Analysing the Democratic Results
May 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm by David FarrarObama has easily won North Carolina (as predicted) by 56% to 42%. Indiana went for Clinton but only by 51% to 49%.
Clinton’s failure to win bigger in Indiana is increasing the pressure on her to pull out. But it is likely that the contest will go on for at least another month.
In North Carolina the exit poll has a huge differential by race.
White Democrats backed Clinton 62% to 37% and white Independents were 58% to 38%. Obama however got 92% of Black Democrats.
The Indiana exit poll is also extreme. Of concern must be the fact that only 71% say they will vote for Obama if he is the candidate against McCain.
White Democrats in Indiana went 64% to 36% for Clinton. Black Democrats were 91% for Obama.
Obama also won the “very liberal” vote by 62% to 38%. They only make up 14% of primary voters.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Onward Hillary! I can’t help but enjoy the Donks discomfort as they metaphorically eat their children. McCain must be wondering what diety he owes big time for Clinton’s ability to never quite die. I guess at some point before November he might have to Campaign?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Apparently Hillary has cancelled all of her appearances on the morning chat shows in the US. Some pundits have said that this could be the beginning of the end.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The IN exit poll result concerning disgruntled Clinton supporters is consistently supported by a number of reputable polls over the last few months – almost 30% of Clinton supporters in these polls say they will vote for McCain. Many of these are the so-called lunch pail blue collar workers in the battleground states like OH and PA. They tend to be older, some are Catholic and many are turned off by Obama’s elitism (bitter over God and guns comment) and sadly his race. Assuming only a fraction of these people really do spit the dummy and vote for McCain (assuming Obama wins- now even more likely), even 5% who end up crossing over in a tight race in the General Election spells doom for Obama.
Watch the Tony Rezko trial in Chicago. Rezko is the crooked political fix-it man in Chicago who, backed by an indicted fraudster originally from Iraq, was able to assist the Obamas in the purchase of their South Side mansion for approx $600k under market value and donated a whopping $250k to Obama’s state election campaigns. Strangely, Rezko’s lawyers did not mount a defence. Such courtroom tactics usually spell a deal. Faced with many years in a Federal pen, could Rezko be getting ready to blow the lid off a raft of corrupt political practices too rich even for the blighted standards of the Illinois Democrat party? Watch this space.
Just as the Dems stand poised to nominate the fartherest left candidate in even their foolish history with the skinniest resume since Eisenhower, Obama’s loony connections are a gift that keeps on giving. John McCain must be thanking God daily for a virtual treasure trove of potential ads come the fall campaign. The Clintons’ hubris means they will not quit – particularly with the possibility of seating even some of the FL and MI delegates.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Voting by skin colour, what a way to make your political decisions.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
…with the skinniest resume since Eisenhower..
Oh really , I though that would be George W Bush. Sure he was Governor of Texas for 6 years, but 2 of those were spent campaigning for president.
And the Office of Governor of Texas is one of the weakest in the country. Only ONE cabinet member is appointed , all the rest are elected on their own platforms( Treasurer, Attorney general) even Lt Governor is a separate elected office- note new Governor of NY was running mate to Spitzer.
and hubris ??
Vote:Mission accomplished anyone! ( death toll on that date was 158, its now over 4000)
May 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Oby and his racist entourage are screwed.
Check out the demographics.
This lad is culturally hostile to white middle America.
The Dem s won’t get it until after the election…. with any luck.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Indeed, Murray. It would seem that the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright has served to solidify black votes behind Obama, despite the Senator’s belated attempt to repudiate the preacher’s views. Which says something rather unpleasant about black prejudices, I suspect.
An interesting take from Christopher Hitchens in Slate who notes that, after the Wright affair:
Hitchens goes on to question Michelle Obama’s influence on her husband (drawing obvious parallels with Hillary and Bill) and notes that in her 1985 thesis (which he links to):
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I suppose it was inevitable.
It’s a shame Obama isn’t more moderate; he should adopted Tony Blair ‘third way’ approach.
But I suspect once he has the nomination he’ll shift towards the centre.
Kiwi in American – If Obama picks a Republican running mate, such a Bloomberg, he could really widen his appeal.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“he should adopted Tony Blair ‘third way’ approach”
There’s nothing more to say here…..
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“It would seem that the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright has served to solidify black votes behind Obama, despite the Senator’s belated attempt to repudiate the preacher’s views. Which says something rather unpleasant about black prejudices, I suspect.”
