2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

It's kind of assholish to REJECT someone's endorsement of you, I mean.. I think Barack answered the question very well and repeatedly stated that he denounced Farrakhan's views on Israel/Judaism... that said, Russert was sort of being a dick about the whole thing but I guess that's his schtick. I knew this would come up, better now than in the GE I guess.

You wouldn't hesistate to reject David Duke's endorsement, I assume.

What about Professor Griff's?

I wouldn't compare Farrakhan and David Duke...

but thats kind of besides the point anyway

what is he supposed to say "I DO NOT WANT UR ENDORSEMENT FUCK OFF", it's not like Farrakhan is campaigning for him

I still find it hard, when I hear the name Farrakhan, not to automatically rap to myself "Farrakhan's a prophet that I think you ought to listen to"

Ha, ha -- Euler OTM

Do people still care about Farrakhan? I mean, is there a significant population that Obama would have lost if he had just said "I reject Farrakhan's endorsement"? I assumed that there is, but I'm not really basing that on anything.

There I agree, BW. Obama handled the question well, as I said above.

clinton lost ohio tonight.

Think so? It would follow the pattern: HRC has a lead until Obama introduces himself to the state's electorate.

I sense another dynamic at work now, too: I think Democratic voters want this primary over, so we can avoid a nasty convention and focus on McCain. Plus, as electability becomes a bigger issue, it helps Obama.

yeah, just looking at what people are going to walk away remembering/regurgitating in the press: clinton's complaint about press treatment, her vigor during the health care debate that caused her to even interrupt williams and the fact that she was regularly blushing in anger and frustration. i thought her frustration was warranted, but it's beside the point, as people will only remember the result. obama was great. he has really gotten much, much better at these things.

xpost - I don't think it's a stretch. Farrakhan's a prominent anti-Semite, and I imagine Obama's answer is going to be problematic for lots of Jews, many of whom will be voting in Democratic primaries, and for other moderate Democrats who remember Farrakhan's heyday. I'm thinking of my grandmother, for example, or a lot of the blue-collar union guys I worked summer jobs with. They're part of the old Democratic coalition, and they're a little hesitant about voting for an African-American, and if this gets any significant media play over the next week, it could present problems for Obama.

Republicans are definitely going to make a big deal of it, though. Hopefully you're right, and it will be limited to them.

another xpost - rejecting endorsements of homophobes, anti-Semites, and so on, isn't really asshole-ish behavior. It's good politics.

i was kinda hoping Hillary would randomly cackle in the middle of serious Obama answer, apropos of nothing

Maybe. FWIW, I'm Jewish, and Obama's answer doesn't bother me. It may for some (I'm a Democrat, anyway, so maybe I'm not a good barometer).

I thought Obama's answer was great. Hillary's kind of bugged me.

I do not see what was problematic about his answer, really. You need to be specific Nathan.

And now here's the MSNBC panel -- who helps set opinion -- saying Obama defused that very issue (Farrakhan).

.

Hillary: Your people are so important I stooped to purportedly putting my career on the line for them. I hope you remember that and don't dump me for this glib new guy.

Anyone who took issue with his answer is just nitpicking over semantics really...

xpost - the specific problem is that instead of saying, "Farrakhan is an anti-Semite and I don't want his support," which would have been easy and the best answer, he hedged and stuttered about how he "denounced" Farrakhan's words but didn't reject his support - he simply refused to use the word, even when pressed by an obviously surprised Tim Russert. He looked unsure of himself and kind of stuttered his way through the answer - admittedly, it reads better than it sounded. But his whole bit about denouncing without rejecting sounds like he's trying to have it both ways, and people who don't like Farrakhan are wondering, "Why doesn't he just say it already?" Instead he rambled on a bit about how the campaign didn't solicit his report, and it just sounded weak.

Worse, it gave Clinton an opening to make a strong answer on the same issue, and she flatly stated about an anti-Semitic group that endorsed her, "I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country."

Luckily, Obama got a chance to save himself, but he screwed up the first answer and gave Clinton a chance to look principled, strong, and clearheaded in comparison. It was not a good moment for him, and it's more than just semantics.

