philliesphhan wrote:Obama's reverend is a jackass, so that's somehow reflective upon him?

Well, for starters, by quoting Wright's speeches in his book, by citing him as a mentor and spiritual advisor, and by going to hear his racist hate rants for 20 years.

That does not mean Obama shares his views, but it calls into question both his judgment and his strength of character. If you cannot summon the courage to challenge a hateful bigot, you can at least walk away.

TomatoPie wrote:THE CASE FOR HILLARY

Based on State by State polls for the last month, Clinton is the stronger candidate. Clinton is better in pink states and Obama brown based on polling. Obama might generate more popular votes, but a bit of that would come from the South, where Obama would just lose the states by less. Obama would kill in Illinois, but Clinton would still win it. Of course this is now. Either candidate could improve areas they are weak now. Obama probably has a better chance of getting conservative Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania than Clinton does in securing independents in Oregon and Colorado.

TomatoPie wrote:...racist hate rants...

What Obama tried to do in his March speech was to talk about Wright in a way that showed him to be a real person, not a one-dimensional caricature springing from somewhere deep in Sean Hannity's febrile mind. The church where he presided is known for doing a lot of good work--and for its relatively enlightened views on topics like homosexuality, which all too often is a common prejudice to both black and white churches. Wright, as Obama tried to point out, is a former Marine, a highly educated and often thoughtful person, and someone who obviously was scarred by his experiences as a talented African-American coming of age in the '50s and '60s and formed some ugly views as a result of those experiences.

Obama rejected those views--and it should be obvious from the whole course of his public life that he doesn't share them, and never has--but not the man himself. My understanding is that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a preferred approach within Christianity. When Wright resurfaced a couple weeks ago, though, it almost seemed like was going out of his way to present himself as that one-dimensional Scary Black Man caricature. Obama had to cut the cord, and he did.

I'm heartened by the news that Obama and McCain are negotiating the possibility of campaigning around the country together, exchanging views in minimally moderated forums and arguing in depth about policy differences. I don't really believe this will happen, simply because I don't think Republicans can win on the policy merits: people don't want an endless commitment in Iraq and at least four more years of Grovernomics. But it would be great for the country to have two candidates of integrity who realize that elections can be occasions to raise the discourse and more fully engage the citizenry, rather than just stages for the usual tactics of smear, fear and guilt by association.

philliesphhan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Just about the biggest reach in an ad that I've ever seen.

Really? He worked for a company that gave Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy money, so that's somehow reflective upon him?

Obama's reverend is a jackass, so that's somehow reflective upon him?

Actually this one was worse:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv4qFO2eEJY&feature=related[/youtube]

The Obama-Wright thing is a decent link. Back in 2000, Obama touted Wright on the campaign trail when he was running in a Democratic Primary.

Obama, meanwhile, had junked his starchy speaking style in favor of something that helped him shore up his base. Dan Shomon, his campaign manager against Rush, believes Obama learned the art of public speaking at the scores of black churches he visited in 2000, absorbing the rhythm and flourishes of pastors and watching how their congregations reacted. David Mendell notes in his biography of Obama how the candidate would "drop into a Southern drawl, pepper his prose with a neatly placed 'ya'll' and call up various black colloquialisms." He rarely missed a chance to speak at Sunday services in black churches, where, Mendell writes, he linked his candidacy to the larger march forward of African Americans. He emphasized his Christian faith and often mentioned his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. While Wright has been a liability to Obama this year, in 2004, when Obama faced doubts on racial authenticity, he was a campaign asset. "It affirmed his roots," said Cobb.

You really lose it though when you go Wright -> Obama -> Childers.

But the one I linked to last night comes in for special anger since it's a primary ad.

TomatoPie wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:Obama's reverend is a jackass, so that's somehow reflective upon him?

Well, for starters, by quoting Wright's speeches in his book, by citing him as a mentor and spiritual advisor, and by going to hear his racist hate rants for 20 years.

That does not mean Obama shares his views, but it calls into question both his judgment and his strength of character. If you cannot summon the courage to challenge a hateful bigot, you can at least walk away.

