USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Well on that last point, I don't actually agree with the idea that the effect of Ferraro's remarks will be negative for her. One line of reasoning for those trying to understand or explain the collection of race-related comments from the Clintons themselves and their camp is that it helps them electorally because (basically) there are more white voters than black voters. So "polarize away -- it'll help us in the end!" is the idea. This was famously laid out by former Clinton guy and now harsh critic Dick Morris way back when it started around SC. But as I posted on the Ferraro thread recently, it has adherents who are not necessarily so opinionated:

Joe Klein of Time does a nice, if overly brief and simplistic, refutation of Ferraro's view here, and then interestingly contextualizes it for its political effect (even if that wasn't her motivation):

But that's not the main thrust of my argument, either. Again, if you show me that the relationship between Clinton and Ferraro was more like that between Obama and Wright, well then I'd have to adjust my view of Clinton's (lack of more) action re Ferraro, as I'm not thinking that is the case, and am thus just trying to say that Clinton should follow the same advice she's so ready to dole out to Obama even when it doesn't suit her politically.

And again, I think Wright is a problem and a potentially very serious problem for Obama if he doesn't figure out the right way to move away from him in more clear and distinct ways. I don't know exactly what that means any more than I knew exactly how Obama could fight back against Clinton but not go inappropriately negative and contradict his entire approach. I think he's found good ways to do the latter (criticizing her central foreign policy experience claims and getting people to focus on those more critically, for example), and yes, I hope he does more re Wright.

Just didn't seem very similar to me, but if it is, then he should be held to the same principles, yes.

Steve

[ryberg]

Here's another theory for you, Melliedee -- see what you think.

Maybe in part you're thinking I've got the blinders on, or others think Obama supporters are drinking the funny Kool-Aid, and maybe even the CW has been that the press is too easy on Obama, primarily because the only real chief criticism of him is lack of more experience, but that's something that's hard to focus on very much, especially given the public mood re the state of our political system.

Like many have said, if experience is mudslinging and partisan fighting and bickering and gridlock in Washington and how to get your state earmarks and so forth -- which seems to be the most common view of it, these days -- well that's the kind of experience people would rather do without. And since (unlike Clinton) Obama has not based his entire campaign on questionable claims about being so experienced, well, it's kind of a dead end. You either think that disqualifies him from the get-go (which obviously not a lot of people think, since he's winning despite the Clinton camp's efforts to highlight that), or you don't think experience is the only important factor in a President being successful (as has now been suggested in detail by the various articles highlighting the great but inexperienced Presidents and the highly experienced but terrible Presidents we've had).

Whereas the principle premise of her campaign has been experience, but that experience is now seen as arguably as weak as his, the principle premise of his campaign has been change and a new approach to politics, and she has not managed to undermine that premise.

That's the way it seems to me, at least. I'm certainly in the camp that thinks that experience is not all it's cracked up to be, as I've said, and that the new approach he's trying to offer is well worth a shot. So if that means I've got blinders on to his lack of experience, well then so be it. I've got blinders on.

Steve

[roni]

I think one of Obama's problems is that he tries to act like an "anti-politican" when, in fact, he is a politician. As one of his campaign staff allegedly said, they were looking for a way for him to go negative on Clinton without losing his virginity.

I was unaware he had any to lose, but it is clear his most fervent converts believe that he does. So the questions we often hear bandied about seems to have this formulation in common, when stripping away the non-essential:

How does he do the political (or politically smart) thing without seeming too political?

That is part of the question I read in Steve's commentary about Reverend Wright. How can Obama be without seeming too overtly to be? How can he finesse it, if you will?

I think he should simply do a 2 minute riff on freedom of the pulpit and support his minister's freedom to preach as he sees fit and let the chips fall where they may.

That is after all the type of action that is supposed to have attracted people to Obama, isn't it?

[RonH]

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

I hope you don't think I'm a Repub. I could care less about McCain and Hagee right now. Hell I'm out here in Indy stumping for Bill errrrr I mean Hillary .

[RonH]

Originally Posted by Davev

Are you RonH's lawyer..?

Thats a Pats fan for ya

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Clinton should follow the same advice she's so ready to dole out to Obama even when it doesn't suit her politically.

Steve

So should he.

And of course Ferraro' remarks were more damaging to him than her--that's why you're so quick to criticize her slow and tepid reaction, right? What I am saying is that the Wright clips and sermons have the potential to be even more damaging, yet here he has the clear advantage because the response is his choice, not his opponent's. Why you don't think he should be called on to denounce this connection as forcefully as you would have Clinton denounce Ferraro's is beyond me. It has the potential to hurt him much more.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So if that means I've got blinders on to his lack of experience, well then so be it. I've got blinders on.

Steve

My blinders reference was addressing your double standard in calling for Obama to disconnect from Wright. I haven't a clue who you think you're trying to convince to do what? I did not bring up experience.

Though, it could be the suddenly Clinton leaning SNL to blame?

[MWC]

I continue to think that Rev. Wright should be removed from any advisory capacity by the Obama campaign.

But food for thought ... in terms of the standard Mark -- Welshly -- oh, who knows -- has for a spiritual advisor.

Is it not possible for a man of God to advise someone on a spiritual level, without that man of God's politics entering into the advisory capacity?

Not to equate the two, but if Jesus were to come back today, he'd probably be saying eqaully nasty things about the state of US society.

So I do think it is possible that spirituality could have been discussed separate from politics.
But I still think Rev. Wright should have the good grace to bow out. If not, he should be shown the door.

[Sol]

Originally Posted by MWC

I
Not to equate the two, but if Jesus were to come back today, he'd probably be saying eqaully nasty things about the state of US society.
.

If Jesus came back today, he would get deported.

[roni]

duplicate

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

I continue to think that Rev. Wright should be removed from any advisory capacity by the Obama campaign.

But food for thought ... in terms of the standard Mark -- Welshly -- oh, who knows -- has for a spiritual advisor.

Is it not possible for a man of God to advise someone on a spiritual level, without that man of God's politics entering into the advisory capacity?

Not to equate the two, but if Jesus were to come back today, he'd probably be saying eqaully nasty things about the state of US society.

So I do think it is possible that spirituality could have been discussed separate from politics.
But I still think Rev. Wright should have the good grace to bow out. If not, he should be shown the door.

I do not think it is possible for a politician to be an active member of a church for many years without that church's (and its senior minister's) positions being fodder for political campaigns - particularly when those positions include things that the majority of voters may not agree at all with.

I do not think removing the Rev. Wright from an advisory position with the campaign will change the perception of his role with Obama much, or with Obama's long membership with the church. I think such removal would have very negligible impact.

[Playa del Soul]

If Obama were a member of Farrakhan's congregation, would this conversation be held in the same manner? Of course not. He wouldn't even have gotten enough signatures on a petition to be on the ballot in most states. Yet, here we have a Pastor spouting the same, if not more, vile crap and we are supposed to treat him the same as we do a stranger endorsing McCain or Ferraro speaking up on a cultural observation?

The man is cited as being a huge influence on Obama, by Obama. He can try to distance himself, but it won't wash.

OK, now I am back to self imposed exile.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by MWC

I continue to think that Rev. Wright should be removed from any advisory capacity by the Obama campaign.

But food for thought ... in terms of the standard Mark -- Welshly -- oh, who knows -- has for a spiritual advisor.

Is it not possible for a man of God to advise someone on a spiritual level, without that man of God's politics entering into the advisory capacity?

Not to equate the two, but if Jesus were to come back today, he'd probably be saying eqaully nasty things about the state of US society.

So I do think it is possible that spirituality could have been discussed separate from politics.
But I still think Rev. Wright should have the good grace to bow out. If not, he should be shown the door.

It is possible, but that's not the thoughtful question that's going to issue forth from the 13% of registered voters who think he's a Muslim and send those internet forwards without a trace of irony. It's not going to help the white working class voter make a decision when he hears that these remarks were spoken so soon after 9/11. It's not going to woo educated women voters to hear that perhaps Hillary has not been properly vetted because no one has ever called her the N word.

He needs a more strident reaction that this:

Instead, it issued a statement, saying: “Senator Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees.”

Previously Mr Obama has described his pastor for 20 years as a “sounding board” who offered private advice before he decided to run for president last year. And the title of his bestselling autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, is taken from one of Mr Wright's sermons

Pastor Jeremiah Wright's racially charged invective cloud Barack Obama campaign - Times Online

[Rissask]

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.
Mohandas Gandhi

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

If Obama were a member of Farrakhan's congregation, would this conversation be held in the same manner? Of course not. He wouldn't even have gotten enough signatures on a petition to be on the ballot in most states. Yet, here we have a Pastor spouting the same, if not more, vile crap and we are supposed to treat him the same as we do a stranger endorsing McCain or Ferraro speaking up on a cultural observation?

The man is cited as being a huge influence on Obama, by Obama. He can try to distance himself, but it won't wash.

OK, now I am back to self imposed exile.

Wait, wait don't run off. How are you and the family?

I am actually going to partially agree with you. Those on the right will be heavily dispensing the video of the pastor. Since y'all have great influence particularly in the media I think Obama should consider pulling out of the race. Did that make ya happy?

On the other hand since Obama's religion and his pastor are not the only things controlling his thinking....

I think he needs to very strongly and even severely distance himself from the pastor. I think this needs to be done post haste and repeatedly.