Right. I don't think the Clintons realize how much hatred they've generated for themselves with their embrace of Rove/Atwater politics.

Setting aside the frivolous notion that there's such a thing as "Rove/Atwater politics," you're projecting. Clinton has been getting (slightly) more popular, relative to Obama, in Gallup's national tracking poll as time has passed. On the 21st she was down to 40%; now she's back up to 49%.

When Wright demonizes the "government," he's really demonizing "white people." The message of "white people hate us and they are going out of their way to kill us, by creating a horrible disease" is a serious, serious problem.

Why, oh why would a 60-70 year old black man think something so crazy as that?! It's not like the US government spent 200 years trading black people as chattel slaves, then followed that up with 100 years of winking and nodding while at least half the country implemented violent, murderous Jim Crow aparthied against them. It's not like as late as WWII the US government was using black people as medical guinea pigs, carrying forward a long tradition of human experiements on black people established during the slave years. It's not like it's only been 30-40 years since the US government even bothered to certify equal rights for black people, much less enforce them. It's not like the probability of a 65 year old black man born in the south actually knew someone, personally, who was lynched for being black approaches 100.

Nah, there's no reason for these crazy conspiracy theories at all. It's just crazy old black guys and their scary hating of whitey.

The Clintons are as they have ever been. They have their good points (smart, tough, determined, ruthless), and their bad points (grasping, dishonest, manipulative, egomaniacal, ruthless), but they are what they are, and always have been. It's just that most liberals have only recently started to pay attention to the bad stuff.

That's not an unfair take. Up to now for many of us their chief saving grace has been their formidable array of enemies in the Camp Of The Usual Suspects, and for want of a better alternative there they were. Sort of the way that many conservatives likely felt about Bush in 2004, and with a slight variant, may still feel today about McCain. Political purity doesn't usually get you very far.

But man, have the Clintons ever burned those bridges now. Whereas half a year ago most of the liberals I know were either in her camp or wavering among her, Edwards and Obama, I don't know a single one of them who wouldn't (figuratively) spit in her face today if they met her in the street.

And for the record, I was for Edwards at first, then wavered at the start of the year, and was still wavering in February after New Hampshire (I'm generally a pragmatist, and for about five minutes I thought she might be more electable), but after she started in with that Wright shlt, and kept at it long after her point had been made, that was all she wrote. And I'd be very surprised if a lot of those uncommitted superdelegates haven't gone through the same evolution that I have, and are only holding back out of a committment to the primary process.

So, Sam, you think Wright's treatment of this reality through his words and actions is appropriate and productive? Obama certainly doesn't. Or he's just a pandering politician.

Andy, how has Clinton kept after the Wright stuff? I think she's only commented on it twice when posed direct questions.

So, Sam, you think Wright's treatment of this reality through his words and actions is appropriate and productive?

I'd be shocked if you could find where I said that. I am simply stating that the idea that the generation of black leaders who fought and died for Civil Rights might have just a tiny justification for their distrust and/or anger toward the US government. The general gestatl I get from the "conservative" side of things here is that Wright is just irrationally hating on the whiteys, and thus of course they get to level the empty epithet "anti-American" and feel all glorious and patriotic for putting the angry black man in his place. They can't quite seem to grasp that Wright's conspiratorial bunker mentality, while factually erraneous and at odds with the new generations' political and moral goals (thus Obama's distance from them), isn't irrational or difficult to understand. I suspect there are quite a few older Jews who still sort of cringe at a German accent too.

It's not like the US government spent 200 years trading black people as chattel slaves

Wrong. The US government did not traffic in slaves. Private US citizens did that.

then followed that up with 100 years of winking and nodding while at least half the country implemented violent, murderous Jim Crow aparthied against them.

It was only the original 11 states. But whatever, Sam. let's not let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your batshit roll here. And let's choose not to remember that the US government launched the most bloody campaign in it's history to end slavery while we're at it.

It's not like as late as WWII the US government was using black people as medical guinea pigs

They were using white people too. And it might be more helpful if we restated this as a medical community problem rather than a federal government problem. After all, it was medical personnel who were writing the study protocols and conducting the studies. The feds were guilty only of allowing them to occur. But again. Whatever.

carrying forward a long tradition of human experiements on black people established during the slave years.

And what were those exactly? Enquiring minds want to know.

It's not like it's only been 30-40 years since the US government even bothered to certify equal rights for black people, much less enforce them.

Just asking. Are you aware that it's a common belief in the black community that working for the feds is a more desireable destiny than the private sector because of the widespread belief they will be treated more equitably there?

Nah, there's no reason for these crazy conspiracy theories at all.

So then am I to assume that you don't think the idea that HIV was created by the government to selectively kill off blacks is crazy? Again. Just asking.

Well, one thing you're ignoring is that all the superdelegates are uncommitted. Some have endorsed one candidate or another, but that's only an intent, not a binding obligation.

This is theoretically true of the so-called pledged delegates as well. Those folks are hard-core partisans for their respective candidates, so they're extremely UNLIKELY to flip, but there's nothing in the rules keeping them from voting whatever whim they walk into the convention hall with.

Even a full as-is seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates (which isn't going to happen) won't erase Obama's pledged delegate lead unless Hillary really runs up the score in the remaining primaries.

Re Dial's #2676: I think the analysis of the delegate math is about right, though I seriously doubt Obama loses Montana or South Dakota (though Hillary probably wins WV, KY and PR by greater than 8-point margins).

What I want to know is who Andy is voting for in the general if Clinton happens to be the candidate.

But man, have the Clintons ever burned those bridges now. Whereas half a year ago most of the liberals I know were either in her camp or wavering among her, Edwards and Obama, I don't know a single one of them who wouldn't (figuratively) spit in her face today if they met her in the street.

Three months ago I would have held my nose and voted against McCain and perpetual war. Today I wouldn't piss on a Clinton if they were on fire.

Nah, there's no reason for these crazy conspiracy theories at all. It's just crazy old black guys and their scary hating of whitey.


We don't live in the same country where the things you've mentioned happened. The laws and the people have changed, dramatically. We haven't been there for more than a generation.

Wright has a responsibility as a spiritual leader and a leader of a community not to be 30 or more years behind reality. He has a responsibility to deliver a message that brings people together, not one that brings people apart. I don't hold a regular person to the same standard as one whose calling is to lead others.

Andy, how has Clinton kept after the Wright stuff? I think she's only commented on it twice when posed direct questions.

I asked the same thing a couple hundred posts or so ago. No answer then.

I support Clinton, health care being a main reason, but I like to think I'm still open.

Sam, Black people in this country have plenty to be angry about as a consequence of slavery and Jim Crow, but I think you exaggerate some of that. The US gov't never held slaves even though the law of the land allowed slavery (of anyone, black, Indian, Mexican, or white). As you're probably aware there were instances of each and even rare instances of blacks holding slaves.

What's the tradition of human experimentation on blacks to which you're referring? I mean, I'm aware of Tuskegee, but am unaware this was part of a stream of experimentation on blacks tracing back to slavery.

We don't live in the same country where the things you've mentioned happened. The laws and the people have changed, dramatically. We haven't been there for more than a generation.

Please. Just please. Do you honestly think 300 years of violent repression disappears overnight just because we smile and say "sorry!?"

Please.

Just for information, electoral-vote.com is a terrific compendium of all kinds of data on polls, committed delegates, and hundreds of other things.

I tend to agree with Andy and Sam. A few months ago, I was still relatively sure that Clinton would be a lot better than McCain. Right now, after she has spent so much time touting her love of guns and her eagerness to bomb Iran, I am much less sure. Her recent campaign has been about far right she can move while assuming that the left will fall in behind her because they have nowhere else to go.

Andy, how has Clinton kept after the Wright stuff? I think she's only commented on it twice when posed direct questions.