It is more that when race becomes an issue Blacks are defensively going to rally around in solidarity.
The ironical thing is that in a very real way Obama is not a Black American, he is half Kenyan and half white American. The Black American community is its own distinct culture and ethos that has developed over decades or close to centuries. It is not defined by skin color but by culture. And it was a foreign culture to Obama, one that he adopted into via Trinity Church.
The “I wont vote for the other candidate” exit polling is not borne out in national opinion polls that usually show the head to head between McCain versus Clinton or Obama very similiar. Its probably a case of supporters of each candidate trying to influence pollsters.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“Of concern must be the fact that only 71% say they will vote for Obama if he is the candidate against McCain.”
DPF. Any psychologist will tell you that intention and behaviour are not the same constructs, even if related, and that expressed intentions in a poll are not a perfect measure of actual intentions anyway. And there is still quite some time and a lot of water to flow under the bridge before November.
But, more to the point, have you not noticed how large numbers of voters in the Republican primaries are taking the trouble to vote AGAINST the certain (unless he has a cardiac arrest or similar) Republican candidate? What do you make of that?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
sorry ghostwalks – minor attack of BDS there I see. No – Governor of TX for 8 years easily trumps junior Senator from IL with no major bills to his name, no record of bipartisan legislating, 40% of his votes either absent or present (also campaigning for President except for a much greater percentage of his time in the Senate than Bush’s time in TX) and of course the most liberal voting record of any Senator. Hmmm – keeping rooting for your lefty friend. On the port side of the isle, we’re loving the thought of fighting this far left neophyte.
jafapete
What I make is that with McCain’s nomination sealed, GOP voters don’t bother to vote in the remaining primaries. Only the diehard Huckabee and fanatical Ron Paul supporters are that motivated. Anyhow Obama claims 17% of those in the IN Dem primary were Republicans.
Granted – there is no way that 30% of Clinton’s people will all vote for McCain. But the disgruntled factor in the Dem primary is much much higher this time around than in other previous years. As I said, in the swing states like OH and PA, even 3% crossing over means Obama loses those key states.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Great stuff. McCain wins. Another 4 —then 8 years of good old right wing USA. Thank you lord for allowing once again the left in the US to screw themselves. Pity it has taken so long here. Still we are much more unsophisticated than the average US hillbilly and some of us (though very few now) still believe in the tooth fairy disguised as Micky Savages ghost.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
This is a good result for Obama – better than expected in both North Carolina and Indiana.
There is now no way to the nomination for Clinton – her strategy of talking down expectations and then doing better while Obama does less well than expected just hit the wall. There are no more rabbits – her only hope is for an absolute calamity to hit Obama. She is also highly unlikely to get the Democratic Party rules Committee to rule in support of seating the delegations from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic Convention.
I wouldn’t put too much store in exit polls of the supporters of each saying that they won’t vote for the other candidate should they be the nominee – people would say that. In Indiana there is also the Limbaugh effect – registered Republicans voting for Clinton out of fear that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
On the African-Americans verses the blue collar white working class issue – no Democrat can win without African-American support – they have completely and utterly abandoned Clinton almost on bloc. And remember when the race started that was not the case there was broad affection and support for the Clinton’s in the African-American community and its political leadership. Clinton has given up even trying to appeal to this constituency.
I suspect that Obama will pick up most of the blue collar vote when Clinton exits – they have stayed loyal to the biggest brand name in US politics and still regard Bill fondly. When she is outta the race it will be a different matter.
Interestingly and more alarmingly than the fuel tax holiday nonsense of Clinton/McCain has been Clinton’s proposal to extend America’s nuclear umbrella formally over the middle east and Israel in the face of Iranian attempts to acquire a nuclear capacity of its own. This is from someone who is supposed to foreign policy expertise. One can dismiss this as “campaign talk” but what is illustrates is that under pressure she lacks judgement.
As for the “radical leftwing” Obama stuff no Harvard lawyer is truly radical. The problem is that the Republicans have been much bigger spenders on domestic and foreign wars front than the Democrats ever have. Both the Obama plan to spend more domestically and McCain’s plan to cut taxes are going to hit economic reality.
