USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Playa del Soul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

This one seems to be for you, RonH.

Will you similarly be getting back to us when McCain repudiates and rejects the endorsement of Hagee, who I believe has been spouting his stuff for rather longer than Wright? Let us know...

Steve

When McCain cites Hagee as his spiritual mentor and advisor, you let us know. Apples and oranges. Of course, blinded by pretty words and a special form of racial enlightenment that drives you to support a man with little (if any) governing experience and no legislative achievements, I won't hold my breath for any admission of distinction.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

If your sole reason for not recognizing the hypocricy of critcizing Clinton for not acting fast enough, but giving Obama a pass, is because the situation is different (and certainly not any less troubling to voters?) then you yourself are guilty of the very charge you level against her. I wasn't talking about McCain and I wasn't comparing it to the monster comment, but you can keep bringing these up if you think it helps justify your blinders.

I wasn't talking about McCain either. And the situation is different. So I'm not guilty of the same charge. That's the point.



And if the situation is the same -- if Clinton in fact had a years-long close personal relationship with Ferraro -- then the situation would be the same and I'd change my view of her actions.

Steve

[Davev]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

When McCain cites Hagee as his spiritual mentor and advisor, you let us know. Apples and oranges. Of course, blinded by pretty words and a special form of racial enlightenment that drives you to support a man with little (if any) governing experience and no legislative achievements, I won't hold my breath for any admission of distinction.

Are you RonH's lawyer..?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

When McCain cites Hagee as his spiritual mentor and advisor, you let us know. Apples and oranges. Of course, blinded by pretty words and a special form of racial enlightenment that drives you to support a man with little (if any) governing experience and no legislative achievements, I won't hold my breath for any admission of distinction.

Originally Posted by Davev

Are you RonH's lawyer..?

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But are you saying that the relationship between McCain and Hagee is sufficiently different that McCain should not worry about separating himself further from Hagee? That it's OK to say, well, he says homosexuals caused Katrina and the Catholic Church is the Antichrist, but of course just because I accept his endorsement doesn't mean I agree with him, and leave it at that?

Steve

I did not see any sincere attempt to engage me. I saw yet another attempt to re-frame my words and thoughts into some that were not mine, but that may be more aligned with the way you see things.

If there is something in what I wrote that you did not understand, then quote those words and ask me what I meant by them, do not try to guess what you hoped I might have meant.

If you are unable to do that and prefer to distort and misrepresent what I wrote by way of rhetorical questions and "on the other hands" then I will choose not to engage in on-line discussions with you.

Ron

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

I did not see any sincere attempt to engage me. I saw yet another attempt to re-frame my words and thoughts into some that were not mine, but that may be more aligned with the way you see things.

If there is something in what I wrote that you did not understand, then quote those words and ask me what I meant by them, do not try to guess what you hoped I might have meant.

If you are unable to do that and prefer to distort and misrepresent what I wrote by way of rhetorical questions and "on the other hands" then I will choose not to engage in on-line discussions with you.

Ron

OK, can you accept a question, then?

What do you think McCain should do about Hagee?

Sheesh...

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

OK, can you accept a question, then?

What do you think McCain should do about Hagee?

Sheesh...

Steve

You are asking what nominee of the party of candidates who regularly go to Bob Jones University to kiss extreme right-wing butt should do?

I don't have any advice for Senator McCain in that matter.

[ryberg]

Is it starting to sound to anybody else like like a MI do-over may be more likely than one in FL?

Plan: Michigan revote would be in June

Along the same lines, does it seem to anybody else that Obama would more likely do well in a MI do-over than one in FL, given the larger African-American and (I think) smaller elderly demographic in MI? (Demographics that might well counteract if not overcome the more rust-belt OH similarities that one would normally expect to favor Clinton.)

I don't know. I'm not trying to twist anybody's opinion or the facts. I'm just asking a question.

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I wasn't talking about McCain either. And the situation is different. So I'm not guilty of the same charge. That's the point.



And if the situation is the same -- if Clinton in fact had a years-long close personal relationship with Ferraro -- then the situation would be the same and I'd change my view of her actions.

Steve

The situation is not so different, and perhaps it even has nothing to do with the relationship between candidate and those they must denounce (I apologize if my rather winding explanation of why I personally think Clinton and Ferraro are "close" due to politics rather than religion muddied the water; it wasn't the main thrust of my argument).

They are the similar because of the impact on voters. A smart candidate will recognize and address those concerns. Ferraro may have done real damage this close to the primary in Pennsylvania. Wright's comments might be capable of inspiring the same kind of damage in the hearts and minds of some voters.

No situation will ever be completely the same or different. You just selectively criticize everyone but your own candidate, under the guise of what has become my least favorite saying in all political forums everywhere: apples and oranges. Can't we do better? Broccolli and cauliflower? Flip flops and stilletos?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

When McCain cites Hagee as his spiritual mentor and advisor, you let us know. Apples and oranges. Of course, blinded by pretty words and a special form of racial enlightenment that drives you to support a man with little (if any) governing experience and no legislative achievements, I won't hold my breath for any admission of distinction.

Good to see you man!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

The situation is not so different, and perhaps it even has nothing to do with the relationship between candidate and those they must denounce (I apologize if my rather winding explanation of why I personally think Clinton and Ferraro are "close" due to politics rather than religion muddied the water; it wasn't the main thrust of my argument).

