USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

"Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam."

Could Rev. Spell Doom for Obama? - Rough Sketch

Earlier, as most of us know, Obama had said - this was from the Fox interview, wasn't it?


"I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past," he [Obama] said. "The fact that he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue."

The reports of Obama's demise are greatly exaggerated!

[roni]

Originally Posted by beerbreath

So now it comes out that the person who got Wright to come to the National Press Club, is a Clinton supporter.Sleaze at its worse.

Next will you be telling us that Clinton got Wright his interview with Bill Moyers and his invitation to speak at the NAACP meeting - after that will you also be suggesting that she wrote the words he spoke?

[beerbreath]

Originally Posted by roni

Next will you be telling us that Clinton got Wright his interview with Bill Moyers and his invitation to speak at the NAACP meeting - after that will you also be suggesting that she wrote the words he spoke?

It is what it is,The women who worked to get Wright there is a Clinton supporter.Make what you will of it.

[roni]

Good long article, in my opinion - not about Wright, BTW

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Questions without Answers

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by beerbreath

It is what it is,The women who worked to get Wright there is a Clinton supporter.Make what you will of it.

Oh, you know, prolly just a coincidence. Prolly she's one of the 4 people in the country who were previously unaware of the contoversy surrounding the pastor and the difficulties it has created for her preferred candidate's opponent. That prolly played zero part in the desire to bring him there, back out into the public eye, prior to the votes in NC & IN so crucial to her preferred candidate's political survival.

Prolly!

Steve

[ryberg]

Two good ones, recently, that I've seen.

First, David Brooks joins in the commentary on the (sub)cultural divide issue:

Demography Is King

In state after state (Wisconsin being the outlier), Barack Obama has won densely populated, well-educated areas. Hillary Clinton has won less-populated, less-educated areas. For example, Obama has won roughly 70% of the most-educated counties in the primary states. Clinton has won 90% of the least-educated counties. In state after state, Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won nearly everywhere else . . .

Conservatives have gravitated toward the culture war narrative, dividing the country between the wholesome masses and the decadent cultural elites. Some liberals believe income inequality drives everything. They wait for an uprising of economic populism. Other liberals divide the country morally, between the enlightened urbanites and the racist rednecks who will never vote for a black man.

None of these theories really fit the facts. It’s more accurate to say that the country has simply drifted apart into different subcultures. There’s no great hostility between the cultures. Americans have a fuzzy sense of where the boundaries lie. But people in different niches have developed different unconscious maps of reality. They have developed different communal understandings of what constitutes a good leader, of what sort of world they live in. They have developed different communal definitions, which they can’t even articulate, of what they mean by liberty, security and virtue. Demographic groups have begun to function like tribes or cultures.

We can all play the parlor game of trying to figure out why Obama, a Harvard Law grad, resonates with the more educated while Clinton, a Yale Law grad, resonates with the less educated. I’d throw in that Obama’s offer of a secular crusade hits a nerve among his fellow bobos, while Clinton’s talk of fighting and resilience plays well down market...

Steve

[ryberg]

Rather more entertaining (speaking of Clinton saying pledged delegates need not respect the will of the people who send them to the convention) is the piece by Roger Simon (the guy who correctly called Clinton's predilection in that regard well before they announced it, and was criticized by her camp for such) over on Politico that suggests that he also has caught that truth virus.

Hard to know what to excerpt from this one, the whole thing is so refreshing and consistently on target, but to give you a taste...

Obama: The know-too-much candidate?

Having had the national media at his feet for more than a year, Barack Obama now finds them at his throat.

The fault is his. He has disappointed us. He is not winning every voting bloc in every state. He cannot close the deal.

Running against an older, white candidate, Obama has been losing the older, white vote.

Zounds. What did we ever see in this guy? . . .

Hillary Clinton has accused Obama of being “elitist and out of touch.” (And Clinton should know: She lived in a governor’s mansion for 12 years and in the White House for 8, and you can’t get more in touch with real America than that.)

So far, however, there has been no great stampede of superdelegates to Clinton. (Since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up 87 and she has picked up seven, according to his campaign.) Which just goes to show how out of touch and elitist the superdelegates must be. Or else, how politically savvy they are: They don’t find it shocking that Obama can’t win every demographic group in every state.

Not that he has to. No Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has won the white vote. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton found that if you win enough of the white vote and an overwhelming percentage of the black vote, you can get to the White House...

He hits the same class/cultural divide point, too:

Americans don’t want presidents who are too brainy. (Obviously.) We would rather plunge into foreign wars or fall off economic cliffs than have presidents who know too much. That is because braininess is elitist, and being an elitist is the worst thing you can be if you want to be president.

Steve

[MWC]

Hello!

Normally I hate David brooks, but I think he hit it in the head with his column today; as has Roger Simon. Obama is definitely the candidate of the modern meritocracy, and I could picture folks getting real tired of him, real fast, if he were to use the presidential bully pulpit in the wrong way. I am sorry to sound racist, but most of the high-achieving African-Americans I know can get almost rude in the way they dole out "helpful" advice to people who did not necessarily ask for it.

While I firmly believe that America needs a firm talking to, I can see Obama talking that kind of talk too far, and losing a lot of electoral affection. Like when he tells black parents to turn off the TV and stop feeding their children junk. Technically true, but it's not the kind of thing that's going to make me feel good about his leadership. Or the comment about guns/religion/bitterness: again, technically accurate, but endearing or empowering? No sir!

So much about the meritocracy culture is built on the assumption that everybody wants to change and be/do better. That may not necessarily be the case, though -- and people like Obama tend to have a tin ear for others' foibles.

But I never would have picked Hillary to be the one to present a more sympathetic face to voters!

What a world, what a world ...

[roni]

I thought the implications of the Brooks column in terms of the election would not necessarily be positive for Obama, if one accepts Brooks' thesis.

It was also lacking because there was no mention of the margin of victory in those two types of counties, or of the proportion of each group that were registered Democrats. So, while he asserted that Demography was King, he treated it like a second class citizen by not including those important demographic facts.

It was a good column - now some young researcher needs to fill in the blanks

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Two good ones, recently, that I've seen.

First, David Brooks joins in the commentary on the (sub)cultural divide issue:



Steve

I find it an assault on reason.....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I find it an assault on reason.....

You mean the phenomenon he's discussing, right? (not Brooks' column?)

It is. That bolder statistic -- that she everywhere wins the lowest educated at rates as high as he wins that black vote only in some cases -- is pretty remarkable, especially when taken with his winning over 2/3 of the most educated, everywhere.

How many others remember learning LCD not as liquid crystal diode in technology contexts but rather as lowest common denominator in mathematics? And of course by metaphorical extension in any situation where the target seems to be increasing public appeal by lowering standards of quality?

Again, I'm not running for anything, so rail against me for being un-PC or whatever, but it seems to me that when you look at all this, this campaign is about this divide in our society.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You mean the phenomenon he's discussing, right? ............Steve

Right!

[pslucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You mean the phenomenon he's discussing, right? (not Brooks' column?)

It is. That bolder statistic -- that she everywhere wins the lowest educated at rates as high as he wins that black vote only in some cases -- is pretty remarkable, especially when taken with his winning over 2/3 of the most educated, everywhere.

How many others remember learning LCD not as liquid crystal diode in technology contexts but rather as lowest common denominator in mathematics? And of course by metaphorical extension in any situation where the target seems to be increasing public appeal by lowering standards of quality?

Again, I'm not running for anything, so rail against me for being un-PC or whatever, but it seems to me that when you look at all this, this campaign is about this divide in our society.

Steve

You know, I don't know if this means anything. But I am a full-time university student, and campus wide students have Obama stickers on their backpacks, books, and cars. It is really obvious that he is the favorite- by far. So, that seems to somewhat correspond with the demographic argument.

I've not yet seen an endorsement on campus for the either of the other two candidates. In fact, yesterday I saw a funny bumper sticker I'd like to share. I have no desire of being offensive when I quote it here, and I'm willing to take plenty of ribbing for my candidate(s) of choice. So here goes, it said: "Life's a b@#%, don't vote for one." Again, no offense intended- each of the candidates are worthy of some humor. I just enjoyed this joke.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You mean the phenomenon he's discussing, right? (not Brooks' column?)

It is. That bolder statistic -- that she everywhere wins the lowest educated at rates as high as he wins that black vote only in some cases -- is pretty remarkable, especially when taken with his winning over 2/3 of the most educated, everywhere.

How many others remember learning LCD not as liquid crystal diode in technology contexts but rather as lowest common denominator in mathematics? And of course by metaphorical extension in any situation where the target seems to be increasing public appeal by lowering standards of quality?

Again, I'm not running for anything, so rail against me for being un-PC or whatever, but it seems to me that when you look at all this, this campaign is about this divide in our society.

Steve

The Democratic Party has historically been the champion and the advocate of the poor and the oppressed; the less well off and less advantaged. Obama apparently is not doing well with the non-African-American in those categories.

Why is that?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by pslucky

You know, I don't know if this means anything. But I am a full-time university student, and campus wide students have Obama stickers on their backpacks, books, and cars. It is really obvious that he is the favorite- by far. So, that seems to somewhat correspond with the demographic argument.

I've not yet seen an endorsement on campus for the either of the other two candidates. In fact, yesterday I saw a funny bumper sticker I'd like to share. I have no desire of being offensive when I quote it here, and I'm willing to take plenty of ribbing for my candidate(s) of choice. So here goes, it said: "Life's a b@#%, don't vote for one." Again, no offense intended- each of the candidates are worthy of some humor. I just enjoyed this joke.

Wow, that is hilarious. Original too.