The Republican’s are also in bad shape – just lost a Congressional Seat in Louisiana they have held for thirty years, they face another race they are likely to loose – the Congressional Republicans are extremely reluctant to donate to assist in the defence of these seats. The fear of Obama and the time of a change drum beat does not bode well for McCain who seems to be getting precious little benefit from the ongoing contest for the Democratic nomination. In addition much of the Rupublican establishment don’t like their own nominee. The Conservative-pull-out-of-foreign-entanglements Republicans have little enthusiasm for McCain either.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
For those interested in faith and politics, here is a good article from last year where Clinton and Obama were interviewed about their positions:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I find it fascinating that nobody (from what I have seen anyway) seems to be raising the obvious question, why is it perfectly acceptable for African Americans to state that they are voting for Obama because he is black but if whites vote for McCain because he is white they are labeled as racist?
Are we seeing the left frame the debate once again?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I find it fascinating that nobody (from what I have seen anyway) seems to be raising the obvious question, why is it perfectly acceptable for African Americans to state that they are voting for Obama because he is black but if whites vote for McCain because he is white they are labeled as racist?
I find it fascinating you clearly fail to see that the reason is because there has been a history of Afro-American oppression in US history and to this day steps continue to be necessarily taken to amend those injustices.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
1. There’s a difference between voting for someone of the same race and voting against someone of a different race.
2. Because of their relative power in society, white racism disadvantages blacks more than black racism disadvantages whites. So if we want to dismantle racism, we start with white racism.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
“1. There’s a difference between voting for someone of the same race and voting against someone of a different race.
2. Because of their relative power in society, white racism disadvantages blacks more than black racism disadvantages whites. So if we want to dismantle racism, we start with white racism.”
Shit oh dear. What a prat. There is only one form of racism dickhead pete . It is called racism.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Pete
While not quite voicing it in the same blunt fashion I agree with Johnboy, there can be no justification for racism of any kind, this includes stupid idea such as “positive discrimination” and “quotas”, the same quotas we now see in South African sporting teams>
Vote:I find it laughable that those who protested against white South African sporting teams of the 80′s are nowhere to be seen now that we have the same thing happening in reverse, surely we have come far enough now that it is a persons ability that matters most not their colour or sex.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Johnboy, I don’t expect you and your Kiwiblog right to accept, understand, or even engage with my views on the issue. But big bruv asked an honest question and I felt he deserved an answer.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Problem is, we haven’t come “far enough” yet. And we can’t address society’s structural racism if we ignore race.
(gotta go, somewhere to be. sorry bb, would have liked to continue this — even if we’re disagreeing it’s clear that you’re actually listening)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Johnboy, I don’t expect you and your Kiwiblog right to accept, understand, or even engage with my views on the issue. But big bruv asked an honest question and I felt he deserved an answer.”
I said it before and I will say it again Pete (wherever you have had to suddenly rush off too) “There is only one kind of racism you are either racist or not” I must be obviously what you call a racist as I obviously (to a smartarse prick like you) hate my part maori grand children. You are a sad wanker.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Big Bruv:
Racists would be sadly disappointed by McCain – he has an adopted daughter Bridget who is a Bangladeshi.
He is also giving a speech at La Raza – a largely Hispanic organisation that advocates for immigration reform (of the not building a boarder fence sort) and entitlements for illegal immigrants among other things that much of the Republican base doesn’t like.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Meanwhile, in the other primaries held today:
23% of voters in the Indiana Republican primary cast their ballots for anyone other than the presumptive nominee. In a state Democracts have carried in a general only four times in the last century — Johnson is 1964, FDR in 32 & 36, and Wilson in 1912.
In North Carolina, the figure is 24%.
I’d be very, very worried if I was on McCain’s campaign strategist. Sorry to write Johnboy a reality check, but he may think a McCain Administration would be, in effect, Bush Redux. Republicans For Hillary such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Pat Robertson et al. agree — but they’re thinking of the ideologically impure George Herbert, not his son.
Conveniently missing out Abraham Lincoln — whose sole experience in elected office before becoming President was two spectacularly undistinguished year in the House before the electors of the Illinois 7th threw him out on his ear. Obama also has a fatter resume than either Theodore Roosevelt or his cousin Franklin. I believe they’re widely consider not to have sucked too hard at their jobs while occupying 1600 Penn Ave.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
No worries Craig. Your command of the language has a poor dumb bastard like me confused. I still just hope that both Barrack and Hillary self destruct and McCain sneaks thru the middle. Lets face it he deserves a shot at the top job more than the other two do as they have not been hung up by their thumbs yet.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Hee, hee….
