Presidential election may be up for grabs

[Kirkhill]

The University of Chicago Hospital, where she is vice president for community affairs, bumped her pay from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate that year.

I'm flashing back to the 60's and Rowan and Martin.......Verrrrrry Interesting.

The Dems put up a ward heeler and his wife gets a raise.  Who sits on the board of The University of Chicago Hospital?  Any Daley's?

Maybe it's not just me that is flashing back to 1968 ( and before the wise-cracks start - I was young enough to actually remember that year without a Purple Haze).  Are the Dems sticking to the tried and true?

 

[a_majoor]

Lets look at the Republicans again, this time from the POV of one of the fixtures of the Paleo Conservative movement:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view509.html#Monday

McCain and Conservatives

John McCain is the Republican nominee. Nothing we can do will change that.

McCain likes to pose as a maverick, but he is a third generation Country Club Republican who grew up in Washington political society. He is solidly aligned with the Country Club Liberal wing of the party, which has never been much good for conservatives; and his personal history shows he will do much to remain in office, and one supposes that means he will do much to get it. He was a spoiled brat in his youth, but he did go to Annapolis, and he did not shirk combat duty. The Legions see him as one of themselves. If this sounds a bit like Mark Anthony, so be it; but he hasn't Anthony's brains or ruthlessness, which is just as well.

McCain cannot win without the support of the Conservatives. Indeed he cannot win without the enthusiastic support of the conservatives. He will also need the votes of the Republican party, the independent conservatives who will generally vote Republican, and some Democrats. In a word he’s going to need much of the old Reagan coalition; but like all the Country Club Republicans, he hasn’t any real troops. The liberal wing of the Republican Party is good at raising money and using hired campaign workers, but it hasn’t any real party building strength. It doesn’t inspire enthusiasm or zeal.

McCain will gather a number of centrist and conservative Democrats, and he will do that without any need for movement Conservatives to be involved; but without us he won’t be able to stir the base and get out the vote. Many will sit on their hands unless motivated by the conservatives.

He needs us. Now: what do we want?

We are not going to get a movement Conservative. McCain is no Goldwater and never will be. He is a Washington politician with deep ties to the liberal establishment and the country club Republicans. He is not merely soft but squishy on immigration, he is committed to an insane campaign reform effort, and he is not unfriendly to the self-contradictory notion of "Big Government Conservatism" and "Compassionate Conservatism" on a Federal level.

Note that I am not denouncing the idea of compassion. For a man to love his country, his country ought to be lovely, and no country is lovely when there are people in misery in its streets. Moreover, there are things government can do to make the country more lovely. However, these are seldom things that the National Government can do, and in fact it's not often the state governments can do much. These are matters for local government, and even more so for what Tocqueville called "the associations": non-government organizations in Tocqueville's America and long afterward up into my lifetime doing much of the relief work, civic improvement, hospitals and food services, clinics, shelters, missions: the YMCA and YWCA when they were real. The Boy Scouts, Lions, Eagles, Moose, Masons, Knights of Columbus, Rotary, Optimists -- you get the idea. To the extent that the Federal government acts with these it is to suppress them, and to replace them, and this is a disastrous trend for freedom. Having said that, I doubt that McCain will understand, agree, or even care. His view of Big Government Conservatism is not likely to be much different from that of Bush II.

However: he has made a bid for Conservative support. Part of that bid is a promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. If he will do that, much can be done to dismantle the bureaucratic suppression of the associations.

One great threat to local institutions is illegal aliens. Hospitals, privately funded by charities, are required to take all comers to emergency rooms: and soon they must close because they can't afford to be free clinics. Illegal immigrants swamp city services. San Diego is bankrupt because of illegals. Los Angeles is forced to raise taxes. Allies of the illegals take key positions in the California legislature and hold the people hostage. "We want more money," they say; and they will never give up.

McCain has horrible positions on border control and will never use ICE to deport illegals here. He wants and amnesty which would be a disaster. However: he has promised to secure the border first. I have no reason to believe that this former Legion officer is not a man of his word. He has pledged his word. We need him to confirm that offer: and if he does, we can consider the matter closed. He will not secure that border in 4 years; he cannot go for his amnesty until he has done that; and this is an end to the matter. This is the best the movement conservatives will get, and it is better than we have now with Bush II; what more do we want? A Democrat who will demand amnesty without securing the borders?