On an unrelated note, if Obama had tattoos, would old white conservatives just start vomiting upon seeing him?

dajafi wrote:Obama had to cut the cord, and he did.

He attached the cord when it was politically expedient to do so, and he cut the cord when it was politically expedient to do so.

No matter how much scarring Wright endured, racism should be condemned and racists shunned, political consequences notwithstanding.

The fundamental Wright problem is not simply "My preacher-crazy-uncle says some wild stuff that I don't support."

The problem is that Obama listened for 20 years and never confronted the man on his racist and hateful views.

racism is to be condemned but homophobia is okay?

if i'm not mistaken the republican party is pretty closely tied to agents of intolerance hagee, robertson, falwell, parsley, and dobson. should the republican party be condemned for their out of whack beliefs?


in my realm, there's a phrase, YKINOK. i find it hilarious that my realm has come farther in the last 20 years, than yours has in 2000 in recognizing that everyone is unique, and everyone has their own quirks that other people would likely find as odd. unlike you and your party, however, we've moved beyond calling people out for their quirks because we realize that ours are just as odd.

dajafi wrote:I'm heartened by the news that Obama and McCain are negotiating the possibility of campaigning around the country together, exchanging views in minimally moderated forums and arguing in depth about policy differences. I don't really believe this will happen, simply because I don't think Republicans can win on the policy merits: people don't want an endless commitment in Iraq and at least four more years of Grovernomics.

Obama has garnered a lot of votes through speeches which don't focus on policy. This may be because his policy is similar to Clinton's. McCain's strength is town hall meetings where he explains his policy answering any question asked by Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. While I don't think McCain thinks those are his policies, but even if they are, presenting them has gotten him a lot of votes. Whether Obama agrees to this or doesn't McCain is going to do this anyway.

steagles wrote:racism is to be condemned but homophobia is okay?

if i'm not mistaken the republican party is pretty closely tied to agents of intolerance hagee, robertson, falwell, parsley, and dobson. should the republican party be condemned for their out of whack beliefs?

I didn't see homophobia endorsed in this thread.

There are Republicans who are tied to the the loonies you cite, and they should be held accountable for close ties.

On a practical level, you can't take time to condemn every bigoted comment from every person who belongs to your political party.

This is where we can make meaningful distinctions between "members of the same party" and "personal friend, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 20 years." See?

TomatoPie wrote:

steagles wrote:racism is to be condemned but homophobia is okay?

if i'm not mistaken the republican party is pretty closely tied to agents of intolerance hagee, robertson, falwell, parsley, and dobson. should the republican party be condemned for their out of whack beliefs?

I didn't see homophobia endorsed in this thread.

There are Republicans who are tied to the the loonies you cite, and they should be held accountable for close ties.

On a practical level, you can't take time to condemn every bigoted comment from every person who belongs to your political party.

This is where we can make meaningful distinctions between "members of the same party" and "personal friend, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 20 years." See?

listen to wright's sermons. then, listen to michelle obama speak.


it wasn't barack who chose that church, though you could probably argue that's not any more reassuring.


just for shits and giggles, doesn't mccain's spiritual advisor believe that hurricane katrina was divine retribution for a gay pride parade?

Hagee, while an utter embarrassment (and the embarrassment stretches to McCain for wanting his endorsement), is McCain's spiritual adviser like I'm the manager of the Phillies.

Local and National news are beginning to act like Hilary is out of it. News lead-ins with "McCain and Obama's people talking about joint Town Hall meetings this summer" .... sounds like the machinery is in motion to get her to drop out. Is there any scenario in which she takes it all the way to the convention and doesn't bow out gracefully?

I'm really curious to see an Obama McCain showdown... I think Hilary McCain gave the edge to McCain in a close one, that woud likely have ended with confusion like kerry/gore where exit polls were not indicating reality -- for the first time in polling history... meaning? McCain and Hilary would be close enough that cheating gets McCain the win. But Obama, i think will either win or lose fairly big... 55-45

TomatoPie wrote:This is where we can make meaningful distinctions between "members of the same party" and "personal friend, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 20 years." See?

so then make the truly meaningful distinction, see (you condescending ..... person)?