“And it’s all over now baby blue”
You Oby guys are like some AGW denialists.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Unless McCain seriously lifts his game — i.e. no more total bullshit like the gas tax holiday pander he’s been running with Clinton — he doesn’t deserve anything. The only way McCain benefits from the Democratic primary race is that he’s not getting anywhere near enough scrutiny, and that’s just not good enough.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Ok Craig, you win, I won’t argue no more. Its just that given a leftie and a rightie I can’t help myself I always swing to the right. Bugger I have said it now.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Maybe Craig is serious,…. in an NZ provincial way….barely believable, but possible.
Gas tax holidays? Benefits from the Dem primaries?
Bwaaaa…..grow up.
Oby’s screwed because he has a racist entourage that middle America will piss all over on Nov 4.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Johnboy:
Please do argue. I have enormous respect for McCain, and I’d like him to win — but he’s got to earn it. And the best place to start is putting up serious, reality-based fiscally conservative domestic policy ideas. The gas-tax holiday he’s been proposing recently was none of the above.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Isn’t it a little late for you to be up on a pre-school night? Grow up yourself, numpty.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
As I say….
“Maybe Craig is serious,…. in an NZ provincial way….barely believable, but possible”.
Let’s try a non gas holiday…cherub.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Or is Craig’s real problem……
“Oby’s screwed because he has a racist entourage that middle America will piss all over on Nov 4.”
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 3:31 am
“23% of voters in the Indiana Republican primary cast their ballots for anyone other than the presumptive nominee.”
Thats actually quite normal when a race is seen as being won – only disgruntled voters have an incentive to turn up.
For example McCain received 20% of the Indiana republican primary vote in 2000 even though he had long ago conceded to Bush.
The Republicans could not have choosen a candidate better able to save their bacon. He is seen as independent, anti-corruption and bipartisan and can battle the middle ground, the right wingers have nowhere else to go and will react to Obama like having acid thrown in their faces. Most importantly, in an electorate that hates the Iraq war, he is about the only Republican that has credibility on the war in Iraq even despite his support of it.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 3:40 am
The irony is that Hillary Clinton is now perfectly positioned to win the November election. She is now seen as centrist (previously as radical), as having the common touch (completely implausible but the perception has now been built), as having a genuine fighting spirit, resilient and strong. Although her policy wonk credentials have probably taken a battering with the gas tax holiday they are still fairly strong. And she is, surprisingly, beginning to play very well with the middle ground and the blue collar swing voters and even not so sneaking recognition and grudging admiration amongst republicans. None of this would have been the case had the nomination been the cakewalk it was expected to be.
Whereas Obama is perfectly positioned to win the nomination with fanatical support from the hard core liberal wing and Black voters, but looking very vulnerable come November.
He has to start directing his appeals to actual issues that affect real people rather than vacuous calls for change and narcissitic “Conversations” with punditocracy.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Chris Diak
“As for the “radical leftwing” Obama stuff no Harvard lawyer is truly radical.” I beg to differ in the case of Obama. What drives a man to stay in the church of a radical left wing black liberation preacher like Wright for 20 years and then only finally repudiate him when the political fall out gets to be potentially too high. What possesses a man to choose to launch his political career in the home of two utterly unrepentant far left terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn) and to still serve on boards with him as recently as 2001 knowing that they are still so unrepentant that they tell the NYTimes in 2001 that they didnt do enough. What ideology does a candidate hold that causes him to promise the Teamsters that he’ll revoke the consent decree effectively lifting the federal government imposed oversight designed to root out the Mafia backed corruption of said union. Why was Obama the ONLY legislator in the entire US (Federal or State) to block the passage of the Illinois State version of the Federal Infant Born Alive Act (an act designed to compell abortion providers to preserve the lives of infants who survive a late term abortion who had been left on shelves to die). This act passed the US Senate in 1998 99-1 and was passed by all other State legislatures either unanimously or by similar lopsided margins. IL State Senator Obama blocked the bill in Committee refusing to allow a vote on it saying that it impinged on a women’s right to choose. No – this man is truly a radical. These issues are not so relevant a closed Democrat primary in NC where 33% of the electorate are African American – they will be hugely relevant to middle America in the General Election. There’s a reason why Clinton thumped him in the key battleground states of OH and PA that Obama must win to be president.
NPOG – agree 100% with your last post.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Alces:
Well, if that’s your argument, I look forward to a little more attention being paid to the kind of cleric McCain has (sadly) been soliciting and receiving endorsements from. I’ve no affection for Jeremiah Wright (despite your slimy innuendo), but the likes of John Hagee turn my stomach too. I guess your real problem is that it doesn’t really matter if you’re a Jew-hating, paranoid bigot as long as you’re white and right-wing.
