News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[G01]

So Clinton is running as a Republican now? I hope folks see through the charade.

Unfortunately, first-hand experience tells me that many Pennsylvanians aren't seeing through it. Heck, the fact that her dad was born in Scranton is enough for people around here to run to the Clinton camp without even thinking twice. Though her lead in the poles has been dropping significantly on a daily basis, so anything can still happen.

I really wish Pennsylvania can be the state that can end this drawn out battle that Hilary is probably not going to win anyway. C'mon PA, don't let me down!

This is another thing about Hilary that drives me nuts. The fact that Hilary's family is from Scranton gets people here all excited about voting for her. How many states is she going to claim as home? Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York... Don't people see she is just playing them for their votes?!

 

[lisab]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...that's just what I think of when I hear the word "elitist" !

 

[mheslep]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...

Yes, he's come a long way. He's also Ivy League Columbia / Harvard Law educated, lives in a multi million home, and gave the recent those-poor-misguided-yocals comment from a no press allowed, $2300/plate fund raiser at the Getty mansion / residence on billionaires row in SF.

 

[turbo]

Yes, he's come a long way. He's also Ivy League Columbia / Harvard Law educated, lives in a multi million home, and gave the recent those-poor-misguided-yocals comment from a no press allowed, $2300/plate fund raiser at the Getty mansion / residence on billionaires row in SF.

It's funny to watch somebody who has worked their ass off being described as "elitist" while people whose family wealth bought their entries into schools and organizations (does Bush come to mind?) are given a free pass as down-home guys because they get photo-ops cutting brush. Stupid!

 

[G01]

The local news here is really making a big deal about Obama's remarks. I think this is going to hurt him in PA.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I haven't been keeping up since it came out that he made those remarks, so I don't know what he's done since then, but I think he should have just made a speech and just stood his ground, making the people of Penn. look like the victims (he was apparently trying to portray it that way anyway) and that he was right.

It's better to be pissed off than pissed on. Right now, it's the latter for him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We will have to see if this effects the polling data. Obama was poised to tie or pass Hillary in Pa. right about election time.

But, if Clinton or McCain continue to claim that Obama is out of touch when he says that people are angry, it will hurt them more than it will hurt Obama. Many people are feeling angry, bitter, disillusioned, and disenfranchised. Also, what Obama said was true. When people feel angry and disenfranchised, say for example when their towns are decimated by bogus "free trade" agreements, they tend to project their anger onto other issues. How dare he speak the truth!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The American Research Group showed that Clinton and Obama were tied in Pa. a week ago, but now gives Clilnton a twenty point lead.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

 

[turbo]

Clinton NEEDS (viscerally) to be president. Her go-to bomb is that Obama cannot possibly be elected because he is black. She will only drop this clam if she is on her last legs, but make no mistake - she WILL drop it if it appears that the delegate count is unsurmountable. I can't get fired for saying that Clinton is a monster, so CLINTON IS A MONSTER, with no accountability to her party and no coat-tails for congressional candidates to ride. She has such high negatives that her election would ensure another 4 years of Bush-like gridlock in Congress and no real roll-back of his policies.

I should take this time to mention that Clinton is the richest Swift-Boat target that the Rovians have ever seen, and she stands NO chance of beating McCain in the general election. Voters are sick of her and Slick Willie, and they will accept a lot of denigration about her with no thought.

 

[chemisttree]

Obama's bitter comment.

""You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That sounds a lot more like Obama's neighborhood than "these small towns in Pennsylvania" or "a lot of small towns in the Midwest". I really think that Obama believes what he said... that people get angry and bitter in these small towns and cling to their religion, guns and xenophobia as a result.

There is no other way to interpret this other than to say that it is elitist liberalism. I think that Barak's empty vessel is filled with some bad ju ju...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is elistist about making factual observations?

 

[drankin]

Come on, Ivan. You usually back these things up with sources, stats, etc. Don't fail us now.