Frida, I haven't kept count, but every time she's asked about it she still keeps up with the pious pose about how she would have walked out of the church, and with all the "bad judgment" crap. Never any attempt to place the Obama/Wright relationship in any sort of real world context, never any sense of solidarity with a fellow Democrat in the face of a concerted right wing attack, nothing but a sleazy attempt to turn it into a wedge issue.

From both a moral and a long range political standpoint, she could have responded to the first question along these lines:

"I've seen the Wright videos, and they're indeed shocking. And I'm sure that Senator Obama agrees. Nothing in his public life would indicate otherwise. If I'd been Obama, I might have quit the church, but since I wasn't in his position, I don't feel that it's my role to pass judgment on this. Senator Obama and I have differences on several key issues, and I think that I'm the more electable of the two candidates, but the overriding point of this electiion is to bring our party and our country together after the election, and the words of a minister---which have nothing to do with anything Senator Obama stands for---should not be a factor in anyone's decision. Let the Republicans make of it what they want, but I've been on the receiving end of this sort of campaign too many times myself to want to go down that road. Thank you."

If she had gone that way, she would have been incomparably better positioned for November if she'd won; she would have still benefitted from those who questioned Obama's judgment about Wright; and if she has a speck of human decency left in her, she would probably spared her conscience a great deal of overtime.

EDIT: villainx, sorry I didn't respond earlier, but anyone who stays here know that I don't duck serious questions. So the above is directed to you as well.

Why, oh why would a 60-70 year old black man think something so crazy as that?!

I don't know; I guess he's been too busy thinking he was a slave (*) to notice all the progress that has been made over the last few decades.

I guess he didn't realize that Al Sharpton is busy protesting non-issues like talk radio show hosts instead of segregation.

(*) Jeremiah Wright: "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. He did not make me this color."

It's not like the probability of a 65 year old black man born in the south actually knew someone, personally, who was lynched for being black approaches 100.

But this hasn't been a problem for decades. Note that today's firestorms are over things like a rope found in a breakroom that someone classifies as a noose -- not over someone actually hanging from the rope.

Progress has been made. Wright couldn't see it. Obama correctly explained that.

I am simply stating that the idea that the generation of black leaders who fought and died for Civil Rights might have just a tiny justification for their distrust and/or anger toward the US government.

Distrust is reasonable. Anger is reasonable. Outlandish, provocative statements that show reckless disregard for the truth are not reasonable.

The general gestatl I get from the "conservative" side of things here is that Wright is just irrationally hating on the whiteys, and thus of course they get to level the empty epithet "anti-American" and feel all glorious and patriotic for putting the angry black man in his place.

I am not conservative, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to have anti-government sentiment. If Wright was preaching that the government needs to change because of racial inequities in wealth, prison sentencing, drug law, etc. I would not have any problem with that even if I disagreed with him.

We should be thinking about why our society works less well for minorities, and working to change it, and we should be reminded by our community leaders of our responsibility to address these problems.

They can't quite seem to grasp that Wright's conspiratorial bunker mentality, while factually erraneous and at odds with the new generations' political and moral goals (thus Obama's distance from them), isn't irrational or difficult to understand. I suspect there are quite a few older Jews who still sort of cringe at a German accent too.

I don't criticize people for what they feel, but only what they do. I lost family members in the Holocaust. My mother was uncomfortable when she first walked into a butchers' shop owned by Germans with thick accents. The discomfort was understandable. She got over it and went there for years.

If my mother was the president of her temple, and stood before the congregation saying that those butchers were putting poison in the meat that caused Tay-Sachs, it would be ridiculous, indefensible behavior.

What I want to know is who Andy is voting for in the general if Clinton happens to be the candidate.

Clinton, but with about the same degree of enthusiasm with which many conservatives will vote for McCain. And if I were Hillary I wouldn't count on too many others like me following in my footsteps. See Sam's post (#2710) above for another take.

That's not an unfair take. Up to now for many of us their chief saving grace has been their formidable array of enemies in the Camp Of The Usual Suspects, and for want of a better alternative there they were. Sort of the way that many conservatives likely felt about Bush in 2004, and with a slight variant, may still feel today about McCain. Political purity doesn't usually get you very far.

That's reasonable, but the last line seems wrong to me. Politically speaking, Hillary is virtually identical to Obama. You can tag her with some stuff that Obama can't be hit with (Iraq), but mostly because she's been around longer and has a substantial record to attack. The issues liberals are having with the Clintons now are personal/behavioral. The hostility towards Hillary isn't related to what they think she'll do in office, policy-wise. The issues conservatives have with Bush/McCain are largely political, although Bush's stellar personality has managed to turn a fair number of conservatives off as well. Many conservatives don't believe McCain is one of them, period.

Andy, fair enough on your posited alternative Clinton could have taken. I still don't think what Clinton has done qualifies as 'kept after it' and worthy of demonization. But whatever floats your political boat, I guess..

"I've seen the Wright videos, and they're indeed shocking. And I'm sure that Senator Obama agrees. Nothing in his public life would indicate otherwise. If I'd been Obama, I might have quit the church, but since I wasn't in his position, I don't feel that it's my role to pass judgment on this. Senator Obama and I have differences on several key issues, and I think that I'm the more electable of the two candidates, but the overriding point of this electiion is to bring our party and our country together after the election, and the words of a minister---which have nothing to do with anything Senator Obama stands for---should not be a factor in anyone's decision. Let the Republicans make of it what they want, but I've been on the receiving end of this sort of campaign too many times myself to want to go down that road. Thank you."

Clinton added: "And I think Democrats should vote for Barack Obama to be their nominee. He is the best person for the job."

Bob, that electoral-vote.com link you provided in #2715 above is everything you say. I've bookmarked it already. Good info.

Do you honestly think 300 years of violent repression disappears overnight just because we smile and say "sorry!?"

Of course not.

I never said everything was perfect, or even close to it. But there's no question that this country has made tremendous progress from the years of Tuskegee, Jim Crow, and slavery. We are living in very different times and there should be some acknowledgment of that.

Even so, that's getting away from the point, which is that whether someone has good reason to be angry or not does not justify delivering a provocative message with reckless disregard for the truth. It may explain it, but it doesn't justify it.

The Clintons are as they have ever been. They have their good points (smart, tough, determined, ruthless), and their bad points (grasping, dishonest, manipulative, egomaniacal, ruthless), but they are what they are, and always have been. It's just that most liberals have only recently started to pay attention to the bad stuff.

That's not an unfair take. Up to now for many of us their chief saving grace has been their formidable array of enemies in the Camp Of The Usual Suspects, and for want of a better alternative there they were. Sort of the way that many conservatives likely felt about Bush in 2004, and with a slight variant, may still feel today about McCain. Political purity doesn't usually get you very far.

That's reasonable, but the last line seems wrong to me. Politically speaking, Hillary is virtually identical to Obama. You can tag her with some stuff that Obama can't be hit with (Iraq), but mostly because she's been around longer and has a substantial record to attack. The issues liberals are having with the Clintons now are personal/behavioral. The hostility towards Hillary isn't related to what they think she'll do in office, policy-wise. The issues conservatives have with Bush/McCain are largely political, although Bush's stellar personality has managed to turn a fair number of conservatives off as well. Many conservatives don't believe McCain is one of them, period.

I won't argue with that. I understated that "slight variant" line, but that's what I meant. I can see how you didn't read it that way, though.

My original comment

I usually shut down threads when Godwin's Law is verified.

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

==============================

Andy,

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

Jim, there have been 2523 posts and so far I can't remember either side making any complaints about personal attacks. I don't think you have too much to worry about.

If these conversations only impacted the people involved in the threads I really wouldn't care what's writen. Unfortunately, these debates do have impact outside the individual thread. First, when things get personal, the acrimony often spills over into unrelated discussions. Second, every time one of these threads evolves I get emails similar to this one:

"Thanks for the reading enjoyment over the last several years. It's a shame that I have decided to remove this website from my favorites, as the regulars have ceased discussion of baseball, for the most part."