Now on to a faintly more substantive response…
You may well be right, NPOG — I’ve not done a detailed analysis of primary voting patterns. But I’d still be worried if I was a McCain strategist — depressed turnout, a substantial chunk of those who do turn out voting for anyone but you, and the likes of Limbaugh and Hewett (who, like it or not, actually do have some influence on the right) shilling for Clinton with more enthusiasm. Sorry, but I don’t share the over-confidence of some around here that Cindy should start picking out new drapes for the White House now. It’s not a done deal, and anyone who asserts otherwise just need to get back on this planet.
And some people don’t like hearing this, but I’d be feeling a damn sight more confident about McCain if he was putting up marginally more serious policy than a gas-tax holiday nobody thinks will work.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I have to be fair, and correct myself here. Hagee doesn’t hate Jews — they have their place in the coming apocalypse in his rather twisted millennial worldview, after all. It’s Catholics he hates. Also nice to know that natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina) and terrorism (the 9/11 attacks) are God’s judgement on America for not doing down teh gayz and teh feminaziz! (Just like Jerry Falwell, who I don’t remember becoming persona non grata in right-wing circles after that particular mouth fart.)
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
McCains biggest problem is the president he has to follow. Dubya will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever to occupy the oval office. Nixon’s legacy would be the only worse one in recent times, and even that will be debated by historians.
The fact that McCain represents the same party as Dubya will count against him and he will have to work hard to overcome the implied negativity.
Clinton recognizes this, and there is a feeling among some democrats that the nominee will be a shoe-in, hence her unwillingness to let go. Her tenacity has suprised many but comment has been made of the lack of experience that Obama has. The fact that she cannot beat Obama in itself does not paint her as the strong candidate she thinks herself to be.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
One should realize that the presidential election in November is more an individual candidate against each other than a party political contest. If it was party, McCain would be toast. The GOP after winningboth houses of congress in 1994 had a great chance to entrench itself as the party of government against a venal(and still venal) Democratic party headed by people like Pelosi,Harry Reid,John Murtha and Stenny Hoyer.
Vote:Tax scandals, earmarks,sex scandals, shady characters in leadership positions like De Lay and Armey have all helped sink the thoughts of reform from the GOP.Newt Gingrich stood for something, however many Republicans tried to look after themselves rather than the electorate
The sooner the GOP cuts itself free from the old architects of the spoils of power the better.
Obama will struggle against McCain. Much will depend on Hillary’s final attitude towards whether she wants to see the Democrats win in 2008. Maybe she can’t wait until 2016, perhaps she will put obstacles in Obama’s way.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Not quite that simple, Neil. There are 435 House, 35 Senate and 11 gubanatorial races ‘down ticket’ this year. I don’t think they all can — or even want to — pretend they were in comas over the last eight years. Hate to say this (and I expect plenty of negative karma for saying so), but I don’t think the GOP has hit bottom yet. OK, the Democrats might well go utterly bonkers and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Stranger things have happened. I just think some folks on this thread need to take the blinkers off, and stop acting like McCain is a done deal. He’s not got the base on his side, and I’m seeing little evidence that the pandering is doing him any favours. Nor have I seen any reason to be impressed by the economic policy he’s put on the table — and I do think that’s going to matter. He can’t coast into the White House waving around his service record, and having his proxies dog-whistling about the scary rag-head nigger. (Sorry for the rough language, but sometimes you’ve just got to call excrement a pile of shit.)
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Kiwi in America:
Again you are running this guilt by association stuff – Wright’s views are not Obama’s views. There is more to Trinity and the United Church of Christ than Wright. There is no evidence that Obama holds any of the odd views of Wright.
On the Ayers front – McCain has his own one in Gordon C. Liddy (who wrote a marvellous book). McCain still describes him as a “friend” when appearing on Liddy’s radio show. On your reasoning McCain supports and endorses the Watergate break in and the politics of assassination should a Republican President find someone to be troublesome!
On the abortion issue – Barry Goldwater was also in favour of a women’s right to choose and lawful access to abortion.
On the religious front generally the Republicans have a President who has advocated that “intelligent design” be taught in American science classrooms alongside evolution. By New Zealand standards this is just plain loopy stuff.
The Republican base has narrowed as a result of the politics practised by Rove and the lack of judgement by Bush who has spent up big at home and abroad.
