Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Depends what your definition of "is" is.

Not really. It depends on whether you believe "spiritual advisor" is an essential campaign function. Since a campaign can function pretty much just as well without one, I think we're forced to conclude that it isn't a real position.

If he had been a "policy advisor" or a "fundraiser" or a "campaign manager" then there might be a case here--still not a very good one, but at least a reason why we can't seem to stop talking about this windbag. But the truth is, he's someone who knows a guy who's running for president. That's all.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But why doesn't the same standard apply to McCain's spiritual leaders?

I'll give you a hint. It's because they can't jump.

Q: Do you regret accepting his endorsement?
McCain: It’s nonsense. I don’t have anything more to say about that. Of course–I apologize for that. It’s nonsense. I reject that categorically and I would point out there’s a lot of people who have endorsed me. They support my views. That does not mean that I support–would I consider repudiating his endorsement? I certainly condemn those parts of his remarks. I continue to appreciate his support for the state of Israel and for many of the good things that he and his church has done. But I repudiate as strongly as possible those remarks and those of the Catholic church as well.


Obama danced around the issue, even denying he was aware of many of Wrights comments and views. If he had taken a stance like this, instead of a middling ambiguity about the complexity of race relations regarding "God Damn America - it's in the Bible"* then I think the issue would be less relevant.

*Obama did denounce this comment, but not the broader point Wright was making.

Race card is always nice though.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But the truth is, he's someone who knows a guy who's running for president. That's all.

He's been a friend and advisor for twenty five years, and Wright even presided over Obama's wedding. He's not 'just a guy' to Obama.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not really. It depends on whether you believe "spiritual advisor" is an essential campaign function. Since a campaign can function pretty much just as well without one, I think we're forced to conclude that it isn't a real position.

That is a trite counter argument. If McCain had a KKKlansman as a "spiritual advisor" you would think it mattered.*

* Not comparing Wright to the Klan.



On a personal note, this doesn't bother me. One of my beefs was that America was electing an assimlated yuppy as the first black president and claiming that proved racism was dead. Blacks did get a rough shake in America and I like that Obama is a black leader that wants everyone to move past it.
I do take exception with deception (like Spiritual advisor is not an advisor) to dismiss these objections.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Q: Do you regret accepting his endorsement?
McCain: It’s nonsense. I don’t have anything more to say about that. Of course–I apologize for that. It’s nonsense. I reject that categorically and I would point out there’s a lot of people who have endorsed me. They support my views. That does not mean that I support–would I consider repudiating his endorsement? I certainly condemn those parts of his remarks. I continue to appreciate his support for the state of Israel and for many of the good things that he and his church has done. But I repudiate as strongly as possible those remarks and those of the Catholic church as well.


Obama danced around the issue, even denying he was aware of many of Wrights comments and views. If he had taken a stance like this, instead of a middling ambiguity about the complexity of race relations regarding "God Damn America - it's in the Bible"* then I think the issue would be less relevant.

*Obama did denounce this comment, but not the broader point Wright was making.

Race card is always nice though.

This was a month and a half ago.

The Ohio-based religious leader (Rod Parsley) has made a number controversial statements about Muslims, previously calling Islam an “anti-Christ religion” based on “deception.” In a recent book, he also wrote that the prophet Mohammad “received revelations from demons and not from the true God,” adding that “Allah was a demon spirit.”


McCain praised most of the leaders in attendance, saying of Parsley: “I am very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide…thank you for your leadership and your guidance. I am very grateful you are here.”

Now apparently this guy isn't his pastor or spiritual advisor, but still, calling someone who believes in this kind of hocus-pocus a "truly great leader in America" has to count for something.

I agree with what someone said above -- that this is attacking someone for another person's beliefs and not really fair, but at the same time, if McCain is currying favour with these kind of people then think he's fair game.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Q: Do you regret accepting his endorsement?
McCain: It’s nonsense. I don’t have anything more to say about that. Of course–I apologize for that. It’s nonsense. I reject that categorically and I would point out there’s a lot of people who have endorsed me. They support my views. That does not mean that I support–would I consider repudiating his endorsement? I certainly condemn those parts of his remarks. I continue to appreciate his support for the state of Israel and for many of the good things that he and his church has done. But I repudiate as strongly as possible those remarks and those of the Catholic church as well.

McCain is pretty good at pandering, I'll give him that. The problem is he has a history of repudiating these types and then un-repudiating them when it's convenient.

However, the gist of what he says, I agree with. He's not responsible for the beliefs of people who endorse him, or even people who are close to him. He's responsible for his own beliefs. Period. I'm not sure I know what those beliefs are any more, but that's a whole other issue. I don't think we can condemn McCain for what somebody else believes any more than we should do that for Obama.