Some people come to this site to follow and discuss baseball *only*. Although I agree it's easy enough to skip over these things, some people disagree. Since my main motivation for running this site is to provide enjoyment for people with baseball-related content, I hope you can understand my concern if I believe some of the off-topic material might drive away the baseball fans whom I'm trying to service.

Now, having said all that, I can appreciate the desire some people of this community have for a more well-rounded discussion. (After all, there are only so many ways we can debate the value of bunting in the third inning with our team's best hitter at the plate.) I'm trying to balance the desires of as many people as possible.

As you know, over time I've taken a few different approaches to this issue. Some of my attempts have been more effective than others. At this point, I plan on adding the ability for users to choose (within their profile) whether they want off-topic stuff to show up in Hot Topics or not. I had planned on rolling out this feature when I completed the redesign I'm playing around with, instead, I might get this feature at least partially implemented in the next week or so.

==============================

robinred,

I have no problem taking responsibility for the things I write. I don't want to have to defend the things I don't write. When you reply to the comments of two different people, please be clear to whom your comments are addressed.

I try to be quite sympathetic to your position of running the site for free, and you do a great job.

That said, this is out of line, IMO, for two reasons. First, it was pretty clear Chris was just using hyperbole, and I don't think any of the Repubs, knowing Chris, took it as a major slam. I am sure it irritated some of them, but it's not like it caused a big firestorm of flames and replies. Second, you yourself, in the previous Obama thread, compared Wright--quite seriously--to David Duke. Now, some people may see that a legit comparison, but it is a huge stretch at best, as discussed, and is unnecessarily inflammatory. There are plenty of ways to slam Wright without going there. Given the fact that you are a Republican, you need to police both sides in something like this.

It has been my experience that once the word Nazi pops up into the conversation, things usually go off the rails pretty quick. As Chris's follow-up note suggests he knows the point I was trying to make.

As for my comparison of Wright to David Duke, based on what I know they are both racists. Do I know either one personally? No. Do I have a 100% knowledge of everything each of them has done in his life, so I can put his remarks into some 100% accurate context? No. Nevertheless I have formed an opinion *of the two of them*, admittedly lacking some possibly relevant information. You draw a different conclusion. Is your conclusion based on irrefutable facts? Not from what I've read. Does that mean I can't respect you personally or assume you must be an idiot because I disagree with your conclusion? No.

I am a big proponent of thoughtful, vigorous, respectful debates. I'm not a big fan of antagonistic, shrill, dismissive, disrespectful, personal arguments. For the most part, this thread has been respectful, and thoughtful. When the worlds "Nazi", "idiot", "moron", "scum", and the like stop popping up, I don't think a reminder about civility is inappropriate.

==============================

Not to speak for Jim, but in this instance I am an editor, so I have slightly higher reqs. I think this is okay - I could have chosen a differnet word. And I didn't mean Republicans in general - I meant the ones WAAAAY over there that most Reps go "well, that's like holding up Michael Moore as the Dem std".

If I had said "extremists" instead of "Nazis", Jim wouldn't have said anything - I improperly used an inflammatory term that *could* (but wasn't) have been taken as a personal attack. Jim provided a gentle reminder to everyone, via my misstep, that it is a good thread, so choose words that aren't automatically inflammatory.

I do appreciate the support from both you and Andy, but I think Jim has a point, particularly because I wrote it.

Thank you Chris.

Wright has a responsibility as a spiritual leader and a leader of a community not to be 30 or more years behind reality. He has a responsibility to deliver a message that brings people together, not one that brings people apart. I don't hold a regular person to the same standard as one whose calling is to lead others

I think this is right, but this isn't the same as saying "Wright is an anti-american racist crackpot". I think most can agree that the stuff he says is damaging and wrong, but many, including myself, don't think you can just demonize him as racist and anti-american given the history of African-Americans in this country.

Since it was all over the news and opinion shows last night, and newspapers this morning (**), I assume everyone's aware that in 1992 Mickey Kantor, a Clinton insider for decades, opined that the people of Indiana were "sh!t" and "worthless white ni****s."

While Stephonopolous -- star of the Pennsylvania "debate" -- stands by in agreement.

(**) It wasn't?

Frida, I haven't kept count, but every time she's asked about it she still keeps up with the pious pose about how she would have walked out of the church, and with all the "bad judgment" crap... nothing but a sleazy attempt to turn it into a wedge issue.

She could have responded to the first question along these lines...

I think this is disingenuous. What she could have done but didn't do is not "kept after." From what I heard and googled, there was not much "kept after" ish with her responses.

I'm sure there are other things that Clinton went overboard on, as probably Obama made similar missteps, but insisting Clinton over extended in this instance don't seem close to accurate.

Andy's problem on the narrow issue of Hillary's view of Obama/Wright is that Andy can't comprehend that Hillary might actually be telling the truth when she says it shows bad judgment on Obama's part and that she wouldn't have stayed at the church. The view Hillary has stated on this issue is completely legitimate and represents the view millions of people have. Yet, Andy bizarrely concludes that Hillary must be lying on this point. If she isn't lying, I guess Andy feels Hillary should nevertheless pretend her views on this issue are something they're not so that she can stand "in solidarity" with a fellow Democrat who made a bad decision, who she's running against.

many, including myself, don't think you can just demonize him as racist and anti-american given the history of African-Americans in this country.


You can understand why he's racist and anti-American (and frankly, I don't really care that much if he's anti-American), but that doesn't excuse him, and even if it did excuse him, it wouldn't change the racist and anti-American sentiments of his statements.

The "government created AIDS to kill black people" is really troublesome to me. I don't understand how it couldn't be troublesome to everyone. At best, it's the ranting of a crackpot who believes a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If he doesn't really believe it, and it's calculated to get a rise out of people, I think that's even worse.

We don't live in the same country where the things you've mentioned happened. The laws and the people have changed, dramatically. We haven't been there for more than a generation.

Please. Just please. Do you honestly think 300 years of violent repression disappears overnight just because we smile and say "sorry!?"

Please.

Let the country heal, Sam. The country wants to heal. Don't stand in the way of that.

Andy's problem on the narrow issue of Hillary's view of Obama/Wright is that Andy can't comprehend that Hillary might actually be telling the truth when she says it shows bad judgment on Obama's part and that she wouldn't have stayed at the church.

"Bad judgment" here can mean two things. It can mean bad political judgement on Obama's part, a point which nobody disputes. But that isn't what Hillary was driving at. In her typically smarmy and disingenuous way, she was implying some sort of a moral judgment about Obama's decision not to quit the church. And that's what's caused such a ferocious backlash among Obama supporters and among many independents as well.

The view Hillary has stated on this issue is completely legitimate and represents the view millions of people have. Yet, Andy bizarrely concludes that Hillary must be lying on this point.

Let's just say that if Hillary weren't running for President herself, she would have taken an entirely different tack on the whole matter from start to finish. In her previous eight lives, she's never had any problem recognizing a right wing blitzkrieg when she sees it, and acting accordingly.

If she isn't lying, I guess Andy feels Hillary should nevertheless pretend her views on this issue are something they're not so that she can stand "in solidarity" with a fellow Democrat who made a bad decision, who she's running against.

Yes, I do admit that I'm very partial to the quaint concept of solidarity among Democrats, especially when it comes to not undercutting the likely nominee's chances of winning the general election. It's as if Obama started questioning Hillary's "judgment" in remaining with her philandering husband, knowing full well that if she were the nominee that the Republicans would be running endless loops of that video.

And beyond that, there's also the incredible stupidity of all this from any long range point of view. With what she's done over the past two months, she may have moved her chances for the nomination up by a couple of c*nt hairs, but she's also crippled her chances in the general election, and helped solidify every negative stereotype that's ever been held about her among liberals. And though her temporary right wing allies may love her now for whatever damage she's done to Obama, they'd discard her like a piece of used kleenex as soon as he's out of the way.