 

[drankin]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me. Let alone suggesting that because the government didn't make former jobs reappear they became bitter and began clinging to guns, religion, blah-blah-blah. So when Obama's president everyone can quit going to church, the gun range, and hug illegal immigrants (ok, I made that up). Dumb. Nothing factual about his statement. He just made this crap up and now he's eating his words. Not that they all don't say stupid crap anyway...

 

[quadraphonics]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

No, he's pointing out that the availability of jobs is a major factor in determining peoples' attitudes towards politicians and parties. Regardless of what anyone believes the proper role of government in the economy to be, it is a certainty that a bad job market hurts the political standing of the incumbent, and a good job market helps it. As a corollary, it is also a certainty that politicians and parties are going to try to exploit those sentiments. This is true of every polity, everywhere in the world, at all times in human history. That Obama aknowledges these dynamics does not make him some kind of socialist; it only makes him honest.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

I read his statement over and over again, and I could not find that anywhere. I think you are reading that into what he did say.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I'll tell you what rubs me the wrong way about Obama's statement, he is suggesting that it's the governments job to give people work, and that just bugs me.

You have a point. I mean, it's not like the government is there to protect the welfare of the people or anything.

While we're at it, we should quit taxing foreign imports. It's not the government's job to give people incentive to buy domestic goods. That would mean people would have jobs! And we don't want to do that.

 

[drankin]

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Ok, he is saying that people get bitter because past administrations have said that, "somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not." He is saying that these administrations said these things and they didn't come true so, AS A CONSEQUENCE, the people "get bitter (and) they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Anti-trade sentiment, I can buy that, anti-illegal-immigration, I can buy that, but guns? religion? "people who are not like them"? as if that has anything to do with what any administration "said" or whether they have their old jobs or not. It suggest that if you are a gun owner or a church goer it's because you are bitter because of what an administration said. That's rediculous not to mention insulting the geniuness of peoples beliefs. I didn't want to say it but that is certainly what I would consider "Elitist", or at least condescending.

 

[drankin]

I read his statement over and over again, and I could not find that anywhere. I think you are reading that into what he did say.

Ok, probably true. It seems to suggest that to me but no it doesn't say that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...(CNN) — Despite a weekend of negative coverage following his controversial remarks about some small town Americans, Barack Obama appears to be holding steady or making gains in the next three primary states, according to a just released poll.

Most surprisingly, the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton by 5 points in Indiana (40 to 35 percent)

... The poll also shows Clinton only holds a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania (48 to 43 percent). That margin is among the slimmest measured between to the two candidates and is significantly less than the double digit lead Clinton held there two weeks ago.[continued]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A couple of pundits stated recently that a consensus is emerging this will be decided in Indiana.

 

[turbo]

Anti-trade sentiment, I can buy that, anti-illegal-immigration, I can buy that, but guns? religion? "people who are not like them"? as if that has anything to do with what any administration "said" or whether they have their old jobs or not. It suggest that if you are a gun owner or a church goer it's because you are bitter because of what an administration said. That's rediculous not to mention insulting the geniuness of peoples beliefs. I didn't want to say it but that is certainly what I would consider "Elitist", or at least condescending.

As you know, I am about as pro-gun as can be, and I had a very different reading about Obama's statements. When working-class people find themselves impotent to protect themselves from wage erosion, job exportations, lack of health care, etc, how do they direct their political activities? They direct them in ways that they are most passionate about. In some cases, it can be religion (not necessarily fundamentalist, but you'll find most fundamentalists in poor regions as opposed to cities), it can be in fundamental personal rights (and to many people the right to be armed is important), and it can be in reactions against legal or illegal immigration (especially if these people blame foreigners for the loss of their jobs). These may not be used as a big general paint brush against all people in areas that have lost jobs and never recovered, but Obama's comments are accurate and we need a president who can see this.