We will have to live with "campaign reform". We will have to live with fiscal irresponsibility and lack of enthusiasm for tax cuts. We will have to live with the notion of federal intervention by ham handed bureaucrats in our local affairs. Even there, though, McCain has said he is changing his position on spending and taxes.

What we need is a good negotiator to get a pact with McCain: what he will promise the conservative movement in exchange for our enthusiastic -- and I mean enthusiastic even if we must fake some of the enthusiasm -- support.

In particular we want a reiteration of promises already made: strict constructionist judges both on Supreme and lower courts; secure borders before any comprehensive immigration reform; and a bit more enthusiasm for tax cuts.

We can get all that, and it is far better than we will get from any Democrat. We should take it, and get to work.

PS: If we can get Fred Thompson for VP, it will certainly make it easier to generate some zeal.

 

[CougarKing]

McCain may very well win in November if Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to divide the Democratic Party and use issues like race and gender against each other.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23605070/

Racial issue bubbles up again for Democrats
Clinton, Obama have each used race, sex against the other
By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times
updated 11:45 p.m. PT, Wed., March. 12, 2008
After the Democratic primary in South Carolina turned racially divisive in January, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama essentially declared a truce and put a stop to fighting between their camps. But this week, race has once again begun casting a pall over the battle between the two.

On Wednesday a close ally of Mrs. Clinton, Geraldine A. Ferraro , the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984 who was on the Clinton finance committee, resigned from the campaign after being criticized by Mr. Obama’s advisers, among others, for her recent comments that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position” as a leading presidential contender.

Ms. Ferraro did not disavow that remark. Mrs. Clinton, while calling it regrettable, did not break with her.

Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, said he did not believe that there was “a directive in the Clinton campaign saying, ‘Let’s heighten the racial elements in the campaign.’ I certainly wouldn’t want to think that.”

He said he was puzzled at how, after more than a year of campaigning, race and sex are at the forefront as never before.

“I don’t want to deny the role of race and gender in our society,” he said. “They’re there, and they’re powerful. But I don’t think it’s productive.”

Unavoidable subtexts
Yet race, as well as sex, have been unavoidable subtexts of the Democratic campaign since the two candidates began seeking to be the first African-American or the first woman to lead a party’s presidential ticket. In the primaries and caucuses this winter, too, Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed substantial support from women, while Mr. Obama has increasingly drawn overwhelming votes from blacks.

The Tuesday primary in Mississippi , a state where the electorate has historically been racially polarized, generated one of the most divided votes. Mrs. Clinton received 8 percent of the black vote, and Mr. Obama received 26 percent of the white vote, according to exit polls by Edison/Mitofsky for The Associated Press and television networks.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said Wednesday that they were concerned about her standing among blacks, once a core constituency for her and her husband, but that they also believed that black support for Mr. Obama was a foregone conclusion at this point.

They said they were wrestling with ways to make inroads with blacks in Pennsylvania , which holds the next primary, on April 22.

Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to sideline Ms. Ferraro, who made her comments last week to The Daily Breeze in Torrance, Calif., left the specter of race hanging over the Democratic contest.

That decision drew a sharp rebuke on Wednesday from the Rev. Al Sharpton , the black political leader in New York and a former presidential candidate, who questioned whether Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was keeping the issue alive as a way to win white votes in Pennsylvania.

In addition to Ms. Ferraro’s remark, Mr. Sharpton cited Mrs. Clinton’s decision not to fire her top ally in Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward G. Rendell , for saying in February that some white voters there were “probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

“When you hear the lack of total denunciation of Ferraro, when you hear Rendell saying there are whites who will never vote for a black, one has to wonder if the Clinton campaign has a Pennsylvania strategy to appeal to voters on race,” Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. “I would hope Mrs. Clinton would make it clear that she is not doing that.”

Mr. Sharpton ran against Ms. Ferraro in 1992 in New York in a primary for a Senate seat.

Howard Wolfson , the Clinton campaign’s communications director, said in response: “She has made it clear. She makes it clear all the time.”

From virtually the start of the contest between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama in January 2007, they have sought to move beyond race and sex, acknowledging that their possible nominations would be historic, yet saying they were running on their qualifications.


Using sex, race against each other
At the same time, each has used the issue against the other. Mr. Obama’s advisers suggested that Mrs. Clinton was playing the sex card last fall after a brutal debate where several male contenders criticized her.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers and former President Bill Clinton suggested that black candidates like Mr. Obama had done well in South Carolina because of support among African-Americans there.