We don't live in the same country where the things you've mentioned happened. The laws and the people have changed, dramatically. We haven't been there for more than a generation.

Please. Just please. Do you honestly think 300 years of violent repression disappears overnight just because we smile and say "sorry!?"

Please.

Just a guess, but I think he honestly thinks that "the laws and the people have changed, dramatically." In other words, your premise -- that we "just" "smiled and said 'sorry'" is false. You do understand that half the people in the United States today weren't even alive (or north of the Mexican border) when the CRA was passed, right?

Just a guess, but I think he honestly thinks that "the laws and the people have changed, dramatically."

A point which Rev. Wright himself emphasized in his sermon, when he repeated several times that "governments CHANGE." He may be a nutball, but he's a nuanced nutball.

Since it was all over the news and opinion shows last night, and newspapers this morning (**), I assume everyone's aware that in 1992 Mickey Kantor, a Clinton insider for decades, opined that the people of Indiana were "sh!t" and "worthless white ni****s."

While Stephonopolous -- star of the Pennsylvania "debate" -- stands by in agreement.

(**) It wasn't?

I assume you're aware that both Kantor and the guy who directed the movie from which the clip was taken deny that he said it.

Andy, I've yet to see where or when Clinton referred to Obama and Wright with "bad judgment." I guess all I've seen is her saying that she would not have stayed, and if you were hoping for a civil response from a political opponent, she has been within range, and aside from characterizing it as an legitimate issue she hasn't been pressing it.

That you say she kept on with it is a mis-characterization. Fine, you don't support her, and frankly I find a lot of your baseball and political comments very informative, but saying Clinton is doing something that she isn't doing, or saying she is doing something because she should be doing something else, eh.

I welcome any other criticism you have on Clinton by the way. Or, reasons for favoring Obama. At this point, I'm pretty much dead set against Obama, primarily because on his odd and disappointing position on universal health care, to the point I feel I'd be unable to vote for him if he does win the nomination. But I can use more info.

I assume you're aware that both Kantor and the guy who directed the movie from which the clip was taken deny that he said it.

Of course they do. Wouldn't you?

It's easy enough to tell, since its from a widely-released feature film. CNN and MSNBC can even run the audio tests live on Larry King and Hardball tonight so we can see for ourselves. After all, America needs to know the caliber of company Hillary keeps and the caliber of her judgment.

And let's see how Hillary handles this test. It's very relevant to how she'll govern.

Of course they do. Wouldn't you?

Only if I didn't say it.

It's easy enough to tell, since its from a widely-released feature film.

Which is why their denial has some initial credibility; you'd think someone might have noticed such an inflammatory statement before now.

Which is why their denial has some initial credibility; you'd think someone might have noticed such an inflammatory statement before now.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

...I get from the "conservative" side of things here is that Wright is just irrationally hating on the whiteys, and thus of course they get to level the empty epithet "anti-American" and feel all glorious and patriotic for putting the angry black man in his place.

Ahem. I understand well enough your rationale for Wright's anger and resentment. I'm also extremely sympathetic to a man who has lived through what Wright has lived through, and if he believes his government is capable of oppressing and murdering his race, the most I might accuse him of is living somewhat in the (unfortunately, not-too-distant) past.

Is it the job of a black pastor in Chicago to attempt racial healing? I'd like to believe that's part of what he's there for. Is it also part of his job to alert his congregation to the plain fact that the U.S. government, as currently constituted, is hardly an entity deserving their trust, and should be monitored with great skepticism? He'd be foolish not to.

villainx, during that interview, Hillary started bringing in Don Imus's Rutgers comments and how she'd spoken out against them (now there's a Profile in Courage moment for you!), implicitly contrasting her own behavior there to Obama's failure to quit Trinity Church. That doesn't sound like she was questioning his political "judgment" so much as she was questioning his lack of moral judgment.

Of course since nobody was defending Imus's comments to begin with, that was a bit of a red herring (Obama had denounced them, too).

And then there's the little matter of the forum in which she gave this answer. It was in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the biggest funders of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary's been so fond of mentioning. Now there's an "association" worth asking a few questions about! I wonder what that newspaper's target audience is?

And to be honest, if you're thinking of not voting for Obama in November because of his position on health care, I have to wonder whether you've been reading what John McCain's been saying on the subject, not to mention on a whole host of other issues. What you're saying sounds to me like the same sort of crap we were hearing from Naderites in 2000. I may hold my nose if it comes to it, but at least I can say that I'll be voting for a Democrat in November, even if it's Hillary.

And then there's the little matter of the forum in which she gave this answer. It was in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the biggest funders of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary's been so fond of mentioning. Now there's an "association" worth asking a few questions about! I wonder what that newspaper's target audience is?

Since she realized her quest was hopeless without smearing Obama as much as possible, Hillary has hit not just Scaife, but practically every outpost of the "vast right wing conspiracy." A couple nights ago she was on O'Reilly and uttered the words "God Bless us rich people."

A couple nights ago she was on O'Reilly and uttered the words "God Bless us rich people."

No. Really? No. She couldn't have. Did she? Link?

When you reply to the comments of two different people, please be clear to whom your comments are addressed.

Jim,

Sorry if I offended you, but I don't think it was unclear in any way. I couldn't find your first comment comparing Wright to Duke; I did find this one, when you were responding to someone else. Your part is in italics:

***
923. Jim Furtado Posted: March 26, 2008 at 10:06 AM (#2720682)

Just checking in to make sure things haven't gone completely insane. I don't usually post in these things and I'm sorry to hit and run but ...

It's different because I can't imagine a reason to listen to David Duke other than specifically for his White Supremacist views. For Trinity Church, there are plenty of reasons to attend other than Wright's crackpot views.

So, as long as David Duke provided food, scholarships, opportunity, and inspiration to help poor white kids succeed, and as long as Duke didn't put the hood on while McCain was sitting in a pew, it would be O.K. for McCain to attend Duke's church for 20 years?

***

My point was that you clearly have a dog in this fight so IMO, you need to be aware of that when you police these threads, just as I would need to be if I ran the site. To me, what you said above is just as inflammatory--if not more so--than Chris' hyperbolic "Nazis" line and as noted, no one blew up at Chris about it. Given my views and feelings about this issue, the peripheral issues, and the election in general, I have been pretty seriously offended by several comments from my ideological opponents, and they have confirmed for me how wide the gap really is--hence my decision to adjust my role in this discussion, because:

1. I respect the intelligence of the people who have made said comments.
2. I believe very firmly in Abraham Lincoln's statement that the first step in political debate with opponents is to show that you respect them as individuals and to keep emaphasizing that.
3. I am not going to change their minds, and they sure as hell are not going to change mine.

But I don't think they need "civility" reminders any more than Chris did. That is just my choice, and my views, coming into play.

So, to connect the two points, I don't necessarily think "a reminder about civility was inappropriate." But I think there was a larger context worth noting and there are other people who needed reminding as much as Chris did--on both sides of the aisle.

***

"Bad judgment" here can mean two things. It can mean bad political judgement on Obama's part, a point which nobody disputes. But that isn't what Hillary was driving at. In her typically smarmy and disingenuous way, she was implying some sort of a moral judgment about Obama's decision not to quit the church. And that's what's caused such a ferocious backlash among Obama supporters and among many independents as well.

I don't know that it has caused a "ferocious backlash" but it's made a difference for me. As I said at the time, it reminded me a bit of women who said "I would have left Bill" back in the 1990s. Projecting yourself into a situation where you are not aware of the full context and can't possibly be and saying, "I would have done X" is supremely arrogant and basically says "I'm better than you." In issues related to extreme, violent and illegal behavior (I would not have become an abuser of children even if I had been abused) it might be justified. But with something quite personal--such as whether to end a marriage or where to go to church--no sale. Further, I would suggest that the wider the demographic gap between the two parties in question, the more arrogant it is.