The US who drove the founding of the UN and multilateralism and gave the world an expectation of rising standards of human rights and freedom now holds that in some circumstances a State can waterboard (little practice that results in unreliable information that was picked up from Nazi interrogation manuals) and incarcerate “illegal combatants” indefinitely arguably without proper process.
Being civilised in the face of the most extreme provocation is the true test of moral leadership and judgement. Out of fear and the short term political payoff with the behaviour and the language of war, a Republican President has substantially reduced American prestige abroad and the attractiveness of his own Party at home.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“Again you are running this guilt by association stuff – Wright’s views are not Obama’s views”
Not on the balance of probabilities Chris, Oby sat in his church, presumably nodding, for 20 years as his delusional racist mentor spoke.
Wrights views were known outside the church, did Oby ever chat the Rev before last month?
No.
All a mystery to Oby now…. it seems.
Could that have anything to do with his political ambitions?
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Alecs:
Actually most of the things you assert have been directly addressed by Obama – you won’t get that balloon to rise. There is no evidence he supports or advocates Wright’s odd views.
The Republicans simply aren’t in a position to get fetishistic over the Wright issue – it actually speaks volumes about what they fear in Obama and why they are so keen on facing Clinton.
I think Newt Gingrich is right – this sort of politics isn’t going to work for them this time.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Chris Diack
Alces is right. People aren’t stupid. They know that Obama doesn’t believe the nutty things Wright rants about. Its the poor judgement in being associated with him so closely. He married him, he baptised his children, he says Wright was the reason why he became a Christian and Wright is positively credited with motivating Obama politically in “Audacity of Hope”. For months as the Wright controversy raged, he refused to sever the link merely condemning his rhetoric. He tried to say that the media just strung a few snippets together to make him look bad but Wright outed himself as a far left nutter in front of 35 cameras at the National Press Club. After telling the world that he couldn’t disown him, suddenly faced with even more damaging fall out, Obama finally throws him under the bus. Its not that folks think Obama believes the US government introduced AIDS to blacks deliberately, its that sticking by such an extreme demagogue for so long speaks volumes about his judgement. When he has an almost non-existent legislative record to look at, the substance of his judgements as represented by his friends, asscociates and mentors are a crucial window into the life of a relative neophyte.
A question Chris – assume McCain attended a church run by a white supremacist race baiter who claimed that abortion clinic bombers were doing God’s work. That is the far right equivalent of some of Wright’s extreme beliefs. Do you not agree that if McCain sat in the pews of this fictitious preacher’s church for 20 years and had him as a member of his campaign as a christian outreach advisor that the media firestorm would not have finished off his quest for the Presidency in a matter of weeks?
The Liddy analogy is silly on its ear. McCain didn’t launch his political career in Liddy’s home. He didn’t seek Liddy’s endorsement when he began his political life and he never sat on a board with Liddy. Ayers and Dohrn are unreconstructed Trotskyites that make Keith Locke look moderate – recent speeches both made to a reunion of ‘activists’ reveal they have not changed. Again – had McCain been halfway as close to the Unabomber as Obama was with Ayers, he would be toast.
And as for trying to equate Barry Goldwater supporting the right for a woman to choose with Obama’s lone opposition to legislation outlawing the most egregious and extreme abortion procedure is laughable. Even super lefties like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein voted for the Infant Born Alive Act and they can ALWAYS be counted on to do the bidding of Planned Parenthood. Obama was so far out in left field on this issue that even Planned Parenthood itself, ever the vocal advocates for all abortion procedures, wisely chose to remain silent on the IBAC.
Like Craig, I believe McCain has his work cut out for him and is a candidate with obvious flaws, but one thing McCain will not have a problem with is identifying Obama as the fartherest left candidate to have ever been nominated for the Presidency. You mock American religousity – go ahead. Like many secular people and nations you fail to understand the inherently Christian centre-right heart of America. It is why uber liberal candidates like Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry are eventually defeated by sound candidates of the centre-right. Nixon and Bush 1 were no great shakes and yet they easily dealt to their opponents precisely because they stood too far to the left. Winning the hearts and minds of African Americans and the liberal research triangle scientists and academics of Raleigh-Durham, NC is not the place where General Elections are won. This is why Clinton’s head-to-head polls with McCain are much more in her favour than the same polls Obama vs McCain. The beauty for the right is that the left is so enamoured of the prospect of the first black nominee that they cannot see that a man who cannot win OH and PA or FL (or even come close) doesn’t have enough marginal GOP states that he has to turn to the Dems to compensate. Roll on November 4th.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Kiwi in America:
Wright
Its true Wright set out to destroy Obama’s nomination – to prove the underlying assertion that African-American’s are oppressed have made no progress and that the rest of the nation is racist. And if Wright were all that there is to Trinity or the United Church of Christ you might have a point.
