Primaries

Remove all ads!

You're right, I am; I just wanted to make the point that I'm not enamored of the party and really consider myself independent. There are few candidates for socially liberal, fiscally conservative folks like myself (last one was Bill Clinton). When I lived in northern California, this made me the equivalent of a gun-toting redneck neoconservative who wanted to torture jaywalkers. Now that I live in Kentucky, it makes me a pot-smoking, Berkeley hippy who wants to turn the US into a socialist paradise and surrender to bin Laden. It's all a matter of perspective.

In 2004 I couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone as it was an awful selection of candidates. I voted Nader in 2000 because I was hoping the Greens would get the magic 5% needed to qualify for Fed funds and start on the path to a viable third party.

 

IMHO Obama is a class act all the way. If he loses the nomination to Hillary for whatever reason, he will fall in behind her and encourage his supporters to vote for her. I doubt that Hillary would do him the same courtesy, but I've been known to be wrong before.

All I know is that I want honorable leaders. For that reason, I could never support Hillary because I do not believe she is honorable. For the same reason, I could never support Huckabee (moot point now, I know) because of some of the crap he spouted during his campaign. Though I did not personally see the attack ads from the Romney camp, if I were voting in the election I would seek them out and if they were deceptive, there's no way I'd vote for him even though we share the same faith.

I see the McCain vs. Obama race as the best thing for everyone.

 

Relative integrity, perhaps. McCain's engaged in a fair amount of (politically necessary) blatant pandering since '00, and Obama...

well, he's pretty. And he talks a good game. And he's probably electable (never thought I'd say that about a black man). But a man of integrity?

Nah.

 

I understand your cynicism, but I strongly doubt that you, me, or anyone who frequents this forum is in a position to really know whether or not Barack Obama is a man of integrity.

 

Politically necessary... Well, if McCain finds it so necessary to court leaders on the religious right, which he shunned a few years ago, that doesn't speak very well of his confidence to win a large part of the population that would be opposed to such an alliance. It also seems like a much bigger change on the political spectrum than I've so far seen Clinton or Obama do, and not in a direction I'm comfortable with. I'm not exactly sure I'm comfortable with speaking about his integrity in that regard.

Plus, so far I've seen very little in this campaign that rivaled the "Bomb Iran" song of his for pure alarm factor. If the man (or woman) who determines the fate of the world I live in - and for better or worse, the president of the US is one of the world's most influential people - finds a war with Iran so funny, I'm not going to feel particularly secure. Sure, he probably wasn't really serious... but damn, that stuff was creepy.

As for the others, I think Obama's campaign is progressing fairly well, considering that they still have an active opponent. I still think he's got more chance to get the Democratic nomination, and that might be a good thing. A pity - I was, and to some degree still am, leaning towards supporting Clinton - but for the love of all that's holy, that part of her that talked about the experience of McCain, Obama and herself was incredibly idiotic. I don't know whoever put her up to this - I doubt she could have decided to do it herself - but they need to be fired, pronto. I'm seriously wondering if there aren't a few moles in her campaign - don't people realize how bad this would be for Obama and for her?

 

The "Bomb Iran" song is not McCain's. That song was a parody of "Barbara Ann" from the Beach Boys and has been around since the Iran Hostage Crisis. It's a poor joke, but if you listen to the ENTIRE question and answer you get a different perspective than his critics want you to have.

 

I don't know. His remarks were reckless and McCain has supported "rogue state rollback" (he actually used this term) for quite some time. MoveOn isn't saying that John McCain wants to attack Iran tomorrow, but they have a point when they argue that McCain's remarks make him seem a lot less open to diplomatic options than Barack Obama (who MoveOn has endorsed) and a lot more likely to use force. This and other "tough talk" creates the appearance of a man not terribly interested in diplomacy. I will readily concede that he's probably just acting this way to rally his base (and I have a feeling that, if elected, we would end up with the man of his record, not of his rhetoric). You may not like it, but anything John McCain says - even just to rally his base - will be used against him in the general election...and should be. The same is true of things the democrats say to rally their base.

 

I've heard that he parodied an old song, so it's not like he came with the entire thing. However, that moment still freaked me out. I'm not a complete pacifist, but damn it, wars (and bombing a country is a war, as far as I'm concerned) are something to take seriously. Case in point: Iraq. If the next president of the US is going to even think about doing something so half-baked - and imo hypocritic - to a country like Iran, then I have some serious doubts as to whether this man or woman should be allowed to even step in the Oval Office.

Now, you see, I like jokes a lot, and I'm really interested in how they are used in communication. There is a theory that says that through jokes we sometimes say things that would be uncomfortable to say outright, and I worry that this may be the case. I was pretty sure that McCain was just joking, but his comment simply smelled like the "let's go bomb stuff" mentality that I've come across at times, and I do not like it one bit. So even though I've seen sleazier and nastier moves in this campaign, this one takes the cake for the one that has made me the most nervous - so far.

 

Drew, if you don't like McCain and want to perpetuate such things, go ahead. It's certainly your right to be biased against McCain as it's my right to be biased against Clinton. I've heard the question and answer and read it as well. Showing it out of context is clearly a political ploy and purely deceptive -- just call a spade a spade here and accept it. These types of things are done by both sides.

Quoting MoveOn clearly shows your bias. MoveOn was a organization formed after, and in response to, Clinton's impeachment and has raised MILLIONS of dollars for the democratic party -- of course they're going to endorse ANYONE that is not a republican. This is the democratic party's verion of Swift Boat.