I am not as mad at HC as you are (politics is politics) nor do I think she is dooming her chances in the general should she be there. Things will look different in October than they do today, no matter who McCain's opponent is, due to events as yet unforeseen. But Obama was going to get hammered on Wright no matter what HC said, so I would have more respect for her had she said something along the lines you suggest.

robinred:

I am not going to change their minds, and they sure as hell are not going to change mine.

Just you wait. By November I'll have you voting gung-ho for Johnny Mac.

WE HAFF VAYS OF MAKING YOU BELIEVE.

P.S. It has nothing to do with common sense, but the more Hillary gets jobbed by the media and fanatical Obama supporters, the more I genuinely like her and sympathize with her. Which makes no sense, of course, because it doesn't alter the reality that she really IS a cold-hearted calculating SOB...but then maybe that's the sort of person I want as POTUS, regardless of party.

A couple nights ago she was on O'Reilly and uttered the words "God Bless us rich people."

No. Really? No. She couldn't have. Did she? Link?

I'm pretty sure that all that was was a prelude to an argument in favor of increasing taxes on the uppermost income brackets. It wasn't anything beyond that.

P.S. It has nothing to do with common sense, but the more Hillary gets jobbed by the media and fanatical Obama supporters, the more I genuinely like her and sympathize with her. Which makes no sense, of course, because it doesn't alter the reality that she really IS a cold-hearted calculating SOB...but then maybe that's the sort of person I want as POTUS, regardless of party.

Respect her? Yes. Sympathy? Nah. Hillary is a seasoned political street fighter who gives no quarter and is tougher than a $3 steak. Hard to feel much sympathy (in a political context) for somebody like that. I do admire her willingness to soldier on in the face of a media that was supposed to be hers, but instead turned against her.

Is it the job of a black pastor in Chicago to attempt racial healing?

Sure. So why was he doing the opposite of that?

Ray, I'd suggest you read the entire statement before quoting the opening gambit. Here, I'll help you out:

Is it the job of a black pastor in Chicago to attempt racial healing? I'd like to believe that's part of what he's there for. Is it also part of his job to alert his congregation to the plain fact that the U.S. government, as currently constituted, is hardly an entity deserving their trust, and should be monitored with great skepticism? He'd be foolish not to.

Wright's job was both to be an agent of healing, but in order to do that you have to get the people to attend, and in order to do that you have to show you understand exactly what it is they need healing from. Is Wright a relic of the past? I certainly hope so. We need a future of Obama rather than Wright, just as we need a future of Obama rather than Clinton or McCain. That's what that whole "hope and change" messaging is all about, really.

We don't live in the same country where the things you've mentioned happened. The laws and the people have changed, dramatically. We haven't been there for more than a generation.

Progress has been made. Wright couldn't see it. Obama correctly explained that.

I never said everything was perfect, or even close to it. But there's no question that this country has made tremendous progress from the years of Tuskegee, Jim Crow, and slavery. We are living in very different times and there should be some acknowledgment of that.

Let the country heal, Sam. The country wants to heal.

I think all of the above are true, and honest statements. However, it doesn't matter what I think - Or what most of you think. What matters is what the Black underclass thinks.

If you want to convince people that their decades of oppression are over, you might want to start by electing Obama as POTUS. I mean - (although I haven't heard a single Hillary supporter here) there's nary a whiskers difference between HC and BO, and probably less than a relief pitchers pornstache between either of them and McCain. They are all basically centrist politicos, and all more or less "qualified"

So vote for the Black guy! Cast your vote as an anti-racist! (not that voting white is racist... but it's certainly not anti-racist)

I suppose someone will turn this around on me and say "we could make the same argument about Clinton and women, too" - but I think that demographic doesn't need the boost as much.

Have you heard of Matt Gonzalez?

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978519

I live in SF, of course I know of Matt Gonzales.

Excellent. I live in Seattle. I had not heard of him until I saw this UC Berkeley podcast.

He makes sense. He is qualified. He can lead.

"So most parishioners at Trinity and other black churches with similar ideologies are there because they are dumb and/or poorly educated and the others who are smart, have no judgment?"

I don't know enough about the members of that church to judge them as a group. However, I would guess that most are far less educated than Senator Obama. And if they believe Rev. Wright's craziness, then they are dumb.

"Sorry, I wouldn't leave a church if that statement about AIDS was made. I could give a #### about it. It affects nothing. What does it matter? People are wrong about stuff all the time. Pretty much anyone who goes to that church is not going to change their approach to ANYTHING based on that statement. It's not good to be wrong, but what's the damage in this case."

I think your not seeing the damage in this case is strange. A highly revered figure in the black community is selling the idea that the white majority is intentionally poisoning them. How are we supposed to have a civil society when lies like this are propogated and believed? If you think no one believes these lies, you are naive.

I found this in an LA Times op/ed: A 2005 Rand Corp. survey found, for instance, that 15% of African Americans consider AIDS "a form of genocide against African Americans." Nearly 27% agreed that "AIDS was produced in a government laboratory," and a whopping 59% felt that "a lot of information about AIDS is being held back from the public."

Hate-mongers like Wright (and Farrakhan, of course) not only harm their communities, they harm all of our society by making people distrust each other on false grounds. You think it's just a conicidence that anti-Semitism is so rife among inner-city blacks? Or do you understand that such hatred is preached in the pulpit by haters like Wright over and over until these parrishioners openly hate Jews (and others)? If you think preaching hatred is harmless, you and I have no common understanding of decency.

This is a bit old, but it unfortunately remains true: "The ADL survey's "index of anti-Semitic belief" shows that in one segment of American society, Jew-hatred is still strong is among African-Americans. 34 percent of black Americans fit into the ADL's category of most anti-Semitic. That is compared to only 9 percent of the general population."

How would you feel about a white church where part of the message was this: "Beware of blacks. Never trust them. They are out to kill you." That is just what Rev. Wright and his ilk are preaching, reversing the colors. Either way, it is a terrible message and I'm shocked you cannot see it for what it is.

"It's not like as late as WWII the US government was using black people as medical guinea pigs, carrying forward a long tradition of human experiements on black people established during the slave years."

Far more whites than blacks in the United States were used as guinea pigs in crazy medical experiments. It's not even close. For most of the history of American medical research, including crazy experiments which terribly harmed the health of the test subjects, blacks were purposefully excluded by the researchers (under the assumption that black physiology was different).

That fact does not excuse the wrong-headed Tuskegee experiment. It was immoral, just like all the immoral tests that came before it were. But to imply that it was blacks alone who fell victim to these scientists is ignorant. They were disproportionately not victimized by these researchers.

Do you think a minority - even a small one - is trying to hurt blacks and poor people? If no, how would you make sense of those events in US history that evidence this clear motivation?

Slate has a Hillary Deathwatch, and they put her chances just over 12%. Isn't this ridiculously high? Can anyone give me a reasonable scenario where Hillary wins the nomination? To me it seems like she can only win if Michigan and Florida are seated as is (won't happen), she wins every single remaining state (won't happen), or Obama dies (more likely than the previous two scenarios, but still pretty low odds there).

I think all of the above are true, and honest statements. However, it doesn't matter what I think - Or what most of you think. What matters is what the Black underclass thinks.

Part of what some blacks think is shaped by people like Wright.

If you want to convince people that their decades of oppression are over, you might want to start by electing Obama as POTUS. I mean - (although I haven't heard a single Hillary supporter here) there's nary a whiskers difference between HC and BO, and probably less than a relief pitchers pornstache between either of them and McCain. They are all basically centrist politicos, and all more or less "qualified"

So vote for the Black guy! Cast your vote as an anti-racist! (not that voting white is racist... but it's certainly not anti-racist)

I suppose someone will turn this around on me and say "we could make the same argument about Clinton and women, too" - but I think that demographic doesn't need the boost as much.