Although Mr. Obama did not directly call on Ms. Ferraro to quit the campaign finance committee, his aides worked to keep the issue alive. They set up a conference call with reporters to draw attention to the comment.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama called the remark wrongheaded but said he did not believe that Ms. Ferraro intended it to be racist.

“The Clinton campaign has talked more during the course of the last few months about what groups are supporting her and what groups are supporting me and trying to make a case that the reason she should be the nominee is that there are a set of voters that Obama might not get,” he said. “And that seems to track in a certain racial demographic.”

Mr. Obama’s advisers noted that his support among whites in Mississippi increased, to a small degree, over that in South Carolina, when some Democrats had feared that Mr. Obama could be called a candidate who appealed just to black voters.

Race has been a defining feature of the primary contests. Beyond Mississippi, Mrs. Clinton was backed by 5 percent of black voters in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state; 8 percent in Wisconsin, where black voters made up 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote; 9 percent in Delaware; 10 percent in Virginia; and 11 percent in Georgia, all states Mr. Obama won.

Mr. Obama’s 26 percent support among whites in Tuesday’s primary was one of his worst performances with this group.

He had previously been supported by 16 percent of white voters in Arkansas; 23 percent in Florida, where the candidates did not actively campaign; 24 percent in South Carolina, where John Edwards was still competing; and 25 percent in Alabama.

Dalia Sussman contributed reporting.

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times

 

[tomahawk6]

Its definitely getting fun to watch. Now Obama is on the hot seat because of the church he attends.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/

 

[observor 69]

Thanks for the video. Loved it.  8)

 

[GAP]

Dragging up his preacher's oratory from 2003?.....that's the equivalent of OBamma being politically knee high to a grasshopper at that time....

 

[tomahawk6]

The problem with Obama's church is that he joined 20 years ago to burnish his "black" credentials but being a member of a radical church if you are running for a national office and you need white votes,then it will hurt you big time. How Obama deals with this issue could kill his campaign. This issue will help Hillary in Pennsylvania and maybe the rest of the way. At the convention the party leadership will decide who the nominee will be and there is a strong chance that Obama wont get the nomination.

http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

 

[a_majoor]

A suggestion for John McCain:

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/mccaingetting-serious/

McCain…getting serious

March 14, 2008 |

As I watch the implosion of the Democratic Party with a certain mildly suppressed (after all this is the Presidency of the United States and should go to a mildly attractive candidate) glee, I am amused to see a writer in the American Spectator make bold with a suggestion:

    No, this is the time for change, real change. This is a time for someone whom everybody knows to be the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

    And what a governor! Sworn as Governor in January, after winning 54 percent of the vote in the open-field primary, Jindal immediately called a special session of the legislature and persuaded them to pass his 64-point agenda for ethics reform. They said ethics reform couldn’t be done in Louisiana — a state whose reputation as a cesspool is legendary — but he did it in a two-week session. Now he’s calling a second special session to pass the tax cuts necessary to jump-start the post-Katrina economy in his state. american spectator

Jindal, East Indian in America which makes him rather exotic, manages to bridge the racial gap without all the pandering. He would be a brown face beside McCain’s pasty whiteness. He’s a bright as bright Rhodes Scholar and an elected governor. He is, more or less, half McCain’s age and ten years younger than Obama.

Not at all a bad idea.

 

[tomahawk6]

Jindal just got elected Governor and he has his work cut out for him. Maybe in 4 years Jindal can jump onto the national stage. Conservatives are watching McCain's selection of a VP very closely. An acceptable choice to conservatives will help him but selection of a democrat or RINO as VP would hurt his campaign severely.

 

[CougarKing]

Its definitely getting fun to watch. Now Obama is on the hot seat because of the church he attends.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/

Well, Obama just denounced that same pastor's controversial 9/11 comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

Obama denounces pastor's 9/11 comments
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 46 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused the country of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.

Obama called the statements appearing on television and the Internet "completely unacceptable and inexcusable" in a Fox News interview and said they didn't reflect the kinds of sermons he had heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright while attending services at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

Obama, a member of the church since the early 1990s, said he would have quit Trinity had such statements been "the repeated tenor of the church. ... I wouldn't feel comfortable there."

Earlier Friday, Obama responded by posting a blog about his relationship with Wright and Trinity on the Huffington Post. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and inspired the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Obama wrote that he's looked to Wright for spiritual advice, not political guidance, and he's been pained and angered to learn of some of his pastor's comments for which he had not been present. Obama told MSNBC that Wright had stepped down from his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said in his blog posting. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright told a cheering congregation. "Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a person."

Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as "like an uncle" who says something that he disagrees with and must speak out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.

Questions about Obama's religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his candidacy. He's had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he's really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor's words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.

Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the statements, but he acknowledged that they have raised legitimate questions about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church. He wrote that he joined Wright's church nearly 20 years ago, familiar with the pastor's background as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who lectured at seminaries across the country.

"Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life," he wrote. "And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to seek justice at every turn."

He said Wright's controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church, Obama said he decided not to leave.

"With Reverend Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good," he wrote.

Also Friday, the United Church of Christ issued a 1,400-word statement defending Wright and his "flagship" congregation. The statement lauded Wright's church for its community service and work to nurture youth and the pastor for speaking out against homophobia and sexism in the black community.

"It's time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ's president, said in the statement.

AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski in Denver contributed to this report.

On the Net:

http://www.barackobama.com

 

[tomahawk6]

Not a very convincing statement by Obama. His troubles arent over.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Doing a little damage-control on Fox News(!): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29288&only&rss

 

[CougarKing]

Not a very convincing statement by Obama. His troubles arent over.

I find it very surprising to learn from a CNN projection from last week that they estimated that even if Clinton won every remaining Democratic State Primary from now until the convention, she would still be slightly behind Obama. Let me dig up any article link which may corroborate or confirm this.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

There I was, opening the lid of my Becel, when: Joy to the World!!! He is come!!!!

http://blogquebecois.com/2008/03/and_ebay_saw_that_it_was_good.html

 

[tomahawk6]

I find it very surprising to learn from a CNN projection from last week that they estimated that even if Clinton won every remaining Democratic State Primary from now until the convention, she would still be slightly behind Obama. Let me dig up any article link which may corroborate or confirm this.

Unlike the R's the democrats have a convoluted primary system that is hurting them badly. There are
dlegates which are won in the state primaries/caucus' and super-delegates which are the party big wigs and they arent bound to vote for either candidate and they account for 20% of the votes needed to elect a nominee.Right now neither Hillary or Obama can get enough pledged delegates to get elected without the super-delegates. Right now both camps are doing eberything they can to sway super-delegates.

 

[Kirkhill]

".....maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility....."

As compared to Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Bill Clinton......?

For Democrats, Increased Fears of a Long Fight

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY
Published: March 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party’s uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict........

“It think it has got to be brokered before the convention,” said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. “I think there should be a couple of people — maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility — to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it.”....

George Bush may only appeal to 35% of Americans when up against a variety of notional candidates but I can't help but believe his numbers will continue to rise as real alternatives are considered.

 

[tomahawk6]

Congress' poll numbers were at 12% last time I looked.

 

[a_majoor]

Senator Obama panders to a particularly nasty form of "Identity politics", and I am sure this sort of news is manna to both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. How the end game will play out is anyone's guess, there will be a pretty vicious fight on the Democratic Convention's floor and in the back rooms with the Superdelegates, and this could lead to a splintering of the Democrats "base" (although the probable end result will be various blocks of voters sitting on their hands in November rather than defections to the rival party. For the Republicans, this might offset the possibility that disenchanted "Movement Conservatives" will also stay home).

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

The Religious Wright

Are we wrong to think that Barack Obama's campaign is imploding? For the past few days the national spotlight has been on Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ and Obama's so-called spiritual mentor, who turns out to be a certifiable America-hating crackpot. As ABC News reported last week:

    "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

    In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

    "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

    "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Obama's response--which we'll get to in a moment--has been to assert that the most outrageous of Wright's utterances are news to him, and to avoid discussing the pastor's overall theological worldview.

In a set of "talking points" on the church's Web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity.

Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):

    Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Could Obama really have been unaware for all these years that his spiritual mentor follows a racially adversarial theology, one that demands of God that he be "for us and against white people" and that he participate "in the destruction of the white enemy"? It doesn't exactly sound like the sort of change we can believe in.

National Review's Rich Lowry notes that Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams of My Father," cites a Wright sermon called "The Audacity of Hope," the title of which Obama borrowed for his own campaign slogan. Without evident disapproval, Obama quotes a passage from that sermon in which Wright describes "a world . . . where white folks' greed runs a world in need."

