Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think a reasonable argument can be made that Clintons policys were the ones that precipitated the 9/11 events which was the trigger for pretty much everything that's happened since then.

Or Bush Sr, or possibly even Regan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Blasphemy! American policies didn't have anything to do with 9/11! They hate us for our freedoms!

I guess Clinton can take some of the blame, though certainly not all of it, as you seem to suggest. All them folks and policies that were there before him have something to do with it too, don't they?

A lot of people say that Carter was the first President in a long list to start screwing things up.

And it certainly isn't a Republican/Democrat difference either....both sides have screwed over the intelligence community for numerous reasons.

I mean, blame Clinton, but he had a Republican Congress. His budget though, even if the Republicans were more concerned about his private life than actually making sure that the country's security was looked after.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's absolutely huge. And not at all what I was expecting.

If Obama ties or wins in PA, that's the ball game.

Agreed.

A 28 point turnaround is just amazing. I never expected it. I was going to be ecstatic of Obama lost by less than 10 points... if he now has a shot of winning that would be amazing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

A lot of people say that Carter was the first President in a long list to start screwing things up.

And it certainly isn't a Republican/Democrat difference either....both sides have screwed over the intelligence community for numerous reasons.

I mean, blame Clinton, but he had a Republican Congress. His budget though, even if the Republicans were more concerned about his private life than actually making sure that the country's security was looked after.

I don't think cutting military spending was the problem. How much were they still spending compared to the rest of the world combined?

He could have increased intelligence spending tenfold but that wouldn't have helped much either. George and his pals didn't bother listening to the intelligence they did have.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

But just for argument's sake, let's say "it's Clinton's fault". Who gets the blame for all the mistakes/everything that has happened since?

Theres plenty of blame to go around, lets remember BOTH the democrats and republicans agreed to invade iraq and afghanistan and whatever the pretenses, it's hard to say the world is a worse place without a vicious dicator who murdered his own people, harbored terrorists, and at one time had and used WMDs.

While i don't agree with alot of what the US government has done, atleast the republicans are sticking their nose in their and trying to fix what they f'd up in the first. The Democrats on the other hands just want out as fast as possible so they can wash their hands of the mess.

I would still like to see Obama win the presidency because that country needs a change in direction but IMO the democrats walking around with their noses in the air like they knew this would be a disaster from the get go are the worst kind of politicians. Unlike Clinton atleast Obama can stand up at the podium and remind us that from the start he didnt agree with the war.

[Nehkara]

I set up the OP for the results of the final 10 primaries/caucuses, Pennsylvania votes next tuesday.

The delegate update is below with Obama out to a lead of 143 total delegates.

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1489
Obama 1632 (143 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1243
Obama 1414(171 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 246 (28 ahead)
Obama 218

[Nehkara]

It should also be noted that, assuming neither candidate drops out, we will not know the final pledged delegate totals until June 22nd which is, I believe, the final state convention.

[HotHotHeat]

Honestly, if the 'bitter' comment by Obama this week causes him a fall in the polls, all hope for the USA is lost.

[Azure]

What I was going to say....saw this yesterday.

Time for one of those rare out-of-character moments. For a variety of reasons, I normally stay as far away from these mundane political slapfights as possible. However, this particular mess, and the discussion around (not about) it hit close to home, so I hope you'll indulge me while I present what I think is a bit of a unique perspective.

Simply put, I was, once upon a time, one of those people Obama was referring to. I grew up a small town Pennsylvanian. No, I'm not talking about a town with a 4 or 5 figure population. I'm talking about a "town" where you had to travel 15-20 miles to reach the nearest town with a 4 digit population. I grew up in a hunting and farming culture, owned guns, and went to church on Sundays. I didn't know a single person who was "rich." Wealth, where I was, was having a good piece of land, a roof over your head, and good friends and family.

I didn't want that to be my life. I wanted more. I worked my ass off, went into debt well above my ears, and made something of a "success" of myself. I use that term reluctantly, because I firmly believe that if I had chosen to stay where I was, I could have also made a success of myself, just in a different, less traditional way.

Anyway, long story short, I moved from the rural, small town Pennsylvania life, and, with a few stops along the way, ended up in D.C. Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that I, unlike most people involved in discussions regarding this matter, know Barack Obama personally. Through various bits of fortune, misfortune, and random circumstances, I'm now in a position to roam the so-called centers of power. Thus, I have a good deal of personal experience with the thoughts an opinions of the so-called elite to compare and contrast with my insights into small town life.

No, I'm not going to go into details about what Obama, or any other candidate, politician, etc. is "like," nor will I attempt to guess what's in anyone's heart or mind. I will, however, offer my personal take on this.

Put simply, prior to this remark, it is likely (though by no means certain) that my November ballot would have been cast for Obama. My reasons for this are my own an I don't intend to expound upon them. Now, there is no chance in hell that I will vote for the man. He has personally offended me, and a way of life that's very dear to my heart.