Obama <> Wright.

It is very. very. simple.

this form of politics you cling to, suckle from, will never go away, but it is in eclipse just now.

see?

drsmooth just called someone condescending?

Philly the Kid wrote:I'm really curious to see an Obama McCain showdown... I think Hilary McCain gave the edge to McCain in a close one, that woud likely have ended with confusion like kerry/gore where exit polls were not indicating reality -- for the first time in polling history... meaning? McCain and Hilary would be close enough that cheating gets McCain the win. But Obama, i think will either win or lose fairly big... 55-45

Such a spread is highly unlikely. There hasn't been that wide a spread since Reagan won in 1984. Clinton-Dole in 1996 was 49% to 41%, but that was an election with a popular President, an uninspiring candidate, and third party candidate who likely siphoned off more Republican votes than Democratic. In 2004 the election was decided by 2.5%. The Upper limit I'd guess would be 5%. Popular vote isn't what matters, however. Even with a close popular vote one of the candidates could get 340 electoral votes if it broke right.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:This is where we can make meaningful distinctions between "members of the same party" and "personal friend, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 20 years." See?

so then make the truly meaningful distinction, see (you condescending ..... person)?

Obama <> Wright.

It is very. very. simple.

this form of politics you cling to, suckle from, will never go away, but it is in eclipse just now.

see?

Not really clear on how you infer 'condescending' from a POV that calls out Obama for humoring the racist Reverend for two decades.

steagles wrote:if i'm not mistaken the republican party is pretty closely tied to agents of intolerance hagee, robertson, falwell, parsley, and dobson. should the republican party be condemned for their out of whack beliefs?

When exactly aren't they again?

Hagee's the pastor of his own self-founded evangelical church in Texas. McCain's a Baptist (formerly an Episcopalian). The GOP games the religious right, an admission made by one of Abramoff's playas.

Camp Obama could take the guilt by association angle, or the "they play the religious right for votes" angle, or don't touch on it at all. The latter being the likely case, with any mention or reference coming from surrogates.

Camp McCain, I don't see them touching on Rev. Wright directly. But surrogates and watercarriers will likely hammer away... especially if they are successful in their rumored quest for video of either Obama in attendance at one of Wright's controversial sermons.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Brian Schweitzer might be an interesting choice for Obama's Veep... put his dog in some ads and give middle America the warm fuzzies. Too bad the VP has to be a natural-born citizen like the Prez, or McCain coulda picked Ahnold.
).

I think he might be my pick, though Webb runs a close 2nd. He has executive experience, has won in a very red state, is an excellent campaigner, and could put many of the mountain and midwest states in play while cementing a few purple states. He wouldn't scare the NRA, which will help in swing and red states. I also think Obama could still carry VA with Schweitzer as his running mate and Webb campaigning for him in the state. I don't see Obama losing PA in either case, unless Clinton and Rendell run him into the ground for the next 6 months.

Oh, and the race is over. Talk of Clinton still being in this is just being propogated by Clinton supporters, the drama-starved media, and a GOP desperate to keep the two dems busy beating each other up while McCain consolidates his base and flies under the radar.

Back to the VP speculation...

I would not be surprised if Joe Lieberman landed a substantial role in a McCain administration. Wouldn't be surprised if McCain chose Lieberman as VP as a means to distance himself from Bush (look, it's Gore's running mate). Yeah, I'm familliar with the Lieberman of the last 4 years, but still...

As for Obama... I wouldn't be surprised to find that Eliot Spitzer would have been the pick if not for the scandal. Deval Patrick has close ties to Axelrod, but that would scare the crap out of whitey. Obama may go with the "ticket brand" approach (Napolitano, Sebelius). Pat Kennedy might have been a consideration (name recognition and a little payback) if not for his, er, "issues". I highly doubt he'll pick Webb, and he definately won't pick HRC (unless the DNC makes him). If pressed to make a guess... Napolitano or Sebelius if he goes "ticket brand", Phil Bredesen or Mike Easley or Jim Doyle if he goes "age balanced". Sleeper pick: Rod Blagojevich. Then again, he might pick Oprah!