US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III
- Thread starter phillyfan26
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The New York Times endorsed Arizona Sen. John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination over Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the GOP field, strongly criticizing the former mayor of its home city.
In endorsements posted on its Web site for Friday's editions, the Times also endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
"Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," the paper's editorial board wrote.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."
The endorsement anticipated readers asking how the New York paper could reject Giuliani, a man it endorsed for re-election in 1997 and praised for his work cleaning up crime in the city and during the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"That man is not running for president," the paper wrote.
"The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign," the paper writes, describing Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man."
Giuliani played down the harsh words, suggesting that the Times has a liberal editorial staff that often disapproved of him.
"I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City, and if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican," Giuliani said during a Republican debate Thursday night hosted by MSNBC in Boca Raton, Florida.
"I changed welfare, I changed quality of life, I took on homelessness -- I did all the things that they think makes you mean and I believe show true compassion and true love for people."
His wasn't the only Republican campaign taking that tack. An e-mail from the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sarcastically noted that McCain had been endorsed by "[t]hat bastion of conservative advocacy."
The editorial was hardly full of praise for McCain, despite calling him a "genuine war hero" and a "staunch advocate of campaign finance reform."
"Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush's unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq's murderous political calculus," it reads.
"At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do."
The paper praised Clinton's chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, but called Clinton more qualified for the job.
"It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief," it reads.
"Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military."
The Democratic editorial contrasts Clinton and Obama -- calling her "the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York" and him "the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois."
The paper says Clinton "sometimes overstates the importance of [her] resume," but that upon hearing "her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience."
New York is one of a host of states that will vote during the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries.
In endorsements posted on its Web site for Friday's editions, the Times also endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
"Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," the paper's editorial board wrote.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."
The endorsement anticipated readers asking how the New York paper could reject Giuliani, a man it endorsed for re-election in 1997 and praised for his work cleaning up crime in the city and during the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"That man is not running for president," the paper wrote.
"The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign," the paper writes, describing Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man."
Giuliani played down the harsh words, suggesting that the Times has a liberal editorial staff that often disapproved of him.
"I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City, and if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican," Giuliani said during a Republican debate Thursday night hosted by MSNBC in Boca Raton, Florida.
"I changed welfare, I changed quality of life, I took on homelessness -- I did all the things that they think makes you mean and I believe show true compassion and true love for people."
His wasn't the only Republican campaign taking that tack. An e-mail from the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sarcastically noted that McCain had been endorsed by "[t]hat bastion of conservative advocacy."
The editorial was hardly full of praise for McCain, despite calling him a "genuine war hero" and a "staunch advocate of campaign finance reform."
"Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush's unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq's murderous political calculus," it reads.
"At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do."
The paper praised Clinton's chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, but called Clinton more qualified for the job.
"It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief," it reads.
"Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military."
The Democratic editorial contrasts Clinton and Obama -- calling her "the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York" and him "the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois."
The paper says Clinton "sometimes overstates the importance of [her] resume," but that upon hearing "her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience."
New York is one of a host of states that will vote during the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Christianity Today
Q&A: Barack Obama
"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Interview by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen | posted 1/23/2008 02:18PM
Barack Obama wants to set the record straight. He is not a Muslim, as recent e-mails falsely claim.
The Democratic presidential candidate is fighting the e-mails that have been widely circulated. Obama has been continually speaking about the role of faith in politics since his Call to Renewal address in June 2006.
In the days before the South Carolina primary, he is driving efforts to speaking with media to emphasize his Christian beliefs. His campaign also sent out a recent mailer portraying the candidate with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he is in office.
The senator from Illinois spoke with Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen today about his faith, abortion, and the evangelical vote.
What do you think your biggest obstacle will be in reaching evangelicals?
You know, I think that there's been a set of habits of thinking about the interaction between evangelicals and Democrats that we have to change. Democrats haven't shown up. Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith. Hopefully we can build some bridges that can allow us to move the country forward.
What would you do in office differently than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards that would appeal to evangelicals?
I have not focused on all of their policies so I don't want to speak about what their positions will be. I know that as president, I want to celebrate the richness and diversity of our faith experience in this country. I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful — like substance abuse or prison ministries — without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own. It can make a real difference in the lives of people all across the country.
So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?
You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.
One of the critiques of the Bush office on faith-based initiatives — beyond the church and state question — is that while it opened up competition to religious organizations or church-based organizations to compete for some of these federal funds, there was no additional allocation; there was no change in the funding. Instead, there were more organizations competing for the same the slice of pie.
