2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

i hope the 'hes just my crazy uncle' defense is effective

Except that you don't choose your uncles, but you do choose which church to attend - presumably because something in the message appeals to you.

It is also good to hear what happens in 'segregated' space with a view to, y'know, addressing it and doing something positive to change 'the way things are'.

If you are part of what politicians condescendingly refer to as a 'community' you have traditionally gone to churches for the cohesion that is lacking elsewhere - and if you do not do so, there is a lot of pressure to join. Not all churches are conservative in their interpretation of belief. I'm glad Obama takes the values he does from his church but I consider his application and understanding are filtered through the mind of an intelligent person with free will and nuance.

McCain was the first person I ever heard refer to 9/11 as an act of war, and that was the moment when I realized everything was going to go really really wrong.

The Wright guy's a character, huh? Maybe he can join forces with Fred Phelps and Obama can sneak that evangelical vote right out from under John McCain's nose.

He really is not comparable to Fred Phelps.

I don't see what's so "indefensible" about his comments. Maybe they're a big misguided, and Obama should've told him to put a lid on it a while ago because I knew he would eventually say something to get him in trouble, but there are some valid arguments there. And to act as though race is not a factor and it's PURELY a class issue is just wrong and is just as ridiculous as saying it's purely racial. The fact of the matter black people have been systematically opessed for centuries, and still are in many ways.. it's far more subtle than it was a few decades ago, yes, but it STILL EXISTS.

the week after 9/11, I heard/read "act of war," "we're at war" CONSTANTLY in the media.

i'll go along with this, and i'll say it again: if the clinton camp pushes this, it'll play out like they're willing to go to any length to secure political advantage, even so far as to revise the racial history of the US.

xpost to brainwasher

are all churches this political in their sermons these days? i grew up catholic and they never talked about anything other than scripture then.

People in certain minorities do have to work twice as hard to get half as much, I'll agree, but in order to solve the problem without racially profiling its sufferers it's extremely important to have a discussion where class is at the wheel and race rides shotgun for a change. Obama's getting baited with this shit when he's perfectly capable of re-focusing discussion and turning it into a 'teaching moment'. Just sayin'.

ok why doesnt obama directly respond to ferraro by saying 'i didnt get where i am because i'm black, i got here because i'm AMERICAN' thus responding to both race baiting and patriot baiting w/ a cheap applause line that may actually be effective?

or is it bad to even acknowledge?

No, that would be good, mail them, OK?

i am applausing already

Hey Alfred! It looks like we're ever closer to our second vote this season. By mail, even!

are all churches this political in their sermons these days? i grew up catholic and they never talked about anything other than scripture then.

It probably depends on the congregation. After disavowing Catholicism when I was in high school, my parents and I went to a Unitarian church. And having had a positive experience there, I decided to try another Unitarian church when I got to college. I went once but didn't return because I didn't like how the sermon that week was basically "Re-elect Bill Clinton!!!" (admittedly, it was two days before Election Day) (also the fact that it was held in a high-school gymnasium was a big turn-off).

Hey Alfred! It looks like we're ever closer to our second vote this season. By mail, even!

I thought I read in this morning's NYT that Bill Nelson's plan was shot down.

I just saw footage on MSNBC of a pow wow in Tallahassee where they're trying to hammer out details.

I think the anger that Wright expresses in some of those statements is completely understandable and realistic, but unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that they do clash with the more unifying, conciliatory message that Obama is trying for. At some point these statements are going to make the news - if not now, then in the fall. Whether via a 527-organization Swift-Boating or a direct criticism from McCain's campaign, I think we can rest assured they will be aired. One possible net positive from these statements getting a full media airing is that by focusing attention on Obama's church, they could help to defuse the rumors that he's Muslim.

obama has fully disclosed all of his earmarks for his time in the senate:
link

Florida proposes June 3 Democratic primary re-vote

4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democratic party leaders in Florida are proposing a repeat presidential primary on June 3, according to a memo they sent to national party leaders and the two Democratic presidential hopefuls.

"We have reexamined every potential alternative again. Only one stands out as fair, open, practical and feasible at this time," said the March 12 memo, distributed to party leaders late Wednesday, according to the Politico website.

"We are positive that a combination vote-by-mail and in-person election can be conducted in the time available," the memo said.

It proposed a vote held June 3 at a cost of ten to 12 million dollars, though it did not address the contentious question of who would foot the bill.

National party leaders stripped Florida and Michigan of delegates to the Democratic National Convention because the two states violated party rules by moving the dates of their presidential primaries forward to January.

But the primaries were held regardless, even though Democratic presidential hopefuls largely respected pledges not to campaign in the two states.

Barack Obama and John Edwards, who has since dropped out of the race, had their names removed from the Michigan ballot.

Hillary Clinton won resounding victories in both states amid record voter turnout.

A staggering 1.75 million Democrats voted in Florida on January 29, with Clinton routing Obama 50 to 33 percent.

Even if Florida delegates are restored through a re-vote or some other mechanism, neither Clinton nor Obama appears likely to cross the finish line of 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

But Democrats are haunted by the prospect of denying a voice to voters in Florida, the battleground state that controversially decided the 2000 election.

-----------------------------------------------------

Okay, looks like some kind of weird mail/polling booth mix. wtg Florida, can't we do anything that makes sense?

Obama could easily defuse this (if disingenuously): "I find great solace in the Rev. Wright's church. His political statements, however, are deplorable."