Writing on the Puffington Host, self-described Obama backer Gerald Posner says he finds it hard to believe Obama could not have known about Wright's post-9/11 calumny:

    There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the [sic] attack itself. . . .

    If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there--by 9/11 they were there more than a decade--and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack--a sitting Illinois State Senator--would have been one of the first to hear about it.

    Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered [sic] Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."

And what does Obama have to say for himself? Essentially nothing. In his own Puffington Host post, the senator issues a series of condemnations without troubling himself to specify what he is condemning:

    I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue. . . .

    The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. . . .

    Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

In the same post, Obama claims that Wright "has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor." In fact, as Bloomberg reports, Wright served on an advisory committee for the Obama campaign, from which he was forced to resign Friday.

Why does Obama feel it necessary to resort to these lawyerly--dare we say Clintoneque--evasions? (The American Thinker blog sends them up to great effect.) Why can't he simply speak from the heart and tell us what he really thinks of black liberation theology? Two possibilities come to mind, both of which may be true.

One is that Obama's condemnation and rejection of Wright's appalling statements is not sincere. That is not to say that Obama shares Wright's hatreds; we have no reason to think that he does and would be surprised if he did. It may just be that the whole question is a matter of indifference to him, except inasmuch as it affects his own political ambitions. If Obama doesn't speak from the heart, perhaps it is because his heart has nothing to say.

Obama apparently has been aware for some time that his association with Wright was likely to be a political liability. The New York Times reports:

    In the interview last spring, Mr. Wright expressed frustration at the breach in [his] relationship with Mr. Obama, saying the candidate had already privately said that he might need to distance himself from his pastor.

At this point, though, "distancing" himself plainly is not enough. Obama needs to renounce Wright and his noxious beliefs forcefully and specifically, even if he personally is blasé about them.

But this brings us to the second possible reason he hasn't done so: that it may entail a political cost as well. After all, it's not as if the malevolent minister is preaching to empty pews. There is a segment of the black community that embraces Wright-style bigotry, shown anecdotally in this quote from the ABC News story:

    "I wouldn't call it radical. I call it being black in America," said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.

We would like to think this point of view is not terribly common. But Wright's congregation has 8,000 members, the biggest in its denomination, according to the Religion News Service. Possibly Obama has reason to fear losing crucial black support if he expressly repudiates Wright and what he stands for.

One of the Obama campaign's chief selling points has been the promise of "unity" and of rising above racial division. But how can you unify the nation while countenancing hatred of it? And how can racial division be overcome when those who preach hatred are able to find such a large audience?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hmmmm. Despite Dief the Chief’s wise words about polls, predictions and elections results, and dogs and poles, too, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act fron today’s National Post will provide some (temporary? – remember, also, Harold Wilson’s wise words about a week being an eternity in politics) relief to McCain supporters:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=386258

Obama’s lead over Clinton evaporates

Steve Holland, Reuters

Published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but disappeared in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The poll showed Mr. Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47% to 44% over Ms. Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.

Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

Mr. McCain leads 46% to 40% in a hypothetical matchup against Mr. Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Mr. Obama would beat Mr. McCain 47% to 40%.

"The last couple of weeks have taken a toll on Obama and in a general election match-up, on both Democrats," said pollster John Zogby.

Matched up against Ms. Clinton, Mr. McCain leads 48% to 40%, narrower than his 50% to 38% advantage over her in February.

"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Mr. Zogby said

Mr. Obama gave a speech on Tuesday rebuking his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for sermons sometimes laced with inflammatory tirades but said he could not disown him and it was time for Americans to bind the country's racial wounds.

The poll showed Mr. Obama continues to have strong support from the African-American community but that he is experiencing some slippage among moderates and independents.

Among independents, Mr. McCain led for the first time in the poll, 46% to 36% over Obama.

He was behind Mr. McCain by 21% among white voters.

Mr. Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Ms. Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.

"And, just the closer he gets to the nomination, the tougher questions whites ask about an African-American candidate," Mr. Zogby said.

The March 13-14 poll surveyed 525 likely Democratic primary voters for the matchup between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

For the matchup between Mr. McCain and his Democratic rivals, 1004 likely voters were surveyed. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Reuters © 2008​

 

[tomahawk6]

White men are the segment of the population that a Presidential must carry if he is to win.Obama has probably lost that category and Hillary wont do much better.Barring a McCain meltdown I'd say the election is his to win.Hillary and Obama will be battling tooth and nail right up to the convention and key democrat leaders have ruled out the "dream ticket".