Please, don't mislead anyone by suggesting an endorsement by MoveOn is anything other than a partisan ploy.

 

Of Swiftboat, or of Fox? I wouldn't necessarily put them on Swiftboat level.

 

T2. read my post again. You have a terrible habit of putting words and arguments that I've neither made nor implied into my mouth, and you've done it again. I referenced MoveOn's ad (I never actually quoted MoveOn) because they are the ones running the attack ads against McCain in the wake of his gaffe, not because I agreed with everything they said in their ad. (And I don't. The Ad is incredibly light on information and does take McCain terribly out of context.). I agreed only with the general thrust of what they said...that, judging by his actions and rhetoric, John McCain appears to be less open to diplomatic options in Iran than Barack Obama. He has, after all, been talking about attacking Iran as far back as 1999 (when he was running for the 2000 nomination). I pointed out MoveOn's endorsement of Barack Obama not in the interest of pumping up Obama (which really should have been obvious to you), but in the interest of fully disclosing the obvious bias of MoveOn in the context of their criticism (since their arguments not only cut against McCain, but Hillary Clinton, who also voted to recognize the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization and voted to authorize the Iraq war).

This is just too ridiculous for words.

You're kidding, right? MoveOn endorsed Obama because they want to see him win the primary. If an endorsement from MoveOn is a partisan ploy, that would mean that pretty much all endorsements are partisan ploys. MoveOn makes no bones about its liberal leanings, after all.

You know, I didn't hear even one peep out of the Republican establishment when, after having its delegates taken away in 2004 for holding an early primary, DC held a new caucus to apportion its delegates...

 

Drew, I would argue that all endorsements ARE partisan ploys -- a group or individual endorses a candidate because they support the party / positions of the candidate. You and T2 seem to make it out to be a dirty concept, but I don't see it as one at all.

As for trustworthiness or even honor, only a man (or woman, of course) truly knows what is in his heart and past. What we are talking about here is the PERCEPTION that we as voters (or observers in my case) have of whether or not those qualities are in place in a candidate's personality.

 

Actually LDK, I'm in agreement with you. I don't think endorsements are a dirty concept -- but they are generally partisan. Using partisan endorsements in an effort to paint an "unbiased" picture of a candidate is dishonest. The goal in all endorsements is to influence an individual's perception of the candidate.

 

Well, the word "ploy" has some negative connotation as something dishonest. Still, an endorsement is an endorsement, whether by a newspaper, TV channel, or any other public person/organization. And you're right that it is inherently partisan - to the degree that a candidate is partisan.

 

First of all, I have a problem with calling an endorsement a ploy, since calling it a ploy implies deception. There is nothing deceptive about a liberal organization endorsing a democrat. Now, if Rush Limbaugh decided to endorse Hillary Clinton or Michael Moore decided to endorse Ron Paul, I'd call that a ploy.

The other problem with calling Obama's endorsement a partisan ploy is that MoveOn endorsed him for the democratic primary. He was endorsed not in order to gain advantage against the republican field (although MoveOn will obviously continue to support Obama in the general if he wins the nomination) but against other members of his own party.

 

Well, in the week since Texas and Ohio, there were two more primaries - admittedly much smaller than last week's events - in Wyoming and Mississippi, with Barack winning both of them, extending his delegate lead over Hillary. Now there's a big fat NOTHING on the primary calendar until April 22nd when Pennsylvania votes.

 

Two things:
1: Where does the delegate count stand now?

2: I heard some talking head on the radio the other day say that a Republican "source" said that if Barack Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans plan to make Swiftboating look like a child's game. Did anyone else hear this sound byte? Will it work? Am I a sinner for putting this here instead of a new thread?

 

1. Obama leads by about 150 delegates and over 800,000 in the popular vote.

2. They're going to swiftboat like crazy no matter who gets the nomination. They simply can't win any other way this year. Hillary is just as vulnerable (I say much more so) to swiftboating as Obama. Will it work? Depends entirely on the swiftboating.

 

When you factor in the Texas caucus, Obama has increased his pledged delegate lead despite Clinton's March 4th wins in Ohio and RI. Clinton netted 3 in RI, 9 in Ohio, and 4 in the Texas primary; Obama gained 3 in Vermont, 9 (projected) in the Texas caucus, 5 in Mississippi, and 2 in Wyoming.

Throw in two more pledged superdelgates for Obama and an impending loss of one for Clinton (Spitzer) and you're looking at +6 for Obama since March 4th. Pennsylvania is the largest contest left and will likely side for Clinton, but Obama will probably take most of the remaining contests after that (NC, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico).

Clinton needs Florida, Michigan, and pictures of Obama in gay porn at this point.

Rush and the other talking heads do not like their prospects in a run against Obama, and polls and projections have consistently borne out Obama handing McCain a solid loss. Unlike Clinton, there's not a lot of Obama hate to drive conservative voters to the polls (especially to vote for McCain, who many of the base don't view as 'conservative enough') and there isn't nearly as much dirt on Obama as Clinton. There's a reason why they're encouraging Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton--she took the Republican vote in Mississippi by a 3:1 margin.

 

If the following two quotes are true:

Then why is there even a primary still going on? Why aren't Democrats falling in behind Obama as their Great (Not) White Hope? (Pardon the pun, bear in mind that I would probably support Obama were I an American.) It looks to me like Hillary's continued fight is only likely to hurt her party overall (I'm sure that saying that makes me a master of the obvious to some, but perhaps others have a different opinion?)