They are the similar because of the impact on voters. A smart candidate will recognize and address those concerns. Ferraro may have done real damage this close to the primary in Pennsylvania. Wright's comments might be capable of inspiring the same kind of damage in the hearts and minds of some voters.

No situation will ever be completely the same or different. You just selectively criticize everyone but your own candidate, under the guise of what has become my least favorite saying in all political forums everywhere: apples and oranges. Can't we do better? Broccolli and cauliflower? Flip flops and stilletos?

I've been saying that Obama has to move away from Wright, since before this last discussion started.

It could seem like I only criticize other candidates, I guess. I think it could seem that way though in part because all in all, Obama and his people have made far fewer blunders and missteps in their campaign than Clinton and her people have in hers. I mean we have even seen this on objective counts -- record-setting fundraising, strong money management, lack of internal infighting in his camp, all in contrast to problems in hers -- so I don't know why it would seem so strange to think that he's also made fewer mistakes of other kinds. Also he's remained ahead and she's remained behind ever since his remarkable string of victories in February, so naturally she has to take more risky action and will make more mistakes on top of those others. I put together a stream of consciousness sort of litany of self-contradictory or flip-flopping maneuvers on her part there a few pages back, which I think you even said you agreed with, at least for the most part. It's hard to put together much of a list like that about Obama.

I'll try! There's NAFTA-gate. The real problematic aspect there turned out to be not that he was doing a "wink wink" to Canadian officials, as they later clarified he wasn't, but that he stepped out prematurely and claimed there'd been no such meeting. Now one can say he out-and-out lied about it. Maybe. Doesn't seem likely to me, but maybe. But then we also heard from Canadian officials that Clinton out-and-out lied about her own camp's "wink winking" in the same way, all the time. I think the conventional wisdom on it was more that he learned a lesson that he can't always assume his people weren't somewhere he didn't think they were or whatever without carefully checking first. So that was a lie or a mistake.

I'm sitting here trying to think of more... Of course he needs not to make a mistake re Wright, now, but then that's basically just come to the fore and I've also said he needs to move on that, so it doesn't seem like that could be at the heart of your complaint that I'm not willing to criticize him. Power again was gone immediately, even before she complained about that incident, and she said she thought he did the right thing.

Tell me some more! Seriously. I can think of lots of positive stuff, especially a lot of things notable for their absence: no gender-related comments out of his campaign like the race-related ones out of the Clinton campaign, no campaign officials of his comparing her to hated Republican figures like her campaign compared him to Kenneth Starr, no self-described "kitchen sink" barrages on her, no acceptance of the suggestion that she might not be qualified to be President, non insinuation any sort regarding her religious faith, no suggestion that the rulings on FL & MI that they all previously accepted should now be reversed, no complaints that primaries favor her and we should have more caucuses, no "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!" remarks, no extensive focus on less central issues when criticizing her (he instead asks how she will handle those who don't pay for her mandated universal coverage, for example, or addresses her specific experience claims)...

I mean, Pew Research results that show people find her to be "hard to like" and "untrustworthy" and that they think she "attacks opponent unfairly" much more than Obama is/does, and those Gallup results on high unfavorables



and all that didn't come about because I might be reluctant to criticize Obama. She generates those results. She is a polarizing figure. This has been the knock on her from Day One and it seems to continue to be true. That her camp then complains that some sort of bias against her is the reason she doesn't come out looking so nice in the public eye as he does is... well, that's where the blinders are on, I think.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

. well, that's where the blinders are on, I think.

Steve

Just as long as they are not on you

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Just as long as they are not on you

Well if there are so many mistakes or blunders I've got the blinders on for, what are they?

I'll spot you another one: Michelle Obama's silly, unguarded comment. That they'll have to do better with, or hope people don't take seriously enough.

But really: I've shown you as I say a whole litany of problematic views and you don't respond or rebut them (as Jacko put it). You say I'm the one with the blinders on but don't provide a list of Obama mistakes or errors or problematic views.



Most of the country that isn't Democrat can tell you that the entire party has long had the blinders on for Clinton in terms of her high negatives. (That's why they salivate over the prospect of a Clinton candidacy in November.) Are they really all wrong?

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well if there are so many mistakes or blunders I've got the blinders on for, what are they?

I'll spot you another one: Michelle Obama's silly, unguarded comment. That they'll have to do better with, or hope people don't take seriously enough.

But really: I've shown you as I say a whole litany of problematic views and you don't respond or rebut them (as Jacko put it). You say I'm the one with the blinders on but don't provide a list of Obama mistakes or errors or problematic views.



Most of the country that isn't Democrat can tell you that the entire party has long had the blinders on for Clinton in terms of her high negatives. (That's why they salivate over the prospect of a Clinton candidacy in November.) Are they really all wrong?

Steve

All I wrote was:

Just as long as they are not on you



I got no desire for the aftermath of rebutting anything you write. Write away. Anything. Have at it.

[melliedee]

Good greif, Steve. I'm not looking for examples where we can criticize Obama. He's my candidate and of course I like the kind of campaign he's running better that I do Clinton's.

What I fail to understand is your double standard in how, when, and to what degree the candidates must censure their surrogates. If you can't see that you are not applying the same standards, what exactly do you need to know? Wright is a member of the Obama campaign as part of the African American leadership council, he inspired the title of one of Obama's books, and he is both spiritual adviser and mentor.

It's okay for Obama to just "distance" himself from the comments, but not okay for Clinton to do the same regarding Ferraro's? Because I predict both comments are equally damning to voting outcomes. And that is what I care about at this point.