'deplorable' seems strong for TRUE FACTS that the public doesnt want to hear

Right – which is why I added the "disingenuous" tag.

one of Sully's readers sez to hell with the party:

Watching the Democrats self-immolate during this election, which should have been a slam-dunk for the party, has really made me question its abiity to lead this country at all, ever again. If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain. From its ineffectual performance in Congress since the midterms to its fratricidal primary warfare, the Dem party seems determined to prove that it has outlived its usefulness. Now, gifted with a candidate who represents a new start for the future--who offers an attempt to show the country how we can at least attempt to transcend the most divisive elements of racism, prejudice and partisanship (no, not get rid of them completely, but at least kick them a ways to the curb in the name of progress and solving this country's very serious current challenges), it has instead chosen a fight to the death to re-install a desperate, discredited monarchy that is taking refuge in the last century's cultural and identity wars.

What the hell?

And where is the party's leadership? Cowering in the shadows. Unlike the Republicans, who are at least attempting to unite around their candidate and present a grown-up face--and whose candidates were Emily Posts compared to the Clintons in their effort to maintain some of the party's dignity during the primaries--too many Dem leaders are standing around watching this ridiculous spectacle hands in pockets.

Gore? Edwards? Biden? Richardson? If they really backed the Clintons they'd have said so by now, but rather than come out and stand up for the future, they're hedging their bets. Hoping for Cabinet posts? The Republican drop outs, meanwhile, immediately moved to unity, endorsing McCain quickly.

Dems will say this is healthy. Democracy is messy! Oh, please. Maybe it WAS healthy. Now it's just nuts. No offense to the Palestinians, but you know that saying that "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?" Well, the Dems have become the Palestinians of U.S. politics.

This election will signal the end of my identification as a Democrat. I've had it. And I can't imagine I'm alone in thinking and feeling this way. Can't the party see this?

on point

no offense to the palestinians

Clinton campaign to respond to Obama's vote suspending earmarks for a full year: "Obama has clearly demonstrated his aversion to pork barrel spending. You know who else hates pork? Muslims, that's who."

I'm only a Dem in primary season. By the time of the GE, I'm unaffiliated again. Every time.

Wish I lived in a state with open primary voting.

I don't think there's nothing to Hillary's electability arguments, but I'm glad she feels the need to divide the party in scorched-earth fashion to avoid taking a risk on Obama so that we can take a risk on her.

Drudge or the Clinton campaign could easily get the headline: "OBAMA MINISTER: 'GOD DAMN AMERICA'" -- but, again, the pre-Internet Rove strategies of the past have assumed that people won't look up the facts and context behind the statement and it wouldn't necessarily get traction in 2008 the way it would have in 2000.

Wait - where did these verbatim quotes of the guys sermons come from? Why was anyone recording them?

people record sermons all of the time

the media does NOT have a very long attention span on these supposed "obama controversies" I've noticed. they last maybe one news cycle, have no effect, he wins another primary, and then no-one cares (rightly so)

If these tactics still worked, this fall would be "GOD DAMN AMERICA" vs. "POPE IS A WHORE".

Really? I'm guessing this is a USA-Europe divide, because I have never heard of anyone recording a sermon here.

It's going to be a great year for industrial dance remixes.

xpost HAHA

Some of the larger British evangelical churches offer DVDs. Cashflow, baby.

Well, I'm Church of Scotland, and 'larger' evangelical churches in Scotland are tiny really.

what is ferraro's job now, exactly?

she should step down from it regardless

Sully OTM

"hillary clinton has never been called a nigger"

this is kind of interesting:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/12/should-obama-agree-to-seat-florida.aspx

raises the question of whether obama would benefit from simply conceding the florida delegates as they stand.

florida's largely clinton-friendly, and since he's likely to lose a florida re-vote anyway - though certainly not by as big a margin as he did in january - conceding the delegates-as-they-are would prevent any big clinton-momentum event spun by her w/ the media likely to follow.

What worries Obama managers in Chicago is the timing: if Florida is seen as a real re-do, and if the media portrays it as a wide open contest, a clear Clinton victory would give her a big bounce of momentum right as the primary window closes.

What's worse for Obama, taking the delegate hit that would result from seating Florida's delegation as is (in the neighborhood of a net 35 delegate loss), or going forward with a revote? The consensus--which seems right to me--is that he'd probably lose again, but by a narrower margin, with a delegate loss maybe half that, or less. What's more important--the delegates or the perception of late momentum?

it's a very interesting idea, especially considering the complete media bonanza about the clinton-comeback in ohio/texas, which had a real impact on the perception of the race, even though it changed virtually nothing about the delegate count.

might also be used as some bargaining leverage -- e.g. we'll give you florida-as-is if you give us a michigan caucus (or split michigan 50-50?).

apparently Ferraro's been fighting multiple myeloma for 10 years

it seems fairly clear that Clinton intends to strike no "deals" whatsoever and will not concede under any circumstances until someone fucking tells her to give it up OR ELSE

I think she'll drop out if it becomes clear that he has a stronger claim on electability, like if he won OH or TX. she's not convinced of that yet, and I might not totally be either.

but this bullshit where she's writing states off for the Dems in the Fall makes her the worst person in the world, afaic

A Kerry-level claim on electability?

Sullivan poster is overlooking that the rest of the GOP field was far more inept at attracting votes than Shril is, hence they "united" quickly.

If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain.

The fun part is neither is the other party, and if you consider a thirs, you're an "irrelevant" fantasist.

I have never heard of anyone recording a sermon here

Europeans don't have phones?

I doubt Barack's opponents are going to jump on Ministergate as it defeats the much more effective Muslimgate

although it might pop up later when more people have realized he's not a Muslim