As for Wright's having presided over Obama's wedding.... so what? Someone presided over my wedding too. Am I responsible for her beliefs? This is really a non-controversy that's being kept in the news for reasons that I don't get. But pointing out that Wright's race is a factor in the obvious double standard here is not "playing the race card"--it's recognizing the reality of race in American politics today.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for Wright's having presided over Obama's wedding.... so what? Someone presided over my wedding too. Am I responsible for her beliefs? This is really a non-controversy that's being kept in the news for reasons that I don't get. But pointing out that Wright's race is a factor in the obvious double standard here is not "playing the race card"--it's recognizing the reality of race in American politics today.

It's relevant, but I fear we are using it a crutch.


Ron Paul (my guy) was a fantastic candidate, but he had a couple kooky views (like America is partially to blame for 9/11) and he was dismissed as a kook by a lot of media.

Wright is Obama's spiritual leader and thought the same thing, and I'm supposed to believe it's only because he's black? Hogwash.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Wright is Obama's spiritual leader and thought the same thing, and I'm supposed to believe it's only because he's black? Hogwash.

Really? Ron Paul's views on 9/11 were a matter of public discourse for weeks and weeks? In any case, it's a flawed analogy, as Ron Paul was running for office, so his beliefs are fair game. A better analogy would be if Ron Paul's gardener believed that 9/11 were America's fault and no-one would stop talking about it.

And yes, race is a factor in this issue. How else do you explain the double standard whereby GOP candidates who consult with Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk are hardly ever called upon to distance themselves from their remarks? Wright's comments were actualy not that far out of line with other famous black spiritualists of prior generations. Like one particular black leader who was assassinated the day before he was slated to deliver a sermon entitled "why America may be going to hell."*

The subtext of this controversy is fear. Fear of the black church spreading dissent rather than unity, protest rather than compliance. And even more idiotically, the underlying message is that the only way to be a patriot is to love one's nation unconditionally. The tradition that Wright is a part of has a long history of pointing out that one way to be patriotic is to point unapologetically to the flaws of one's country. I'm not saying Wright isn't a windbag, but the soundbite that has made the rounds ("god**** America, etc.) is really not that big a deal--and in any case says nothing about Obama.

But there's a more important point, actually. In politics, there are high information and low information signals. High information signals are things like a candidate's budgetary policy, or his or her health care plan. Low information signals are things like whether a candidate bowls well, or whether he looks good on a windsurfer. This is the epitome of low information signals, and we'd all be wise to ignore it in my opinion.

*That guy was Martin Luther King, Jr., by the way.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Really? Ron Paul's views on 9/11 were a matter of public discourse for weeks and weeks? In any case, it's a flawed analogy, as Ron Paul was running for office, so his beliefs are fair game. A better analogy would be if Ron Paul's gardener believed that 9/11 were America's fault and no-one would stop talking about it. A better analogy would be if Ron Paul's gardener believed that 9/11 were America's fault and no-one would stop talking about it.

No, he was immediately dismissed as a viable candidate.

If Paul's gardener was his spiritual advisor, good example.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

And yes, race is a factor in this issue. How else do you explain the double standard whereby GOP candidates who consult with Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk are hardly ever called upon to distance themselves from their remarks? Wright's comments were actualy not that far out of line with other famous black spiritualists of prior generations. Like one particular black leader who was assassinated the day before he was slated to deliver a sermon entitled "why America may be going to hell."*

I can't explain why races follow their own, and I won't deny that is a racial issue.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No, he was immediately dismissed as a viable candidate.

We may agree to disagree on this--but in truth, Ron Paul was never a "viable candidate." He never had any money, and never had the support from the GOP establishment, which in their winner-take-all system all but guaranteed that Paul would never get a single delegate.

I don't recall hearing anything at all in the mainstream media about Ron Paul one way or another. Everything I learned about him was from research on the internet. Though admittedly I don't watch a lot of TV.

[RougeUnderoos]

What the hell is a "Spiritual Advisor"? What advising do their spirits get?

I think some cynical political operative-type cooked-up this while "spiritual advisor" thing so some rubes out there get the idea that the candidate drags around some sort of "God Consultant" just like he'd have a campaign manager and a financial advisor.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think some cynical political operative-type cooked-up this while "spiritual advisor" thing so some rubes out there get the idea that the candidate drags around some sort of "God Consultant" just like he'd have a campaign manager and a financial advisor.

Agreed. In any case, I fail to see how it's important, especially in a campaign as secular as Obama's (or McCain's, for that matter). Campaigns probably have florists too. Are their opinions now going to be dissected on the 24-hour news channels?