Obama worked for church groups organizing displaced steel-workers after graduating from Harvard Law School and he knows something that many Americans do not. Having a secure and well-paying job pulled out from under you (especially if you went into the steel mills directly out of HS, and were middle-aged when the mill closed) is the most traumatic thing that can happen to you, as a bread-winner - apart from the death of your wife or children. You have lost the ability to provide for your family and have no reasonable prospect of regaining that income, so you have to consider selling your house (in a depressed local market due to the factory closings) and chasing a job somewhere else, with no relevant skills or training, since steel mills aren't exactly clamoring to hire and you don't have post HS education. To cap it off, you can't afford to help put your children through college and get the education that you never got. Obama is no fool, but his comments are being portrayed as if he is elitist and out-of-touch. Clinton is a Republican.

 

[drankin]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

Clinton is a whatever she needs to be to win. Some would call that a *****. At least Randi Rhodes thought so! LOL

 

[G01]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A couple of pundits stated recently that a consensus is emerging this will be decided in Indiana.

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

 

[turbo]

I really hope this is over soon. If it keeps up it will really hurt the democrats.

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012. Make no mistake - if there was a conservative Republican in the race that wanted to end the Iraq war and try to restore the economy of the US, he or she would probably get my vote. I could not possibly vote for McCain (4 More Years of Bush!) and Clinton has demonstrated that she is ready to continue Bush's policies, so she's not getting my vote. She attended Wellesley and was a member of the Young Republicans, she was on the staff of the Rose law firm (one of the most anti-union law-firms in the country), and she was on the board of Wal-Mart, which pays slave wages with no benefits and requires "associates" to work uncompensated overtime, and she claims to be for working people? I gag when I hear her say that. Obama isn't the best we could have, but he's the best out of the three choices that we've got. Sorry. I'm getting bitter.

 

[BobG]

Personally, I've always liked Obama despite that some of his views are contrary to mine. If he could reitterate his statement and explain what he meant to say I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not even from the East coast and I was a bit offended. I'd like to think he didn't mean it the way it came out. I know he said just that but it will require a little more explanation to satisfy a lot of folks.

A lot more explanation? I don't know if Obama's elitist, but "bitter" seems to be the most popular word on TV the last few days. Or maybe no explanation. Maybe only TV analysts care about the comments.

Funny which things actually wind up having an effect. Wright's comments and Obama's response didn't affect the polls much. Clinton's Bosnia comments did more than I would have expected, but Bill seemed bent on extracting the maximum amount of pain from Hillary's comment.

Even in PA, I don't think his comments affected the polls by more than a point or two. Nationally, he picked up a point since his comment. He seems to be riding the wave of the Audacity of Bitterness.

I think we need the primary to hurry. Obama and Clinton bowling? Clinton knocking back shots? If the break between primaries goes on any longer, Chris Matthews will declare he's running for Arlen Specter's seat in the Senate.

 

[Poop-Loops]

On the topic of the poll numbers, does it annoy anyone else that if Hilary wins PA by 5 points, she's going to claim it as a major victory, even though she was initially shooting for a 20 point win?

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

 

[turbo]

I just heard on Countdown about that. Keith thought it would be more like before she would have won by 5 points, but now it will be "Obama only lost by 5 points? Not bad." since people are expecting him to bomb.

At this point, it's all about managing expectations. Clinton has a lead in poorly-educated poor and middle-income people (the same idiots that shoot themselves in the foot by voting in Reagan and the Bushes) while Obama has a lead in well-educated, higher income people. PA has a whole lot of people who are HS (at best) educated so the polls show Clinton well in the lead. There may be a surprise in the wings, though. Pollsters call voters on published numbers on land-lines. Obama has solid support among well-educated young people, especially on college campuses, and his campaign knows how to get these young people to the polls. The pollsters will never know what these kids are going to do because they are increasingly wireless (with their computers on campus) and cell-based, with no land-lines. What does a poll with 850 likely Dem voters tell you in a college town where most of the young voters cannot be surveyed? Not much. We'll have to wait until Tuesday next.

