someone like him with access to the president for twenty minutes, let alone twenty years.

Those who were outraged by Wright's divisive and destructive comments that preyed on hate have been called racists by many. But, when Obama said he was "outraged" by the "divisive and destructive" comments that gave "comfort to those who prey on hate," he's called brave.

For anyone believing this is about race for Wright's critics, think of disgraced professor Ward Churchill. He was fired for research misconduct from University of Colorado at Boulder and made famous for saying many of the same things as Wright.

If any presidential candidate from either side -- white or black -- had been using Churchill as a "sounding board" for the last twenty years, we would rightly dismiss them.

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:39 PM

Public Policy Polling released its final poll today on the Democratic nomination race in North Carolina and it's got Barack Obama 10 points ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, 53%-43%.

The firm has been reliable in some primary contests this year but blew Pennsylvania bigtime last month. It had Obama winning by 3 percentage points (he lost by 9).

PPP is based in Raleigh and polls on a number of races in North Carolina. Its press release and full questionnaire on the presidential primary are here. And here is a blogpost in which communications director Tom Jensen explains how the firm arrived at its turnout projections, in particular by black voters.

As Mark noted earlier, several polls today show a tighter race in North Carolina. And as we note several times everyday, polls are snapshots. They don't forecast what will happen when voters go to the polls.

Update at 1:20 p.m. ET. A new national number:

Gallup just reported on its latest national tracking poll, which now shows Obama leading Clinton 50%-45% among Democratic voters. Yesterday, Obama was ahead 49%-45%. Given the poll's 3-percentage-point margin of error, Gallup is noting that the two are basically tied -- and have been for 12 days in a row. (Reminder: They're essentially tied because the margin of error applies to both numbers. So, Obama's support could be as low as 47% and Clinton's could be as high as 48%.)

(USAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Bruce:

Obama has made several very clear and understandable statements about the difference between Wright's distorted soundbites as promulgated by Fox, and his performance at the Press Club where he "doubled down" on his worst assertions.

For somebody to intentionally refuse to appreciate the facts as they are told from the horse's mouth is evidence of disingenuous torquing of the truth.

Furthermore, to use so trivial an issue as an important campaign point is to intentionally and deliberately degrade the cognnitive quality of the electoral process and to substitute mudslinging histrionics for the democratic process. Why anyone would want to do so great a disservice to the American democracy escapes me, but it does not reflect well on their understanding of the Jeffersonian ideals of an informed electorate, nor, actually, of their patriotic intelligence.

A