I don't care about the "bitter" comment that most are focusing on. Yes, small town people in general harbor some bitterness. That bitterness, however, tends to be focused more on the elitist attitude held regarding them by those who consider themselves more enlightened or successful. Even today, for all of my "success," I'm often complimented for overcoming my background. I overcame nothing. In fact, I believe that in many ways, I had the headstart and the advantages.

The use of the word "cling" annoys me. It implies some degree of irrational or baseless attachment. I can forgive that though. It can be written off as a slip of the tongue. No big deal.

The "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment" comments, however, are over the line. This portion of the quote evinces a conscious or unconscious stereotyping and disdain for people that Mr. Obama does not know and does not care to understand. Simply put it demonstrates a reckless and elitist attitude that pisses me off.

Are there small towners who don't like immigrants or harbor racist feeling? Sure. Is it a general sentiment? No. Its a stereotype, an a generally baseless one at that. Sure, illegal immigration is a hot topic in these regions. Why? Because the people in these areas are, in general, sick of hearing that there are jobs Americans won't do when they would gladly do them. Would these people run a legal, hardworking immigrant out of town? No. They'd welcome him or her with open arms and usually help set up the house. I know because I've seen this happen. Would an illegal immigrant get the sam treatment? No, but they also would have nothing to fear in terms of personal safety.

I can say, from personal experience, that the people Mr. Obama is referring to here are without a doubt the hardest working, kindest, and most sincere people I have ever met. The prejudice demonstrated by Mr. Obama, as well as those trying to justify these comments with no personal experience regarding the subjects thereof, is no different that someone labeling all blacks as gun-toting thugs because they saw a few gangbangers in South Central LA a few years ago. Its small-minded and wrong, and for someone who wants to lead this country, its a dealbreaker for me.

And yes, I can say with certainty that Mr. Obama does have a stereotype driven negative view of the people he was referring to. He's much more comfortable associating with higher-income urban professionals. He's uncomfortable with blue-collar individuals who do not share similar goals and dreams to his. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong, however, with furthering stereotypes or basing policies thereon.

Just my two cents. Take it for what you will.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Honestly, if the 'bitter' comment by Obama this week causes him a fall in the polls, all hope for the USA is lost.

It was a dumb thing to say, but I doubt it has much lasting effect. A week in politics is like a year in normal time.

Interestingly, there's a debate tonight--I'm interested to see if/how he addresses the comment. He's already backed off of it, saying he "mangled" his words (and FWIW I believe him, though I understand not everyone will). But if he's smart, he'll use the controversy as an opportunity to clarify what he really thinks about the rural working class in America. And that could become a very important rallying cry for populism in this country. This is a demographic group that has thrown their support behind the GOP for decades on the basis of the "Guns, gays and God" platform, and been repeatedly screwed by the GOPs corporate-friendly, Reaganomics-based fiscal policy.

I'm hoping Obama uses this opportunity for more than just damage control, and presents a unifying call to action that will include this disenfranchised group. It's a real test for him; it will be interesting to see what he does.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Honestly, if the 'bitter' comment by Obama this week causes him a fall in the polls, all hope for the USA is lost.

Sad, really sad.

You know, I was expecting this....not what Obama has said, because I really figured he was a better person than that, but I WAS expecting the the comments about all hope being lost if Obama isn't elected.

Maybe he should quit stereotyping, insulting people....and making stupid comments, and he'd be running away with this right now.

He is crashing his own campaign.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It was a dumb thing to say, but I doubt it has much lasting effect. A week in politics is like a year in normal time.

I believe polls in Pennsylvania have shown Clinton on the rise after those comments.

To me, it was more than just a 'dumb' thing to say.

Absolutely ridiculous that he would stereotype a group of people like that, while just a few weeks ago he made a speech of how wrong stereotyping is.

I really, really thought he was better than this.

Interestingly, there's a debate tonight--I'm interested to see if/how he addresses the comment. He's already backed off of it, saying he "mangled" his words (and FWIW I believe him, though I understand not everyone will). But if he's smart, he'll use the controversy as an opportunity to clarify what he really thinks about the rural working class in America. And that could become a very important rallying cry for populism in this country. This is a demographic group that has thrown their support behind the GOP for decades on the basis of the "Guns, gays and God" platform, and been repeatedly screwed by the GOPs corporate-friendly, Reaganomics-based fiscal policy.

I'm hoping Obama uses this opportunity for more than just damage control, and presents a unifying call to action that will include this disenfranchised group. It's a real test for him; it will be interesting to see what he does.

Maybe he is going to present another 'speech of a lifetime.'

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, I was expecting this....not what Obama has said, because I really figured he was a better person than that, but I WAS expecting the the comments about all hope being lost if Obama isn't elected.

The stakes are always high in U.S. politics, but I think in this case the fear on the left is that a) only Obama can beat McCain and that b) McCain's understanding of foreign policy is so poor that he's bound to run the U.S. into the ground even further.