 

[Poop-Loops]

That's why I love The Internets. Complete paradigm shift for the 21st century with things like Google and Youtube by themselves, which aren't even the main goal of the internet.

 

[BobG]

I don't give a damn about the polls or the PA results. Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012.

She trails by around 140 (depending on which website you check) and she should gain 10 delegates or less in PA, unless she or Obama do something really spectacular this week.

As far as who would do better in the general election against McCain, check this comparison. You have to actually move your cursor over the state to get the story. For instance, Obama's listed as doing >5% better than Clinton in Texas and Texas isn't listed as a shoo-in for McCain, but in reality Obama has some shot against McCain in Texas while Clinton has none.

In Michigan, Obama is in a dead heat with McCain while Clinton gets whomped by McCain (do you think she'd really like a do-over in Michigan?). In Florida, Clinton is in a dead heat with McCain while Obama gets whomped by McCain, so she could at least make some case Florida's primary reflected voter opinions even if the rules say Florida shouldn't count.

The page is kind of fun, but regardless of the polls right now, neither are really likely to beat McCain in Texas, nor do I believe McCain could beat Obama in New York. It would be interesting to get an idea how the candidates might do in a general election in the battleground states, but I don't think this page does it, yet. It might just be too early for anyone to really give a good idea of what might happen in November.

 

[turbo]

Interesting map, Bob! With Pat Buchanan predicting a 50:50 chance that the US would have attacked Iran by the fall of 2008, I wonder where this would put the polls. There are a lot of red-state, knee-jerk "patriots" that would vote for McCain in the general election just because he's a "hero", but I'm hoping that there are a lot of US voters who will take a hard look at our foreign policies and determine that we can't keep attacking people and killing them because the policies of our administrations and theirs don't dovetail. The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies. Bush is like a playground bully who lacks the wisdom and tact to deal with another kid, and instead decides to round up a group of mouth-breathing thugs to help him attack a kid that he doesn't dare attack on his own. Our current government and it's pretense at "foreign policy" is a shameful shell-game. The gutless Democrats will never address the international laws that Bushco has broken and the war crimes that they have committed, and we will forever be diminished by that.

 

[quadraphonics]

The Bush administration refuses to talk to the people that they label as "our enemies" but that's an ignorant view. We don't need to engage in high-level diplomacy with governments that already agree with our administration - we desperately need to engage in diplomacy with governments that DON'T agree with our administration's policies.

True; however, given that Bush doesn't understand diplomacy, and isn't good at getting qualified people to fill positions, it may actually be a good thing that he's not pursuing high-level diplomacy with adversaries. I suppose what I'm saying is that no diplomacy may well be preferable to bad diplomacy...

Anyway, it's high time we shifted our foreign policy debate away from "what's wrong with Bush" to "what are we going to do?" Saying "do some diplomacy" is a good start and all, but it's not some panacea that's going to give us everything we want. Unless the incoming President is provided with some ideas about what sorts of compromises the public might accept, and what sort of time frame they have the patience for, there's a very real risk of him getting stuck in a reactionary posture that ends up not much different than Bush. I fear that focussing all our attention on Bush's failures is a distraction from the much harder task of coming to grips with what are options really are, and then having a meaningful discussion of what the costs and benefits of each option are. And unless we do that, the new president isn't going to be able to get us anywhere satisfactory.

 

[BobG]

I cracked up when I heard Clinton call Obama "elitist"!

Right, a mixed-race kid raised by a single mom...that's just what I think of when I hear the word "elitist" !

I think Michelle Obama killed that idea. She spoke while wearing a horrid outfit with messy hair and kept wiping her nose while talking about life on the South side of Chicago. It was pretty convincing. How can Obama be an elitist? He's married to a homeless bag lady.

Maybe a little mean, but her wardrobe department ought to be fired after that appearance.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Hey, just be grateful her wardrobe didn't have a malfunction, okay?

 

[turbo]

Hey, just be grateful her wardrobe didn't have a malfunction, okay?