I know this may be sarcasm, but since I've seen others say this, I'll just ask why it wouldn't be racist to "vote for the black guy" simply because he's black. Because if one does that, one is _not_ voting for Clinton simply because of her race. And I think that's what we've been trying to get away from in this country. The goal is -- or at least it was, before people started not to be satisfied with that -- to treat people of different races as equal. So I don't think your solution is a good one, no. I also think many blacks would find it insulting.

Can anyone give me a reasonable scenario where Hillary wins the nomination?

Statistically, no, probably not. But if she wins IN by 6-7 points and is very close in or even wins NC, that may convince a lot of people that Obama is in fact unelectable and that Wright has damaged BO's candidacy enough that HC should get the nom. It would of course in all likelihood involve a deal of some kind, so that Obama supporters (ostensibly) would not see it as his (and by extension, their) getting screwed. Both Clintons have made statements about what they see as the benefits of a Clinton/Obama ticket--with her at the top, needless to say. In addition, according to polls, Obama is running well behind McCain in FL, due to demographics that strongly favor HC there, whereas she is running close with JM there.

As many analysts have noted, she will be selling a narrative, more than numbers, although I am sure her people and other Demo power brokers are trying to get data on states Obama won prior to Wright and to show changes therein, as well as saying that she can deliver big swing states, and he can't.

SugarBear: In light of what David linked (#2736), you really owe Mr. Kantor an apology:

I just spoke to D.A. Pennebaker, the director of "The War Room," who said his film had been doctored to produce a widely-viewed YouTube clip.

In a clip from his film on the 1992 Clinton campaign, posted to YouTube today, Clinton advisor Mickey Kantor is -- according to subtitles -- seen referring to Indiana residents with an expletive and to his colleague George Stephanopolous with a racial slur.

"He does not say that. He does not say that," said Pennebaker, after viewing the clip.

He said the initial expletive referred to the anticipated reaction in the Bush White House to the fact that Ross Perot's polling numbers were holding strong.

"What he says is he’s surprised Perot’s numbers are holding," said Pennebaker in a brief phone interview. "He says they must be shi**ing in the White House."

The second expletive, he said, appeared to have been entirely fabricated, with new audio dubbed onto the original movie.

I don't owe anybody an apology. He does say the people, referring to Indiana, are "sh!t." I believe my own two ears over the biased Pennybacker who wasn't directing actors working from a script anyway. He was doing a documentary and has no more insight as to what they said than any listener. Who cares what he thinks Kantor said?

As to the second one, the evidence is ambiguous. He may not have said what some have said he said ... as far as I know.

As I said, let's have the media play it over and over, ask Hillary over and over what she thinks, and let the voters decide. Hillary's associations are relevant to her character and her judgment, each of which is an important factor in deciding on a president.

"He says they must be shi**ing in the White House."

He does not say "must" and he, beyond any doubt at all, does not say "in the White House." There isn't close to enough time between the noun/verb form of sh!t and "Excuse me."

Pennybacker's full of the noun form of sh!t.

"I believe my own two ears over the biased Pennybacker who wasn't directing actors working from a script anyway. He was doing a documentary and has no more insight as to what they said than any listener."

Your obstinance is astounding. Pennybacker, unlike you, heard the actual audio of HIS FILM. You are reacting to a doctored version of his film, not the original. To say he has "no more insight" on this question is beyond absurd. I'm shocked anyone could be so biased as to make the claims you are making. Are you really that hard-headed? Did someone drop you off a balcony when you were an infant?

Ray - it might be considered racist to vote for a black guy just because he was black IF HE WAS CLEARLY UNDERQUALIFIED.

Any minorities here want to comment on how offensive it is to vote for people because they are minorities?

As a related ancedote - my co-worker (female) 1 desk over is a Clinton supportor (and incidentally a suburbite with a ph d in biology) BECAUSE she is a woman! I guess she is a sexist!

If our society were as color-blind and bias-free as you claim - then my comments would be no more offensive that stating I would vote for Obama over McCain because he curly hair like me.

If you are so outraged by Wright and his divisive, hateful comments and their negative effect on race relations in the US - then you SHOULD vote for Obama, because he is a black guy who has made it plain, publically - that he DOESN'T agree with Wright - and that is NOT what he (Obama) stands for.

Or you can just vote for the person whom you think will increase your taxes the least.

Your obstinance is astounding. Pennybacker, unlike you, heard the actual audio of HIS FILM. You are reacting to a doctored version of his film, not the original. To say he has "no more insight" on this question is beyond absurd. I'm shocked anyone could be so biased as to make the claims you are making. Are you really that hard-headed?

So what if it's his film? If I stick a camera and some microphones into a conversation three people are having and watch/listen to what I recorded, that gives me zero additional knowledge of what they said.

If he made a written record back than of what he thought was said, for legal review or otherwise, let's see it.

As I've written, what he said today, 16 years later, about what Kantor said is way off, which you'd know if you simply listened to the original version which is all over the internet, rather than frothing. Kantor did NOT say "in the White House," as Pennybacker said he said. Period.

EDIT: Your added question of whether I was dropped off a balcony is childish and insulting.

I don't know enough about the members of that church to judge them as a group. However, I would guess that most are far less educated than Senator Obama. And if they believe Rev. Wright's craziness, then they are dumb.

Just out of curiosity, Rich, what's your take on those many millions of people who believe in a literal take on The Bible (Old and / or New Testments) as representing the "Word of God"? What's your take on people who cite the Bible as a reason for backing the State of Israel? What about people who speak of "the rapture?" What about people who claim that "God" speaks to them? What about those who cite the Bible as a reason to oppose gay marriage? How about anyone who begins a sentence with "Jesus says...." when in fact we don't know that "Jesus" ever "said" anything at all?

Are all these other religious folks also dumb? If so, there are probably close to a hundred million dumb people in this wonderful country of ours. Is there some sort of objective standard you're using here that we should know about? Is it only "condescending" to mock an objectively inane belief if that belief represents a swing voting demographic? Just curious.

Mind you, I'm not defending "Wright's craziness" for a second, but I am wondering just how harsh you'd be on members of your own tribe who believe in equally unsupportable theories, whatever your tribe may be and whatever those theories may entail.

Pennybacker, unlike you, heard the actual audio of HIS FILM.

Does anybody have, like, a copy of the DVD or something? I'm sort of curious about this, but I'm perhaps unfairly suspicious of stuff just floating around on the internet.

Look at andrewsullivan.com. He says the version he has on his site is the original and there's really no reason to believe otherwise. That one's my source.

Rich, just to get a little more specific about that last post of mine.

I've heard zillions of people defend the establishment of the State of Israel on Biblical grounds. Is that dumb? Or do you find it reasonable to take history into account before you condemn people for staking a claim to someone else's land on the basis of a work of fiction?

More generically, does literal "dumbness" often have a real historical context which, upon reflection, makes that literal dumbness seem a bit more nuanced than that?

And just so I'm not misunderstood, deliberately or not, I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel, and have argued with far more left wingers than conservatives about its policies over the years. Not that that should have anything to do with my overall point, but I see no need to hide my own political "context" on that issue.

Statistically, no, probably not. But if she wins IN by 6-7 points and is very close in or even wins NC, that may convince a lot of people that Obama is in fact unelectable and that Wright has damaged BO's candidacy enough that HC should get the nom. It would of course in all likelihood involve a deal of some kind, so that Obama supporters (ostensibly) would not see it as his (and by extension, their) getting screwed. Both Clintons have made statements about what they see as the benefits of a Clinton/Obama ticket--with her at the top, needless to say. In addition, according to polls, Obama is running well behind McCain in FL, due to demographics that strongly favor HC there, whereas she is running close with JM there.

As many analysts have noted, she will be selling a narrative, more than numbers, although I am sure her people and other Demo power brokers are trying to get data on states Obama won prior to Wright and to show changes therein, as well as saying that she can deliver big swing states, and he can't.