I think that's right. There's always a danger in those situations that money is being allocating based on politics, as opposed to merit and substance. That doesn't just compromise government. More importantly, it compromises potentially our religious institutions.
For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. What role do you think the President should play in creating national abortion policies?
I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.
Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves.
You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?
I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.
Is there any sense of how wide this e-mail has been distributed?
This is similar to these smear tactics that were used against John McCain in 2000. We have to continually chase down this stuff. It's obviously being sent out in a systematic way. You guys really help by getting the story straight.
Q&A: Barack Obama
"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Interview by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen | posted 1/23/2008 02:18PM
Barack Obama wants to set the record straight. He is not a Muslim, as recent e-mails falsely claim.
The Democratic presidential candidate is fighting the e-mails that have been widely circulated. Obama has been continually speaking about the role of faith in politics since his Call to Renewal address in June 2006.
In the days before the South Carolina primary, he is driving efforts to speaking with media to emphasize his Christian beliefs. His campaign also sent out a recent mailer portraying the candidate with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he is in office.
The senator from Illinois spoke with Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen today about his faith, abortion, and the evangelical vote.
What do you think your biggest obstacle will be in reaching evangelicals?
You know, I think that there's been a set of habits of thinking about the interaction between evangelicals and Democrats that we have to change. Democrats haven't shown up. Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith. Hopefully we can build some bridges that can allow us to move the country forward.
What would you do in office differently than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards that would appeal to evangelicals?
I have not focused on all of their policies so I don't want to speak about what their positions will be. I know that as president, I want to celebrate the richness and diversity of our faith experience in this country. I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful — like substance abuse or prison ministries — without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own. It can make a real difference in the lives of people all across the country.
So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?
You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.
One of the critiques of the Bush office on faith-based initiatives — beyond the church and state question — is that while it opened up competition to religious organizations or church-based organizations to compete for some of these federal funds, there was no additional allocation; there was no change in the funding. Instead, there were more organizations competing for the same the slice of pie.
I think that's right. There's always a danger in those situations that money is being allocating based on politics, as opposed to merit and substance. That doesn't just compromise government. More importantly, it compromises potentially our religious institutions.
For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. What role do you think the President should play in creating national abortion policies?
I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.
Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves.
You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?
I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.
Is there any sense of how wide this e-mail has been distributed?
This is similar to these smear tactics that were used against John McCain in 2000. We have to continually chase down this stuff. It's obviously being sent out in a systematic way. You guys really help by getting the story straight.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I've seen all sorts of emails about Obama and him being Muslim, about him being Catholic, all sorts of stuff.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
It really is a shame that Kucinich dropped out.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
diamond said:
Yes, Romney did very well.
It was also interesting to see how tame the debate was. I don't think I heard a single hostile statement, and the compliments were flying. Clearly they're aware of how the Obama-Clintons fight is turning people off.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
McCain's soft on immigration stand, helps him with the Cuban-Americans in Florida.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
verte76 said:
I have not heard of this happening much in CA.
I wonder who is generating it?
I think the South is still pretty divided on race.
Even in the Democratic Party.
Happy? to say the Republican Party is not.
In the South Carolina Primary,
it seems many are voting "idenity", by the group to which they belong.
Much the way the Iraqis did. The secular party got 5% of the vote. The rest seemed to get the purple thumbs to identify themselves as a Shia, Sunni or Kurd.
In S C, if polls are to be believed, the majority of Black Americans will vote Obama. And the majority of White, Hispanic Americans will vote for Hillary or Edwards.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
DK Go Home
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Clever.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
It's kind of strange, but as much as I like Obama I never really like it when he talks about faith. . .I don't like it when any politicians do, at least that I've heard. They always sound fake. Sadly Obama is no exception.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
This is interesting. I'm watching Morning Joe on MSNBC and they've got Rep. James Clyburn on talking about the South Carolina primary.
Rep. Clyburn and Joe Scarborough are from the south, Mika Bresinzky (sp?) and David Shuster are from the north. Both Clyburn and Scarborough are bristling over comments from the Clinton campaign, and Mika and David don't get it.
They're talking about the disconnect of interpretation between North and South, which explains a lot. I believe we're seeing that here in FYM.
Rep. Clyburn and Joe Scarborough are from the south, Mika Bresinzky (sp?) and David Shuster are from the north. Both Clyburn and Scarborough are bristling over comments from the Clinton campaign, and Mika and David don't get it.