Hi, P-L! We can also be grateful that Michelle wasn't knocking back shots of Canadian Club with beer chasers. Hillary is looking pretty desperate at this point, and desperate = reckless/vindictive/poison in my estimation. She is as determined as McCain to deny Obama the nomination and I fear that she will fail to fall in when he eventually wins it. Clinton cannot get the nomination without a mass suicide-pact among super-delegates (most of whom are elected or nominated officials whose positions rely of the success of the general election). The Super-delegates cannot be elected on Clinton's coat-tails because she has none. All Republicans and most Independents hate her. A Clinton candidacy would guarantee a McCain win. Obama's our only hope this time around.

I wish that some real statesmen like Bill Cohen (R Maine) had tossed their hats in the ring. All we've got is plain-vanilla light-weights.

 

[lisab]

I think Michelle Obama killed that idea. She spoke while wearing a horrid outfit with messy hair and kept wiping her nose while talking about life on the South side of Chicago. It was pretty convincing. How can Obama be an elitist? He's married to a homeless bag lady.

Maybe a little mean, but her wardrobe department ought to be fired after that appearance.

I like Michelle! She's much preferable in my mind to Cindy McCain . Very plain-speaking, incredibly bright woman. And you're almost right about her in one respect: she's not 'elite' in the sense that she was not born into money. But to get to where she is on guts and brains, she's intellectually elite in my opinion.

elite: The best or most skilled members of a group.

Kind of a contrast to the Bush crowd...?

And yeah, the outfit was not good.

 

[TVP45]

Hi, P-L! We can also be grateful that Michelle wasn't knocking back shots of Canadian Club with beer chasers. Hillary is looking pretty desperate at this point, and desperate = reckless/vindictive/poison in my estimation. She is as determined as McCain to deny Obama the nomination and I fear that she will fail to fall in when he eventually wins it. Clinton cannot get the nomination without a mass suicide-pact among super-delegates (most of whom are elected or nominated officials whose positions rely of the success of the general election). The Super-delegates cannot be elected on Clinton's coat-tails because she has none. All Republicans and most Independents hate her. A Clinton candidacy would guarantee a McCain win. Obama's our only hope this time around.

I wish that some real statesmen like Bill Cohen (R Maine) had tossed their hats in the ring. All we've got is plain-vanilla light-weights.

I live in "a shot and a beer" PA and I about fell on the floor watching that crew pretend to be drinking. I can forgive Hillary - she's small and would probably be on the floor after two, but there were big guys sipping their CC. Sipping! It's amazing what hoops we put our politicians through.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hillary cannot blow out Barak and if she does not, there is no chance that she can win the nomination. My biggest fear is that when she fails to pull off the PA miracle that she needs (and even 20 points would not get her there), she will pursue a scorched Earth policy to try to make him look unelectable, further damaging the party, so she can make a "comeback bid" in 2012.

I think you have nailed it. Hillary knows what the delegate count is and she knows this year is a lost cause for her. Her best strategy is to have McCain win so she can run against him in 2012. If Obama is the next president she will have to wait until 2016 and that's probably too late. Clinton is for Clinton, not the Democrats. She is the spoiler, not Nader.

 

[chemisttree]

Obama is no fool, but his comments are being portrayed as if he is elitist and out-of-touch. Clinton is a Republican.

Make no mistake about it, Clinton believes what Obama said as well... she's just not stupid enough to say it. Obama wasn't thinking that this would get out to the Hoi Polloi. He thought he was speaking somewhat privately with like-minded fat cats in the mansions of power. He spoke his mind with a group of liberal elitists never thinking that someone would record his statement and release it to 'them'.

 

[chemisttree]

I live in "a shot and a beer" PA and I about fell on the floor watching that crew pretend to be drinking. I can forgive Hillary - she's small and would probably be on the floor after two, but there were big guys sipping their CC. Sipping! It's amazing what hoops we put our politicians through.