I'm not saying that's right--just that one can understand it. My own view is that these guys learn on the job, and though it's pretty shocking that McCain seems not to understand the difference between Sunni and Shia right now, he's bound to have someone working for him who can give him the lowdown after he's elected if it comes to that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The stakes are always high in U.S. politics, but I think in this case the fear on the left is that a) only Obama can beat McCain and that b) McCain's understanding of foreign policy is so poor that he's bound to run the U.S. into the ground even further.

I'm not saying that's right--just that one can understand it. My own view is that these guys learn on the job, and though it's pretty shocking that McCain seems not to understand the difference between Sunni and Shia right now, he's bound to have someone working for him who can give him the lowdown after he's elected if it comes to that.

Obama can learn too.....probably a lot quicker than McCain, if you believe in the old saying, 'an old tree is hard to bend.'

Not saying that McCain would do a poor job....personally I think he is a good man, who would try and do the best job that he can. Which is why I don't get the whole 'all hope is lost.' Here I figured that the 'left'.....liked McCain for his ability to work with the 'other side.'

Oh, and if you pay 'any' attention to the polls, McCain has been on the rise ever since winning the nomination. And the real election campaign hasn't even started yet.

You have to believe with Obama constantly sticking his foot into his mouth, it will hurt him.

I just don't get it. How hard is it NOT to insult people he doesn't even know?

[HotHotHeat]

McCain has also raised less money than any recent president to date. I heard it was like $6 million last month. Yikes.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sad, really sad.

You know, I was expecting this....not what Obama has said, because I really figured he was a better person than that, but I WAS expecting the the comments about all hope being lost if Obama isn't elected.

Maybe he should quit stereotyping, insulting people....and making stupid comments, and he'd be running away with this right now.

He is crashing his own campaign.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Obama is addressing issues most candidates steer away from to avoid any associated perspective. He should be commended for saying what he did. IF it offended the voters, it's also made them think that maybe, just MAYBE he's right, and there's more going on in this world than what happens within a 50 square mile radius of where you live.

He's hardly 'crashing' his campaign. He's still the most likely candidate for president.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Obama is addressing issues most candidates steer away from to avoid any associated perspective. He should be commended for saying what he did. IF it offended the voters, it's also made them think that maybe, just MAYBE he's right, and there's more going on in this world than what happens within a 50 square mile radius of where you live.

He's hardly 'crashing' his campaign. He's still the most likely candidate for president.

I know poll numbers mean nothing in the big picture.....as we're still a LONG ways away from the actual election, but since the Wright debacle...and now this, Obama has fell.

Insulting people he doesn't even know or understand is not addressing the issues.

There is a reason he is trying to back away from the comments.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Insulting people he doesn't even know or understand is not addressing the issues.

There is a reason he is trying to back away from the comments.

Let's be fair--he only insulted them if you use a very narrow interpretation of his comments--the one that is favoured by the talking heads because it makes a good story. He said that rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" over their disenfranchisement, and since they're not empowered with a surfeit of education or influence, they "cling" to the attitudes of intolerance that they were raised with.

It wasn't a smart thing to say--and at best it was a huge overgeneralization. But an insult? Only if you're Chris Matthews.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let's be fair--he only insulted them if you use a very narrow interpretation of his comments--the one that is favoured by the talking heads because it makes a good story. He said that rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" over their disenfranchisement, and since they're not empowered with a surfeit of education or influence, they "cling" to the attitudes of intolerance that they were raised with.

It wasn't a smart thing to say--and at best it was a huge overgeneralization. But an insult? Only if you're Chris Matthews.

I think this is pretty insulting to the average rural pennsylvanian. He is basically suggesting that city people are better, and the only reason rural people do the activities they do is because of bitterness.

An extremely poor choice of words.

At the beginning of the election, Hillary's key demographic was lower income democrats, but Obama was able to make a dent in this significantly. This could undo a lot, but ulmitately I don't think it will be enough to change the course of the democratic nominee election at this point. However, if he continues to make such comments it could cost him the presidential race and give McCain the edge.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is pretty insulting to the average rural pennsylvanian. He is basically suggesting that city people are better, and the only reason rural people do the activities they do is because of bitterness.

An extremely poor choice of words.

At the beginning of the election, Hillary's key demographic was lower income democrats, but Obama was able to make a dent in this significantly. This could undo a lot, but ulmitately I don't think it will be enough to change the course of the democratic nominee election at this point. However, if he continues to make such comments it could cost him the presidential race and give McCain the edge.

It was definitely a poor choice of words. But how does it imply that city people are "better"? To me it implies that rural Americans are powerless, disenfranchised and bitter, and that some of their attitudes stem from anger.

It was a mangled remark--but in reality, is that so crazy?

I agree that it could have an impact on the election. No-one ever said American politics made sense.