The whole thing is beyond stupid.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

We may agree to disagree on this--but in truth, Ron Paul was never a "viable candidate." He never had any money, and never had the support from the GOP establishment, which in their winner-take-all system all but guaranteed that Paul would never get a single delegate.

I don't recall hearing anything at all in the mainstream media about Ron Paul one way or another. Everything I learned about him was from research on the internet. Though admittedly I don't watch a lot of TV.

Dr. Paul did raise $30 million and has a small number of pledged delegates.
He also has the #1 book on Amazon right now, and he grows tomatoes as a hobby. So I would guess he is his own gardener.

It will be an interesting situation if he gets a speaking slot and slams McCain at the national convention.

[Nehkara]

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1599
Obama 1736 (137 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1334
Obama 1493(159 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 265 (22 ahead)
Obama 243


Obama's lead shrinks by 3 via some superdelegate additions for Clinton.

Obama wins Guam by 7 votes on the weekend, 2264 to 2257.

Indiana and North Carolina tomorrow.

[Montana Moe]

At this rate, Montana may actually make a difference in the Democratic primary! (We're the last one) I'm registered as an independent, perhaps I should participate in "Operation Chaos."

Bill Clinton is coming to speak next weekend here in Billings. This is primarily Republican country, so I'm not sure how many voters he'll sway. I work at the airport, so I'm sure we'll be dressed in our "Sunday best" for the arrival.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Agreed. In any case, I fail to see how it's important, especially in a campaign as secular as Obama's (or McCain's, for that matter). Campaigns probably have florists too. Are their opinions now going to be dissected on the 24-hour news channels?

The whole thing is beyond stupid.

I think Obama's problem isn't so much what a supporter of his believes but, rather his treatment of those views. It's obvious now that Wright's views of white America have been a central plank in the theology of Obama's home church. A church that seems to be very political in nature. Hearing those clips on youtube you not only get a clear impression of Wright's brand of racism but, also his influence on his audience. I don't believe that Obama can continue to pretend that he wasn't aware of what his preacher was teaching. He had to be aware. Either he continued the association even though he didn't like the theology, because until recently it was politically expedient or else he believes in Wright's views and is distancing himself now for political expedience. According to Wright it is the later and Wright is offended by it.

That speech by Obama that was heralded as the greatest thing from slice bread might have lost some of its shine now: He pretended his ignorance of Wright's views.-That isn't believable now. He compared his situation with Hillary's- But, Hilliary immediately distanced herself from Farrario as soon as she knew(unlike Obama). I really don't know what was to like about that speech in the first place. His solution for the racial divide was more dialogue. Apparently white people need to once again hear how hard black people have had it and still do today. Typical liberal dribble.

[Nehkara]

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1602
Obama 1745 (143 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1336
Obama 1493(157 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 266 (14 ahead)
Obama 252


Obama increases his lead to 143 on the strength of huge increases in his Superdelegate support.

Obama now trails by only 14 in the superdelegate count.

Indiana and North Carolina primaries today!

[Nehkara]

CNN projects that Obama will carry North Carolina.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

CNN projects that Obama will carry North Carolina.

Indiana still too close to call, according to CNN. But you have to think, if you're a rational person, that no result other than running the table is enough for Clinton to carry on in the race. She has no mathematical shot at getting more pledged delegates than Obama, and her only hope is for the remaining superdelegates to break dramatically in her favor. Since many (if not most) have said they'll back the candidate with more pledged delegates, isn't it time for her to think about stepping aside.

She can't win, but she might be able to take Obama down with her. Interesting to see what she says tonight. In a sense, she could spin a NC loss but an Indiana victory as a moral win, since she trailed in both states not that long ago. You have to wonder what her end game is, though.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Indiana still too close to call, according to CNN. But you have to think, if you're a rational person, that no result other than running the table is enough for Clinton to carry on in the race. She has no mathematical shot at getting more pledged delegates than Obama, and her only hope is for the remaining superdelegates to break dramatically in her favor. Since many (if not most) have said they'll back the candidate with more pledged delegates, isn't it time for her to think about stepping aside.

She can't win, but she might be able to take Obama down with her. Interesting to see what she says tonight. In a sense, she could spin a NC loss but an Indiana victory as a moral win, since she trailed in both states not that long ago. You have to wonder what her end game is, though.

Still not sure if she will be able to carry Indiana. Her lead started out as 14 points... it is now 8 points.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Still not sure if she will be able to carry Indiana. Her lead started out as 14 points... it is now 8 points.

Make that 6 points... with 35% of precincts remaining, Clinton is up by just 6 points in Indiana.