And of course, by "report" I mean "support."

was out this evening, can anyone hook a bro up with a youtube channel for my debate fix? getting the shakes/cold sweats/paranoid it's not pretty.

it's being rebroadcast right now

the part that resonated more for me on that answer was him bringing up the help of jewish people in civil rights. i thought that was a nice point to bring up and definitely helped.

tell me I'm not the only one who wants to see a Tim Russert slasher flick

if I ever get access to a photo scanner, maybe someday I'll post gabbneb_Russert.jpg

I don't see the need to just flatly REJECT his support, Obama made it rather clear that he finds some of Farrakhan's views (namely his views on Judaidm/Isreal) reprehensible, which was what Russert was trying to bait him about.. like I said, it's not as if Farrakhan will be a surrogate campaigning for him, he's just voiced his personal support of Obama.. it's such a non-issue, really.

And I agree YGS, that black-jewish relations part was great.

every time I hear "native garb" I think of the not-un-Brian-Williams-looking Roland Burton Hedley

anyway, how awful is Tim Russert as a moderator? Hilary is totally right about his dumb ass hypotheticals... plus he kept talking over Hilary....

xpost - Unfortunately, non-issues can matter a lot.

yeah, you're right. I really doubt that this will hurt him though (at least I hope it doesn't...)

Hilary is totally right about his dumb ass hypotheticals...

Yeah, because no president's foreign policy team should ever set up plans for things that could happen. They should be waiting for things to occur and then make decisions on the spot.

maybe it wasn't the best answer, vote-getting-wise, but she was totally right

No, she wasn't. It's not unreasonable to ask for a response to a hypothetical situation (there were some interesting points made about hypotheticals in a Slate article earlier in the campaign).

There are lots of extremely smart, qualified people in government who spend most of their time preparing for hypothetical situations. It's not too much to ask how a President would respond to a plausible international crisis.

^^otm

i liked the hypothetical, but what's kind of lame is that i'm not sure a GOP debate would get the same squirm factor. essentially the question is, "okay, you fucked up (even if you didn't, we're saying you did), what are you going to do about it and wouldn't you basically do what the GOP candidates are saying we should do?" let's put you into a (not so) hypothetical corner where your opinion is wrong and you're an asshole.

the hypotheticals were awful, refusal to answer was hillary's best move of the night

fuck a tim russert

her trying to pull an anti-semitic card on barack was fucked up too

I think he defused it by laughing it off

"lol ok I reject AND denounce"

I still don't see why Russert's hypotheticals were awful. If/when we withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will almost certainly increase their profile and the decision on whether or not to RE-intervene will be on the table for the next four years. Asking what course of action a presidential candidate would take once in office is a pretty valid question, imho.

Maybe a timed debate isn't the greatest place to address the issue, but these are things that need to be asked.

it was like a TRIPLE hypothetical

I kept wanting to say "and what if a unicorn appears .... WHAT THEN???"

a red unicorn

Okay, maybe Russert was foaming at the mouth a little bit with his set up, but for Hillary to dismiss the premise altogether was a bad move.

Meanwhile, surprising to no one, Obama's church denomination is being investigated by the IRS, cuz, like, he spoke there, and stuff.

In other thoughts, this is of course really obvious, but I have a mixed feeling of both anticipation and apprehension for how the rest of the campaign is going to go. Just for the insanity of all the RWA follower-types losing their shit over a Democrat possibly getting elected, much less one of THESE Democrats.

I mean, there'll be all sorts of weird shit come summer, but once we hit october, it's going to be Jodorowsky-level unhinged. I mean, look at all the great fun we had in October 2006. So many mad political types running about like a Bloom County cartoon, only these assholes are probably going to be more violent.

dudes, the "denounce vs reject" thing showed Obama at his best. He showed how tedious the semantics game is.

the early returns are not kind to hillary

http://i25.tinypic.com/axi8li.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/25exq1c.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/znx9jd.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/9898r6.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/xn6wxx.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/20qfllj.jpg

somehow drudge has the mildest headline?