The real judgement showed by Obama was to deal with the issue of race honestly and intelligently in his National Constitution Centre speech. He was right not to cut Wright then and right to cut him after the National Press Club. Wright had the chance to repent, he chose not too.
You simply cannot get the the “Obama brought into Wright’s odd views for 20yrs then cut him” line to float – because it isn’t true.
McCain theoretical bigoted pastor
You know this isn’t comparable. McCain is an Episcopalian who now attends his wife’s Baptist Church. He is old school Republican regarding his faith – he doesn’t like the Evangelicals and they don’t like him. He has attempted to kiss and make up with them ….. a loveless marriage of political convenience… mmm judgement?
The better anology is the judgement of a political party that dances with Falwell and Hagee and co for short term electoral gain. This hook up has narrowed the base of the Republican Party.
Interestingly the younger evangelicals are not quite as hung up on issues of personal morality as their parents are and they are more open to voting Democrat. Nonetheless the Republican’s now face the lowest levels of support among young Americans since the period post WWII.
Nor is McCain record that good on the public policy front – look at McCain-Feingold – US elections law is a mess in part because of McCain and his dislike and mistrust of “big money” i.e. those that have not funded him in the past.
Gordon C Liddy
Actually McCain has repeatedly gone on his radio show and Liddy has endorsed McCain – you cannot run the guilt by association (lack of judgement for non disassociation) line without dealing with the fact that a Republican nominee (or Democrat) will know and spend time with those that supporters of the other party find objectionable. Big deal.
To paraphrase Reagan: “people support me for my views not because I support theirs.”
Ayres is an old lefty, Liddy is an old righty… again so what.
Abortion
Again there used to be a sizable number of Republican’s that supported a women’s right to access legal abortions.
Most anti abortion legislation in the US is drafted for partisan political purposes – despite the title of the various Bills they are designed to eliminate access to legal abortions in most circumstances. They are indirect attempts to overturn Roe v Wade. In strongly Democratic states like Illinois the Democrats usually kill off these measures procedurally.
As it happens I don’t think abortion is a Federal constitutional matter it’s a State matter, like gay marriage and many other moral issues.
The problem for the Republicans is that abortion simply isn’t going to do it for them because they have eroded their own coalition by big spending at home and aboard. Even some pro life Republican’s support Obama despite his abortion position for other reasons, like the “coercive integration techniques”, indefinite detention of illegal combatants and lack of due process which as reduced America’s reputation aboard.
Hearts and Minds
You are correct if Obama is the African American old liberal’s liberal then he probably won’t win in the general. However deep down the Republicans fear that he isn’t as they would crudely characterise him. They is why they much prefer Clinton – its business as usual.
I suspect that the Republican stocks are so low that American’s will look at Obama and may give him a go – they are grumpy and unhappy with Bush – its unlikely they will reward his Party’s successor.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Chris
I’m beginning to wonder if you can read. I have never asserted that Obama bought into Wright’s world view. Obama has made a serious of factuous and disengenuous statements that polls all show to be mere political expediency on his part. They have been underscored by a serious of untruths. First he said that he never heard Wright say that stuff – that on the face of it was clearly false. It was common knowledge that Trinity has suffered a series of defections over the last 18 years (the most notable being Oprah Winfrey) principally over Wright’s incendiary rhetoric. Obama of course could not hang on to that canard for long and fessed up in his Philadelphia speech that yes – he had heard some of this stuff in church after all. Then he said that Wright was taken out of context. False again – if you care to read the full text of each of the speeches that did the rounds of the media they were actually worse in their totality than the small snippets. Wright put paid to that sillyness in a weekend of media appearances where he embraced publicly the nuttier stuff. Obama no more believes it than you or I but his judgement in remaining even remotely proximate to such radical stuff is either political naivity of the tallest order or evidence of the fact that he shares his wife’s more left wing views on race.
You then proceed to dance on the head of a pin by dismissing the McCain analogy with some factuous old school mainstream church v Evangelical smokescreen. The point of the example was merely to illustrate the typical double standard of the left. To equate Obama’s poor judgement in hanging with Wright as somehow equal to the piffling irrelevance of an Episcopalian now worshipping with his Baptist wife (and to declare this a silly political blunder on a par with Obama’s Wright connection) is absurd.