They're talking about the disconnect of interpretation between North and South, which explains a lot. I believe we're seeing that here in FYM.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
maycocksean said:
I have to agree with this. It sounds like they're pandering to the faith crowd, trying to reassure them.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
U2democrat said:
That's kind of interesting. Do you have specifics?
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
I believe they were really talking about MLK, injecting race...they said it better I'm hoping the video will be posted.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I am becoming more and more convinced the GOP is down to McCain or Romney
and Romney has a real shot
of getting the nomination
and even if Mitt is the GOP candidate
the Nov election will be closer
than many believe
and Romney has a real shot
of getting the nomination
and even if Mitt is the GOP candidate
the Nov election will be closer
than many believe
deep said:
I find Mitt to be really, really fake. He's as see through as a cheap piece of crystal.
That said, I watched him talk about the economy today. I disagreed with his policies but he sounded very impressive, and you most certainly got the sense he knew what he was talking about. I never get that feeling with McCain, who keeps droning on about Iraq.
Maybe this helps Mitt, maybe not. But it's the only time I've ever heard him speak where I had some modicum of respect for him.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
deep said:
A few weeks ago I thought that unless we nominated McCain, we had no shot of winning. But more and more I'm likely our chances with Romney, too. I think he could beat Hillary. He'd probably lose to Obama but it would be very close.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
anitram said:
perhaps there is hope for Canada..
dbs
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Obama: Press 'Manically Focused on Race'
Says He's Not Just 'The Black Candidate' And Campaign Toll on His Personal Life Is Worth It
Jan. 26, 2008—
Heading into the Democratic primary in South Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama is banking on a win. He also says the media is making race more of an issue that it actually is.
"The press has been focused, almost, you know, maniacally, on the issue of race, here in South Carolina. But, as we move forward after this contest, I'm very confident that we are going to continue to build the kinds of coalitions that we've been seeing all across the country," Obama told "Good Morning America Weekend" anchor Kate Snow.
In recent weeks, media coverage of the Democratic primaries has been dominated by issues of race.
Today voters go to the polls in South Carolina, where the issue is perhaps most relevant, as African-American voters made up 47 percent of the vote in the 2004 Democratic primary.
"Here in South Carolina, there's a sizeable African-American population; not surprisingly, I'm & doing well there. I'm sure they're taking pride in my candidacy," Obama said.
"The Black Candidate"
The junior senator from Illinois dismissed the notion raised in the media that he has been marginalized, in the words of Associated Press writer Ron Fournier, as "the black candidate, by the Clinton machine." Obama instead pointed to his past successes in white-dominated areas.
"I think it'd be hard to argue that I have been marginalized, when I won Iowa, which was 94 percent white. We were almost tied in New Hampshire, a state that has an all-white population. And in Nevada, I was able to win, actually, the biggest votes, uh, margins, in those northern areas & that are predominantly white, rural, conservative areas," Obama said.
Mudslinging
At a South Carolina debate on Monday night hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, the candidates' arguing left many complaining about an increase in "nastiness." Pundits argue that this type of negative perception could tarnish Obama's emphasis on "hope," but he says he's been the target not the source.
"There's been a flare up over the last month, namely because I've started doing well," he said with a laugh. "I mean, when I was 20 points down, I was a wonderful guy and my health care plan was universal. And, you know, as we got more notice and won Iowa, I think, you know, the classic Washington response was, 'Let's see if we can muddy the guy up a little bit,'" Obama said.
Personal Life
Unlike Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards, this is the first national campaign for Sen. Obama and his family. His wife, Michelle Obama, said earlier this week that "this is hard. There is another option for us that is better than this," referring to the sacrifice of spending time with their children and potentially making more money by not working in politics.
"Missing out on a chunk of your child's growing up is very difficult. But, you know, the reason she emphasizes this is because, you know, it's worth it," Obama said.
"You have to do this because you're passionate about making sure that the ordinary American out there who's trying to raise a family, the single mom who is struggling, that those people are getting some relief & We've done it in the past, there's no reason we can't do it in the future, but we need some leadership in Washington," he said.
Says He's Not Just 'The Black Candidate' And Campaign Toll on His Personal Life Is Worth It
Jan. 26, 2008—
Heading into the Democratic primary in South Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama is banking on a win. He also says the media is making race more of an issue that it actually is.
"The press has been focused, almost, you know, maniacally, on the issue of race, here in South Carolina. But, as we move forward after this contest, I'm very confident that we are going to continue to build the kinds of coalitions that we've been seeing all across the country," Obama told "Good Morning America Weekend" anchor Kate Snow.
In recent weeks, media coverage of the Democratic primaries has been dominated by issues of race.
Today voters go to the polls in South Carolina, where the issue is perhaps most relevant, as African-American voters made up 47 percent of the vote in the 2004 Democratic primary.
"Here in South Carolina, there's a sizeable African-American population; not surprisingly, I'm & doing well there. I'm sure they're taking pride in my candidacy," Obama said.
"The Black Candidate"
The junior senator from Illinois dismissed the notion raised in the media that he has been marginalized, in the words of Associated Press writer Ron Fournier, as "the black candidate, by the Clinton machine." Obama instead pointed to his past successes in white-dominated areas.
"I think it'd be hard to argue that I have been marginalized, when I won Iowa, which was 94 percent white. We were almost tied in New Hampshire, a state that has an all-white population. And in Nevada, I was able to win, actually, the biggest votes, uh, margins, in those northern areas & that are predominantly white, rural, conservative areas," Obama said.
Mudslinging
At a South Carolina debate on Monday night hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, the candidates' arguing left many complaining about an increase in "nastiness." Pundits argue that this type of negative perception could tarnish Obama's emphasis on "hope," but he says he's been the target not the source.
"There's been a flare up over the last month, namely because I've started doing well," he said with a laugh. "I mean, when I was 20 points down, I was a wonderful guy and my health care plan was universal. And, you know, as we got more notice and won Iowa, I think, you know, the classic Washington response was, 'Let's see if we can muddy the guy up a little bit,'" Obama said.
Personal Life
Unlike Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards, this is the first national campaign for Sen. Obama and his family. His wife, Michelle Obama, said earlier this week that "this is hard. There is another option for us that is better than this," referring to the sacrifice of spending time with their children and potentially making more money by not working in politics.
"Missing out on a chunk of your child's growing up is very difficult. But, you know, the reason she emphasizes this is because, you know, it's worth it," Obama said.
"You have to do this because you're passionate about making sure that the ordinary American out there who's trying to raise a family, the single mom who is struggling, that those people are getting some relief & We've done it in the past, there's no reason we can't do it in the future, but we need some leadership in Washington," he said.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I'm not happy with the reult of the primary.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
USA Today
Jesus wants your vote — and he needs a running mate
By Matthew Streib, Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — He walked on water, he turned water to wine, and now he wants to be your candidate for president.
That's right, it's Jesus who should be the next leader of the free world, according to a website launched this month called www.JesusIn2008.com.
It invites voters to shape his platform, even nominate a contemporary running mate in this electronic nominating convention, then use the results to guide their real votes in November.
The Jesus running in 2008 is not divine but rather "Jesus the man, the revolutionary individual who comes to us through history as a model for ethical and moral human behavior," says the site's creator, Stephen Heffner.
"I'm probably not alone in feeling that somehow we are not getting the best possible candidates for president or the best possible process," says Heffner, a former newspaper reporter and a non-practicing Catholic.
"My sense is that if Jesus were here, he would do the right thing, without needing a political strategist giving him what he thinks people want to hear."
Heffner wants the debate to be intellectual and pragmatic, tempered with examples from the Bible, not a back-and-forth of sweeping dogma.
There are only three rules on the site: no miracles, no preaching and no rude behavior.
After all, if Jesus were to use miracles to solve the energy crisis or fund Social Security, strategic debate would be pointless.
So far, Mike Huckabee and California Attorney General Jerry Brown have been floated as possible VPs.
And delegates parse Jesus' positions on issues such as health care (he doesn't trust HMOs), the environment (he would be pro-conservation) and church-state separation ("Does Jesus have to recuse himself on this one?" one person asked).
The Rev. Jim Wallis, the progressive evangelical founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and author of the new book The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, says finding a candidate in Jesus' image isn't a political panacea.
"The Sermon on the Mount would not be a political platform. Changes in society are like reforms; you make one, and then you make another," Wallis says.
Jacques Berlinerblau, who teaches at Georgetown University and is author of Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics, says the site "will let the secularists and non-believers get their ya-yas out because it'll be funny to see evangelicals and fundamentalists fume."
But, he says, if people seriously discuss "what Jesus would want as a candidate, it could make people think harder about the choices they make in the political process."
Would he vote for Jesus?
"Perhaps," Berlinerblau says. "The Jesus that I've constructed in my mind, the Jesus that I like, but that's my Jesus.
"When you ask people, 'Would you want Jesus to be your president?' people would almost always answer yes, but different people have different Jesuses. It's when Jesus enters the public sphere that people start to argue."
Jesus wants your vote — and he needs a running mate
By Matthew Streib, Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — He walked on water, he turned water to wine, and now he wants to be your candidate for president.
That's right, it's Jesus who should be the next leader of the free world, according to a website launched this month called www.JesusIn2008.com.
It invites voters to shape his platform, even nominate a contemporary running mate in this electronic nominating convention, then use the results to guide their real votes in November.
The Jesus running in 2008 is not divine but rather "Jesus the man, the revolutionary individual who comes to us through history as a model for ethical and moral human behavior," says the site's creator, Stephen Heffner.
"I'm probably not alone in feeling that somehow we are not getting the best possible candidates for president or the best possible process," says Heffner, a former newspaper reporter and a non-practicing Catholic.
"My sense is that if Jesus were here, he would do the right thing, without needing a political strategist giving him what he thinks people want to hear."
Heffner wants the debate to be intellectual and pragmatic, tempered with examples from the Bible, not a back-and-forth of sweeping dogma.
There are only three rules on the site: no miracles, no preaching and no rude behavior.
After all, if Jesus were to use miracles to solve the energy crisis or fund Social Security, strategic debate would be pointless.
So far, Mike Huckabee and California Attorney General Jerry Brown have been floated as possible VPs.
And delegates parse Jesus' positions on issues such as health care (he doesn't trust HMOs), the environment (he would be pro-conservation) and church-state separation ("Does Jesus have to recuse himself on this one?" one person asked).
The Rev. Jim Wallis, the progressive evangelical founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and author of the new book The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, says finding a candidate in Jesus' image isn't a political panacea.
"The Sermon on the Mount would not be a political platform. Changes in society are like reforms; you make one, and then you make another," Wallis says.
Jacques Berlinerblau, who teaches at Georgetown University and is author of Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics, says the site "will let the secularists and non-believers get their ya-yas out because it'll be funny to see evangelicals and fundamentalists fume."
But, he says, if people seriously discuss "what Jesus would want as a candidate, it could make people think harder about the choices they make in the political process."
Would he vote for Jesus?
"Perhaps," Berlinerblau says. "The Jesus that I've constructed in my mind, the Jesus that I like, but that's my Jesus.
"When you ask people, 'Would you want Jesus to be your president?' people would almost always answer yes, but different people have different Jesuses. It's when Jesus enters the public sphere that people start to argue."
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Janet Reno endorses Clinton
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served in Bill Clinton's administration, is backing his wife in Tuesday's presidential primary.
Reno, who ran for governor in 2002 and served as Miami-Dade State Attorney, is one of Florida's best-known politicians. "She's got a large statewide following in Florida,'' said Ana Cruz, who leads a volunteer group called Hillary for Florida.
A Miami Herald poll last week showed that women voters favor Clinton over chief rival Barack Obama, 45 to 21 percent. But Florida's highest ranking female Democrat, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, has stayed neutral in the race.
"We haven't stopped pursing her endorsement,'' Cruz said.
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served in Bill Clinton's administration, is backing his wife in Tuesday's presidential primary.
Reno, who ran for governor in 2002 and served as Miami-Dade State Attorney, is one of Florida's best-known politicians. "She's got a large statewide following in Florida,'' said Ana Cruz, who leads a volunteer group called Hillary for Florida.
A Miami Herald poll last week showed that women voters favor Clinton over chief rival Barack Obama, 45 to 21 percent. But Florida's highest ranking female Democrat, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, has stayed neutral in the race.
"We haven't stopped pursing her endorsement,'' Cruz said.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
MrsSpringsteen said:
that endorsement will seal her fate.
dbs
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
What's your problem with her, is she a shrew too?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
wait and see
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
No witch pictures of Ms Reno? Google not working?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
PENSACOLA, Florida (CNN) – Mitt Romney's failure to eat fried chicken with the skin on is nothing short of blasphemy here in the South, according to GOP rival Mike Huckabee.
Romney, of Massachusetts, dug into a piece fried chicken at KFC while campaigning in Lutz, Florida on Saturday, but not before peeling off what most would consider the best part — the crispy skin.
Admittedly, KFC's chicken doesn't exactly stack up against the delectable kind that comes out of deep fryers in kitchens around the South, and Romney said he was looking for the healthiest option available to him for lunch.
Huckabee, looking ahead to a flotilla of southern states up for grabs on Super Tuesday, was told about the move by a reporter here in the Florida panhandle.
"I can tell you this," he said, "any Southerner knows if you don’t eat the skin don’t bother calling it fried chicken."
"So that's good. I'm glad that he did that, because that means I'm going to win Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma … all these great Southern states that understand the best part of fried chicken is the skin, if you're going to eat it that way."
Huckabee admitted that he hasn't eaten fried chicken in a while because of his weight loss program, preferring it broiled or baked instead.
And speaking of possible gaffes, a good Southerner might also dispute one of Huckabee's claims: since when is Oklahoma "a great southern state"?
Romney, of Massachusetts, dug into a piece fried chicken at KFC while campaigning in Lutz, Florida on Saturday, but not before peeling off what most would consider the best part — the crispy skin.
Admittedly, KFC's chicken doesn't exactly stack up against the delectable kind that comes out of deep fryers in kitchens around the South, and Romney said he was looking for the healthiest option available to him for lunch.
Huckabee, looking ahead to a flotilla of southern states up for grabs on Super Tuesday, was told about the move by a reporter here in the Florida panhandle.
"I can tell you this," he said, "any Southerner knows if you don’t eat the skin don’t bother calling it fried chicken."
"So that's good. I'm glad that he did that, because that means I'm going to win Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma … all these great Southern states that understand the best part of fried chicken is the skin, if you're going to eat it that way."
Huckabee admitted that he hasn't eaten fried chicken in a while because of his weight loss program, preferring it broiled or baked instead.
And speaking of possible gaffes, a good Southerner might also dispute one of Huckabee's claims: since when is Oklahoma "a great southern state"?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I really hope the Clinton campaign changes its' mind on pulling this stuff, it is on the verge of doing her in for good. How can they not see that?
Lost is on Thursday night, I will debate watch during the commercials. Maybe Hillary could send Bill to the Lost island until the election is over.
January 28, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Desperate Husband
By WILLIAM KRISTOL, NY Times
In the run-up to Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton repeatedly denounced racial divisions in American politics. Indeed, he said Friday in Spartanburg, Americans are “literally aching to live in a post-racial future.”
But Clinton certainly hasn’t been hastening that day. Quite the contrary. In Charleston, on Wednesday, he disingenuously remarked: “As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning here.”
Really? Who was telling him that?
Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.
Then on Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife’s imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ’84 and ’88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere.”
What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.
Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.
But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters
So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.
The proof is in the South Carolina results. Bill Clinton became the dominant story in the last few days of that campaign. According to the exit polls, about one in five South Carolina Democrats decided whom to vote for in the last three days. Among those late deciders, Hillary Clinton received only 21 percent of the vote compared with 27 percent overall. In South Carolina, many of those falling off from Clinton seemed to go to Edwards. Next week, with Edwards much less of a factor, won’t many such voters go all the way to Obama?
Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.
So Hillary’s advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.
This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.
But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he’s there, he’ll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?
I’d say that even if you’ve (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I’m canceling it. The Giants probably won’t beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.
Lost is on Thursday night, I will debate watch during the commercials. Maybe Hillary could send Bill to the Lost island until the election is over.
January 28, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Desperate Husband
By WILLIAM KRISTOL, NY Times
In the run-up to Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton repeatedly denounced racial divisions in American politics. Indeed, he said Friday in Spartanburg, Americans are “literally aching to live in a post-racial future.”
But Clinton certainly hasn’t been hastening that day. Quite the contrary. In Charleston, on Wednesday, he disingenuously remarked: “As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning here.”
Really? Who was telling him that?
Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.
Then on Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife’s imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ’84 and ’88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere.”
What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.
Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.
But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters
So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.
The proof is in the South Carolina results. Bill Clinton became the dominant story in the last few days of that campaign. According to the exit polls, about one in five South Carolina Democrats decided whom to vote for in the last three days. Among those late deciders, Hillary Clinton received only 21 percent of the vote compared with 27 percent overall. In South Carolina, many of those falling off from Clinton seemed to go to Edwards. Next week, with Edwards much less of a factor, won’t many such voters go all the way to Obama?
Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.
So Hillary’s advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.
This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.
But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he’s there, he’ll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?
I’d say that even if you’ve (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I’m canceling it. The Giants probably won’t beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Breaking News: Rudy Giuliani hints at dropping out
The least qualified candidate to be treated as a contender!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