But keep in mind, "the superdelegates" isn't some monolithic Borg-like entity. It's 800 individuals. And, as Chris's math earlier showed, she needs to sell something like 60% of them on this story - closer to 2/3 of the ones who haven't publicly expressed a preference. Hillary can win the superdelegate vote, and do so fairly decisively, and still lose the nomination.

Andy re #2742: I still wouldn't characterize it as Clinton keeping on about it, and googling the interview you referenced and others she isn't explicit about saying it is "bad judgment"

Checking the recent O'Reilly interview, which I thought would, if anything, be a perfect venue to your proposition that she "kept on" - aside from being on the show - she tried to avoid the question, then when pressed essentially repeated the "He would not be my pastor" bit, and when pressed further... I don't know, lots of things within the campaign are obviously ugly and that is perpetrated by all politicians, but regarding Obama and Wright, I don't think Clinton has been out of line nor has she been keeping on about it. For that matter, neither has McCain, though I'm thinking that might change if Obama wins the nomination.

What you're saying sounds to me like the same sort of crap we were hearing from Naderites in 2000.

From most of what I've gotten from Obama and about Obama, I've been seriously underwhelmed. And health care is pretty much the main thing I feel is at stake in this election. But I'm trying to stay receptive though. And not voting Dems in November wouldn't be a light decision, especially if the race is close. Though honestly, I don't hate the Naderites.

As many analysts have noted, she will be selling a narrative, more than numbers,

I guess I don't understand why the supers would have to support a candidate based on "narrative" or "numbers"; why not because they believe the candidate is the best person for the job?

Just out of curiosity, Rich, what's your take on those many millions of people who believe in a literal take on The Bible (Old and / or New Testments) as representing the "Word of God"?

I've heard zillions of people defend the establishment of the State of Israel on Biblical grounds. Is that dumb?

Countdown to thread shutdown?


Edit: added another quote

there are probably close to a hundred million dumb people in this wonderful country of ours

What's your evidence that the number is that low?

:-)

But keep in mind, "the superdelegates" isn't some monolithic Borg-like entity. It's 800 individuals. And, as Chris's math earlier showed, she needs to sell something like 60% of them on this story - closer to 2/3 of the ones who haven't publicly expressed a preference. Hillary can win the superdelegate vote, and do so fairly decisively, and still lose the nomination.

Sure. It is unlikely. One other thing, though. FWIW, if you check Bob's link, the electoral maps there show Clinton beating McCain 291-236 and Obama and McCain locked up at 264-263. 270 needed to win. Key differences: Ohio and Florida. I am sure HC and co. are putting stuff like that out there to the SDs all the time.

why not because they believe the candidate is the best person for the job?

I think they are supposed to reflect what the voters want, (not in theory, but in practice) and of course pick who they think can win. But I am not really up on the whole "superdelegate" concept and have only started learning about that particular aspect of the system lately.

Well, one thing you're ignoring is that all the superdelegates are uncommitted. Some have endorsed one candidate or another, but that's only an intent, not a binding obligation. If things change between now and the convention -- like when they find out that Obama killed Jon Benet Ramsey on orders from Jeremiah Wright -- then Hillary can pick up more votes from people who had previously indicated that they backed Obama.

(You're also ignoring Michigan and Florida, but that's another story.)

So, are you merely pointing something out while agreeing with the analysis;pointing something while disagreeing with the analysis; or you just have no thoguhts on the analysis at all, and felt like playing rlm? Cordially, as always, of course.

as well as saying that she can deliver big swing states, and he can't.

She said in teh last debate "yes he can win in NOvember".

She said in teh last debate "yes he can win in

She actually said, "yes, Yes, YES." Sort of like Molly Bloom.

But I have a feeling the late-night calls and emails to SDs may sound a bit different.

I want Obama to be the nominee, but the Clintons are going to fight it.

I want Obama to be the nominee, but the Clintons are going to fight it.

Keep in mind that people wanted Clinton to drop out weeks ago. Obviously Obama is still the frontrunner, but with the Wright developments her chances rate to be a little better now; had she dropped out earlier her chances would of course be zero right now. And if Wright has any further comments to make about what Obama knew for the last 20 years -- Wright has become Barack Obama's Brian McNamee -- Clinton's chances rate to improve a bit more.

What is interesting is that the Democrats have set up a system such as when the vote totals are too close to decide the election on their own (such as the situation that exists now), it's actually the superdelegates -- not the voters -- who have the final say in the election. It seems kind of odd to me to have the nominee ultimately decided not by the voters but by back-room deals made by the superdelegates.

Keep in mind that people wanted Clinton to drop out weeks ago. Obviously Obama is still the frontrunner, but with the Wright developments her chances rate to be a little better now; had she dropped out earlier her chances would of course be zero.

I don't see what you're getting at here. I have said about ten times that I thought she stayed in in part due to her knowing about Wright, and I have not ever objected to it. Andy may or may not be right about the long-term effects, but I think the Clintons are like LBJ and Nixon: win at all costs first, worry about collateral damage later. There was some pressure on her to drop out--but IMO it was never that great. Most people wanted her to go through OH and TX and once she won there, she was in for awhile. I do think if the numbers were reversed, there would have been huge pressure on him to get out and "wait his turn."

not the voters -- who have the final say in the election. It seems kind of odd to me to have the nominee decided not by the voters but by back-room deals made by the superdelegates.

While there are some differences, it is kind of like the electoral college in other ways.

It seems kind of odd to me to have the nominee ultimately decided not by the voters but by back-room deals made by the superdelegates.

It seems odd to me to have an electoral college, and not a single national vote (both primary and general) for a national office, but hey, that's just me.

It seems odd to me to have an electoral college, and not a single national vote (both primary and general) for a national office, but hey, that's just me.

If it ain't broke... oh wait.

If people aren't making enough of a fuss when it breaks, why fix it?

Edit: fixed wrong word.

I don't know; I guess he's been too busy thinking he was a slave (*) to notice all the progress that has been made over the last few decades.

Serious question here: did Wright have a white parent like Obama did?

I ask because not only did he apparently have a rather solid middle class upbringing according to many people who knew him as a youth, but because my Italian grandfather had darker skin than this sucker does.

I think the Clintons are like LBJ and Nixon: win at all costs first, worry about collateral damage later.

LBJ? He dropped out of the race in 1968 - the last US President eligible for re-election not to stand.

LBJ? He dropped out of the race in 1968 - the last US President eligible for re-election not to stand.

Yeah, I know. But his other runs were often characterized by intensely dirty politics, out-and-out stealing of votes, (that last perhaps was done TO him, too, in '41, according to Caro, and then the evidence is very strong that Johnson did it in '48 to get into the Senate) and making deals with whomever he needed to.

I will be interested to see what Caro says about '68.

I tend to agree with Andy and Sam. A few months ago, I was still relatively sure that Clinton would be a lot better than McCain. Right now, after she has spent so much time touting her love of guns and her eagerness to bomb Iran, I am much less sure. Her recent campaign has been about far right she can move while assuming that the left will fall in behind her because they have nowhere else to go.

It's always interesting to read this perspective. Clinton and Obama have nearly identical policy proposals on nearly every issue. On Iran, for example, they each:

1) Vowed not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it means military action.
2) Promised to attack Iran if they attack Israel.
3) Supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
4) Proclaimed that international involvement and real diplomacy are the best solutions.

While Clinton's rhetoric on Iran is more right wing than Obama's, Obama has more than made up for that with his right wing attacks on her health care plan.

The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are minuscule compared to the differences between either of them and McCain.

If you want to convince people that their decades of oppression are over, you might want to start by electing Obama as POTUS. I mean - (although I haven't heard a single Hillary supporter here) there's nary a whiskers difference between HC and BO, and probably less than a relief pitchers pornstache between either of them and McCain. They are all basically centrist politicos, and all more or less "qualified"

There's a lot of difference between Obama and Clinton, and McCain, on Iraq. There's a lot of difference on health care, taxes, and so on.