Ayers is not some crusty old innocent lefty moulding away in academic obscurity. He (and his wife) are utterly unrepentant hard left radicals who, unlike Liddy, participated in and supported the Weather Underground as it wrought 25 separate acts of terrorism involving bombs – a few of which injured, maimed and killed. Now what was it that Liddy did – oh yes he perjured himself and indulged in acts of political deception (which of course Democrats have NEVER done). Im not excusing Liddy’s crimes but there is no comparison and to try and make equivalence from what Ayers and Weather did with Liddy again reveals your typical left leaning double standard. Somehow in your world, Liddy endorsing McCain on his radio show is the same as Obama choosing to launch his political career inside the house of terrorists who tell the NY Times “we didnt do enough”.
The IBAA was not just some ordinary anti-abortion legislation. It was passed by every State legislature across the US (whether Democrat or Republican controlled) either unanimously or by massive lop-sided bi-partisan margins so sorry – your argument is again full of holes. Obama was too scared to even allow the IL legislature to test the waters. Somehow every other state found a way to bring this law to the vote. Read the Act – it was not some back door way to deny women the right to a normal abortion – if so why did the Senate vote 99-1 to pass it. Surely the reliable pro-choice lions would’ve been roaring had it been the type of law you allege. No – Obama was caught red handed way out in left field and no amount of mealy mouth excuses that you’ve trotted out covers the hard facts.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Kiwi in America:
I do read you and respond directly to your points. You just keep repeating them rote without addressing anything directly that is said in response.
However you NEVER acknowledge a number weaknesses in the McCain Candidacy.
Remember I have nothing invested in the electoral outcome from a partisan point of view. Both candidates have strengths and weakness I just think that odds on Obama will be the democratic nominee and odds on he will win at the general. It’s not impossible for McCain to win – I just think in all the circumstances its going to be tough for him.
Consider
1. McCain’s very wrong voting record on campaign financial.
2. His correct denunciation of the evangelicals then kissing up to them when he needs their votes.
3. His broad suspicion of business.
4. His correct call of immigration reform (against the wishes of the Republican base).
5. His view of a permanent US presence in Middle East like German, Japan and Korea despite the fact that Iraq is in no way analogist and the very real prospect that a large scale US presence in a Arab Country is likely to lead to growing instability in the middle east.
6. His age and temperament.
7. Rock bottom support for Bush and a lack of money for the Republicans generally in an environment where Obama has raised more money than has ever been raised before … and that’s just for a primary.
8. A flat US economy that is more likely to be blamed on the Republicans, with McCains poor grasp of economics.
For the record and once again, Obama has said he was never in the pew when the looped pieces aired were said. You seem to know better. All he has said was that he was aware of other “controversial” things said by Wright – he never has specified what those are other than that they were not what was looped over and over.
“Ayers is not some crusty old innocent lefty moulding away in academic obscurity” actually he may not be an innocent but other than that, that’s precisely what Ayres is and he was active when Obama was 6. You minimise Gordon C Liddy – I suggest you research him better – he likewise has never apologised.
You seem to wet your pants that Democrats hang out with old lefties and ignore the fact that Republican’s hang out with old righties and neo conservatives (old lefties that want to practice abroad what they now believe won’t work domestically)
Re the Infant Born Alive Act, actually Goldwater would probably agree with Obama’s reasoning here – medical decisions about abortions are left between women and her doctor there is no government interest in the matter once the lawful right to an abortion is established. The IBAA is from my reading is just as I described – it covers 1% of abortions most of which are occurring because something is seriously wrong with the foetus in the first place.
It’s the sort of politics that has brought the Republican Party into such difficulty – an excessive focus on issues of personal morality at the expense of the fundamentals – ever rising government expenditure and hugely expensive foreign entanglements.
And actually I guess it might be somewhat rich to have pro life issues trust in one’s face by people who support the Government’s right to indefinitely imprison without charge and without due process and engage in reprehensible “coercive interrogation techniques” picked up from the Nazi’s … yes very pro life. At least McCain has publicly committed to ending this sort of behaviour. Terrorism doesn’t justify dropping one’s own standards – it actually requires upping them.
What you do to the least of mine (add in undeserving) you do to me – applies surely not only to infants but to adults too.
Vote: