USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[AndrewII]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

Nope. He ran his campaign without any of that until he was forced to address it. And he addressed it so well that he has succeeded, in large part, in transcending race.

So using 'Typical White Person' is transcending race or how about the comment he made about people in small towns. Both statements were unecessary and would be cause for dismissal from any employment in the private sector if they were made by a white person and the generalized race was black.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Obama open to Clinton as possible running mate

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama, who inched closer to winning the nomination by routing Clinton in North Carolina and almost defeating her in Indiana on Tuesday.

Steve won't like that, I predict, after his long months of scouring the internets for negative information about her.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

Steve won't like that, I predict, after his long months of scouring the internets for negative information about her.

As you yourself seem to have done with Obama posts for quite some time now.

roni, I suspect Steve may annoy you from time to time, as you may do to others (and I fully realize I likely annoy others as well from time to time ) .

Your repeated protestations just seem so falsely self-righteous from my viewpoint from afar.

Bottom line...we are brothers and sisters in the political discussion cabal...lets forgive and move on...Same goes for the rest of us who may need to forgive, mend wounds and move on..........we still have thousands and thousands of iterations and possibilities to rehash over and over and over again...... I forgive you....do you forgive me?

And soon...we get to unite against McCain....

Who will be then be the defender of the conservative status quo?

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

roni, I suspect Steve may annoy you from time to time, as you may do to others (and I fully realize I likely annoy others as well from time to time ) .

It is more than annoyance, Jacko.

A contrasting example. Once upon a time, I referred to something Steve wrote as misogynist. I was a little hot when I wrote it, and it was the wrong thing to do. Steve wrote that my characterization was uncalled for. I replied that he was right, it was uncalled for and I apologized for it.


I do not consider this the equivalent to the type of stuff you are writing about, the annoyance thing. This went beyond annoying.

This was from three weeks ago. A little after that, when I posted something that did not meet with Steve's approval, he wrote that it was a part of the lying. He went over the line.

Originally Posted by roni

How many delegates are currently committed to Obama?

How many does it take to win the nomination?

Stop trying to sell us a piece of fiction Do the arithmetic

Originally Posted by roni

Here is the answer according to CNN

Obama has 1,632

The winning candidate needs 2,025

Arithmetic is simple.


On the odds of Obama winning, Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama an 80.9 % chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

I think that is fair.

It does not involve dissing one political camp or calling people denialists.

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well this is just the equivalent of lying, now.

Again, see you all around.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

It is more than annoyance, Jacko.

A contrasting example. Once upon a time, I referred to something Steve wrote as misogynist. I was a little hot when I wrote it, and it was the wrong thing to do. Steve wrote that my characterization was uncalled for. I replied that he was right, it was uncalled for and I apologized for it.


I do not consider this the equivalent to the type of stuff you are writing about, the annoyance thing. This went beyond annoying.

This was from three weeks ago. A little after that, when I posted something that did not meet with Steve's approval, he wrote that it was a part of the lying. He went over the line.

So...you don't forgive me?

[See Turtle]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Good morning!

Btw, have we heard our first ageist comment with Obama's claim that McCain is "losing his bearings?" I don't think so; losing your bearings can happen at any age...

Uh-huh. Usually on your way home from the Beer Bucket.

[pslucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

For my part, it is my strongly held conviction that losing the nomination or the general election but not turning to such tactics as encouraging old racial tensions and divisions, or those related to gender or immigration or whatever else, is better than doing those things in order to try and win (even if you do win, in the end).

Perhaps this view is naive.
Steve

Bravo!!

[See Turtle]

Roni's right (OMG I can't believe I said that ). Data are data. And the data that show lower-middle-class, less-than-college-educated, blue-collar, white support for Hillary Clinton are what they are. And they don't emerge because of the way a pollster asked a question -- these data are in the realm of research demographers and mostly immune from bias.

That doesn't, however, make it any less desperate and stupid for Sen. Clinton to summon such data into play during an interview. But, it's not surprising that she'd slip up like this at this point in the game. She'd on the ropes, out of money and grasping for a dignified way out of this. Missteps are inevitable.

I really am beginning to feel some empathy for her at this point. She gave it a hell of an effort and came up short. It so wasn't what she expected and she doesn't have any idea how to react.

[ryberg]

Well, thank you, pslucky. Though OTOH, to me that just seems obvious and should go without saying...

Dunno if you're right about a backfire on that comment or not, Mel. But I would say it's been refreshing and encouraging during this campaign to see not only the success of a candidate who has consistently (not perfectly) struggled to take and stay on the high road (even when presented with some golden opportunities and invitations not to), and the ultimate failure of the candidate who by her own admission took the low road, particularly from the juncture where she realized she might actually lose (and especially given the degree of some of her attempts, such as exploiting racist sentiment, challenging the fundamental validity of the process and praising the opposing party's candidate).

Good to see so many people evidently seeing through that and other tactics of the old politics of division and pandering and so on. Enough for him to make it all the way to the nomination, despite all those warnings that he's not electable due to precisely the certainty of racism, divisive politics and negative attack campaigning.

Ironically, just as Clinton continues to claim she is the best candidate with the best base without explaining how it is that she lost, the naysayers continue their naysing on his chances, without explaining why he keeps winning.



Steve

[ryberg]

Good point, ST, about the difference between voting demographics data (which I have no problem with) and using the same to exploit racist sentiment for personal gain in a political campaign (which remains despicable). Saying the data exist as a kind of justification for such use is like saying the existence of atoms and of our knowledge of how to split them constitute justification for using nuclear arms. These are two wholly separate things.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by AndrewII

So using 'Typical White Person' is transcending race or how about the comment he made about people in small towns. Both statements were unecessary and would be cause for dismissal from any employment in the private sector if they were made by a white person and the generalized race was black.

Let me guess: all Fox, all the time, right?



Well, except for when Chris Wallace rightly upbraids his Fox cohorts for decontextualizing and distorting the "typical white person" comment, apparently.

Also, don't look now, but the "small towns" comment wasn't even about race. I mean in addition to be decontextualized and distorted.

But you keep on keepin' on, just the same!

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

Roni's right (OMG I can't believe I said that ). Data are data. And the data that show lower-middle-class, less-than-college-educated, blue-collar, white support for Hillary Clinton are what they are. And they don't emerge because of the way a pollster asked a question -- these data are in the realm of research demographers and mostly immune from bias.

That doesn't, however, make it any less desperate and stupid for Sen. Clinton to summon such data into play during an interview. But, it's not surprising that she'd slip up like this at this point in the game. She'd on the ropes, out of money and grasping for a dignified way out of this. Missteps are inevitable.

I really am beginning to feel some empathy for her at this point. She gave it a hell of an effort and came up short. It so wasn't what she expected and she doesn't have any idea how to react.

Well I may be stupid but at least I'm not dumb.My point was completely sidestepped. I can see where a campaign might collect data on race etc for targeted advertising etc.

My point was that the media and Clinton are focused almost exclusively on the racial division aspect of the data. Why this focus exists is, I think, important.

[ryberg]

In case anybody had any doubts left about Paul Krugman's capacity for objective commentary on this campaign, he offers up such gems in his latest column as

On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

Too bad we probably won't get a chance to see Brazile slap him down as she did his fellow Clinton camper, Begala, in that comment he references.

Steve

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by roni

It is more than annoyance, Jacko.

A contrasting example. Once upon a time, I referred to something Steve wrote as misogynist. I was a little hot when I wrote it, and it was the wrong thing to do. Steve wrote that my characterization was uncalled for. I replied that he was right, it was uncalled for and I apologized for it.


I do not consider this the equivalent to the type of stuff you are writing about, the annoyance thing. This went beyond annoying.

This was from three weeks ago. A little after that, when I posted something that did not meet with Steve's approval, he wrote that it was a part of the lying. He went over the line.

I think the point of Jacko was that it becomes tiresome to read each of your posts when they contain personal shots at a well respected poster on playa.info. Steve has obviously moved on and no longer responds to (and probably does not even read or see) your comments.

No one is asking you and Steve to kiss and make up, just requesting you move on.

[AndrewII]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Let me guess: all Fox, all the time, right?



Well, except for when Chris Wallace rightly upbraids his Fox cohorts for decontextualizing and distorting the "typical white person" comment, apparently.

Also, don't look now, but the "small towns" comment wasn't even about race. I mean in addition to be decontextualized and distorted.

But you keep on keepin' on, just the same!

Steve

No I watch CNN and Fox. You need to watch both otherwise you just get a one slant on things. It doesn't matter if the comment was about race or not. Thats how the majority of the country took it. Black people and democrats can't have it both ways. Sorry.