Down here in Texas we import http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdl86KNkt_M" I think it's amazing what we put ourselves through!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...According to a new CNN analysis of several recent polls, the Illinois senator now holds a 9-point lead over Clinton, 50 percent to 41 percent. That compares to the 3-point margin Obama held over Clinton at the end of March. [continued]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

 

[TVP45]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

I'm old enough to remember the "fixed" game shows and I'd swear Senator Clinton knew some of the questions in advance.

 

[Astronuc]

Anyone watch the tabloid slimefest on ABC tonight...the one "moderated" by Clinton's Press Secretary?

I had other things to do.

Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17debate.html

PHILADELPHIA — Senator Barack Obama found himself consistently on the defensive as he and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton met Wednesday night in a tense debate that left him parrying questions and criticism on issues including values, patriotism and his association with onetime radicals from the 1960s.

Well, it would have been better to say Obama found himself under attack - and of course on the defensive. What is with the questioning of Obama's patriotism?! What exactly has Obama allegedly done to warrant charges that he has been unpatriotic?

I suspect Clinton was trying to put words in his mouth.

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

Just because he doesn't wear an Americal flag pin on his lapel or wave a flag at every opportunity doesn't mean he is unpatriotic or uncaring about his country. It does mean that he is not ostentatious or flamboyant about it, and he is certainly not as hypocritical as those who wave the flag and the act in ways to undermine the security and integrity of the Constitution and the US, e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, . . . .

 

[chemisttree]

I'm old enough to remember the "fixed" game shows and I'd swear Senator Clinton knew some of the questions in advance.

Yes, yes, yes.

I love Hillary's answer to the question, "Can Obama win?"

 

[TVP45]

The question about the flag pin was an ambush. The woman was quoted in the NY Times on April 4, asking the same question. So, ABC obviously went to Latrobe (BTW, they knew so much about the town, they mispronounced it), found Ms. McCabe and put her question on. I don't know why they didn't just use Chelsea's questions and drop all pretense of objectivity. I suppose I ought to be thankful George Stephanopoulos didn't ask Senator Obama about being uppity.

 

[chemisttree]

I met a gentleman in Latrobe who had lost his job and was trying to figure out how he could find the gas money to travel to find a job. And that story, I think, is typical of what we're seeing all across the country.
People are frustrated, not only with jobs moving and incomes being flat, health care being too expensive, but also that special interests have come to dominate Washington, and they don't feel like they're being listened to.
I think this election offers us an opportunity to change that, to transform that frustration into something more hopeful, to bring about real change. [

Barak Obama's opening statement at the debate suggests that he would do things differently in Washington regarding special interest group influence.

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

Obama admits that his "angry/bitter" statement was offensive.

GIBSON: ...And you said they get bitter and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them. You said you misspoke. You said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?
OBAMA: Well I think there's no doubt that I can see how people were offended.

Clinton's common sense reply was dead on. It's amazing that Obama still doesn't get it!

CLINTON: And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either, when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.
Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration.

What is truly amazing and hasn't been sufficiently commented upon, is that Obama lumps gun owernership and religion (good things to many americans) with hateful things like antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.

Anti-trade sentiment is currently a campaign promise of the Democrat leadership and both Obama and Clinton's campaigns.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Barak Obama's opening statement at the debate suggests that he would do things differently in Washington regarding special interest group influence.

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

That was for a spot in Congress. His Presidential campaign is different. Something like $100 is the average amount donated?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why does he http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/" if he wants to eliminate their influence?

Nothing in the linked article says he continues to raise money from lobbyists or PACs.

 

[chemisttree]

You mean like this?

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.

"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

He took PAC money and special interest money as a State legislator and during his Senate campaign. He claims that he will continue to do it as president.

 

[Poop-Loops]

He took 1.5 million dollars?

Compared to the 55 million or so he's raised in FEBRUARY ALONE?

 

[TVP45]

You mean like this?


He took PAC money and special interest money as a State legislator and during his Senate campaign. He claims that he will continue to do it as president.

Could you give sources on these quotes?