...and a whopping 59% felt that "a lot of information about AIDS is being held back from the public."

This happens to be correct.

SBB: "EDIT: Your added question of whether I was dropped off a balcony is childish and insulting."

Either you have no sense of humor whatsoever, or you did not look at the link I gave, which shows children in India being dropped off of 50 foot high balconies. Crazy as it sounds, it's a true story.

He makes sense. He is qualified. He can lead.

Regarding Matt Gonzalez, is he worthwhile to check out or was that facetious?

McCain today strongly implied the war in Iraq is about oil. Hardball has the clip.

Regarding Matt Gonzalez, is he worthwhile to check out

If you're a hard-core lefty, sure.

He has about as much chance of ever becoming President as Ralph Nader does.

Just out of curiosity, Rich, what's your take on those many millions of people who believe in a literal take on The Bible (Old and / or New Testments) as representing the "Word of God"?

They are mistaken and poorly informed. I was shocked to learn (I guess it was about a year ago) that Mike Huckabee believes in the creation myth. I was even more shocked to learn that about half of all Americans are equally gullible.

What's your take on people who cite the Bible as a reason for backing the State of Israel?

I guess it depends on how far they go with that. The Bible may not be a reliable historical text. But if it is cited to note that for thousands of years the land of Israel was the home of the Jews and that Jews (or Hebrews) have lived there for most of the last 5,000 years, then it seems okay. If, however, these citations are used to confirm some Biblical prophecy, I tend to think these folks are not especially smart.

What about people who speak of "the rapture?"

I am not exactly sure what they mean by that. I looked rapture up (I know the lower case meaning of the term: joy or ecstasy) and the site I found says:

"... the word rapture is often used to describe our gathering back to Jesus upon His return. Those who teach the pre-tribulation doctrine, which is the one we will concern ourselves with, contend that Jesus will return two times, the first time to gather His saints from the earth and take them to heaven. According to them, believers will simply disappear from where they stand, leaving little more than a pile of clothes and some very confused bystanders behind. After seven years of great tribulation, Christ will then return again to reign upon the earth for a one-thousand year period, also known as the millennium."

I would tell anyone who is waiting for "the second coming," don't hold your breath.

What about people who claim that "God" speaks to them?

I think all people have vivid imaginations.

"What about those who cite the Bible as a reason to oppose gay marriage?"

Prejudice against gays is unfortunate, but very widespread. I think a lot of that prejudice (though not all of it) is due to the words in the Bible.

How about anyone who begins a sentence with "Jesus says...." when in fact we don't know that "Jesus" ever "said" anything at all?

Yes.

Are all these other religious folks also dumb?

Insofar as dumb means incapable of intelligent thought, I would say no (or at least not necessarily). However, taking fairy tales as literal truths is dumb.

Just to clairfy, I think most of us (including myself), on some level or another, do this. So the mere fact that one believes one thing which is stupid does not mean the person is not otherwise capable of rational or intelligent thought.

"If so, there are probably close to a hundred million dumb people in this wonderful country of ours."

Is that the number who believes in creationism?

"Is there some sort of objective standard you're using here that we should know about?"

I would go with the best known scientific proof or, failing that, using the scientific method to approach the truth as best as possible.

Is it only "condescending" to mock an objectively inane belief if that belief represents a swing voting demographic? Just curious.

I am not a partisan, Andy. I am perfectly happy to criticize anyone's beliefs, if there is good reason to do so.

Thanks, Rich. I guess my underlying point is that all groups---majorities and minorities---often have large numbers of members who cling to objectively untrue myths, and that their "dumbness" is mostly revealed by the extent to which their personal lives are negatively affected by these beliefs. IOW how much do these beliefs cause individuals to act in an irrational and / or counterproductive way in the course of their daily lives. And since that's a totally open question WRT the Trinity Church members, I don't see how the "dumb" label applies to them in the absence of any such further knowledge about them, any more than (for example) a Biblically based belief in a return to the Holy Land makes me think that being a religious Zionist is "dumb."

Is it only "condescending" to mock an objectively inane belief if that belief represents a swing voting demographic?

I have to say, also, that I personally place religious beliefs into a somewhat different category than beliefs about the state of the world as it is today.

That is, if someone believes the world was created by God I don't think that belief per se makes them an idiot. On the other hand, if someone believes that ... oh, hell, I don't know -- that the moon landings were faked, say, and that we never actually walked on the moon? That one's far removed enough from the present day to be more or less non-partisan, I hope. I find that more damaging to my faith in someone's rationality than the belief that Jesus was the son of God.

However ... the more someone insists on the exact literal truth of every last element of the Bible and its associated dogma (so to speak), the more they draw even with moon-landing deniers in my book.

I had a very good Maths teacher at school. Fascinating guy, very intelligent, inspiring, etc, in so many ways.

But he thought the moon landings were fake.

It doesn't invalidate any of the rest of his qualities or make him irrational. Lots of people have one or two weird beliefs or hangups or whatever - in fact, most people do. What matters is the sum total of people's views and outlooks, not if you can find some kooky thing.

That's the problem with Biblical truthers - that they extrapolate from this one core kook belief (the literal truth of some old book) a massive ideological system which not only encompasses a million different kook beliefs, but which they will on no account admit evidence to refute. So their belief in the truth of the Bible becomes the sum total of their views and outlooks. So it's meaningless having a conversation with such people a lot of the time.

OTOH, by happy coincidence many of them believe in small government and traditional social values, so they do have some uses.

It doesn't invalidate any of the rest of his qualities or make him irrational.

Sure. That's why I said it's "damaging to my faith in his rationality"; holding that belief doesn't immediately convince me he's an irrational fool. It's a significant data point, but it's only one data point. If he otherwise seems intelligent, thoughtful, and not prone to conspiracy theories about other subjects, I will write off his belief in moon-landing fakery as a quirk rather than a sign of idiocy (although I may still be more skeptical than usual toward his opinions on other subjects related to space flight). If, once he's finished explaining to me that the moon landings were faked, he goes on to explain that the CIA used to beam mind-control waves into his fillings until he pulled them all out with a pair of pliers, and that Britney Spears is in fact the Madonna, I will smile and nod and walk away as soon as an opportune moment presents itself.

And religion in general is kind of like that. It's not like religion per se prevents someone from being rational; hell, some of the greatest scientific thinkers in human history would have described themselves as Christians. Some of them may even have believed that God created the world in seven days, and, while someone expressing that belief might not be on my short list of people to ask for archaeological education, merely believing it does not make one a complete fool.

If someone believes in the literal truth of the Bible (a notion I find basically puzzling, since the thing wasn't even written in English, and definitely not in the form most American readers are familiar with), but seems capable of understanding and debating things like the pros and cons of radiocarbon dating and what the extinction events of the past tell us about evolution, that guy doesn't seem to me to be necessarily any less rational than the guy who believes in moon-landing fakery. Hell, I have a cousin who's a Southern Baptist (in fact, I have lots of those) who's also a computer hardware engineer. I'm more interested in whether, how, and to what degree someone's religious beliefs affect his everyday decision-making abilities than I am in the litmus test of whether he believes in the literal truth of the Bible or not.

Regarding Matt Gonzalez, is he worthwhile to check out

If you're a hard-core lefty, sure.

He has about as much chance of ever becoming President as Ralph Nader does.

I like to think I am, but I probably ain't.

I was asking more to see if he had anything new to say. Not his electability.

Oh, I suppose I should clarify in short form:

Mere religious belief (God exists, God approves and disapproves of things we do, God has conveyed His word to us in the Bible, etc.) is less damaging to my faith in someone's rationality than moon-landing conspiracy theory nonsense.

Biblical literalism (every single last word in the Bible factually describes an actual event) is about as damaging to my faith in someone's rationality as moon-landing conspiracy etc. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending exactly on how far you take that "literalism". And, I suppose, on how far the moon-landing guy takes that.