Huckabee is literally everthing democrats hate about Bush. A christian fundamentalist who believes in big government to further his political goals.

I don't think you have the slightest idea why people hate Bush. God only knows what Huckabee might do as president, but is there any reason to think he would:

* institute torture as a policy of American jurisprudence?
* declare that the laws and the Constitution don't apply to him?
* lie to get us into an unnecessary war?
* pack the government with unqualified cronies?
* make decisions based solely on how they further the goals of the Republican party?
* give himself the right to imprison people indefinitely with no charges?
* think every economic problem can be solved with more tax cuts for the wealthy?

That's why people hate Bush. It has nothing to do with his being a Christian fundamentalist - which he arguably isn't, by the way. He's a Methodist, and most Methodists would not describe themselves as fundamentalists.

Ryan Jones: I'm with you on those appellations. Though Coulter might be just an entertainer. It's hard to tell exactly how crazy she is. Malkin's TruBeliever shines right through. Anyone who says that Korematsu was totes the right decision these days is buggerfuck crazy.

The problem with Huckabee, as his primary performance showed, is that he only appeals to about 15% of the electorate.

No, he only appealed to a minority of the current Republican vote, which as of the time of the primary still by and large believed in shunning the smart guys, embracing the salt-of-the-earth types, keeping their more stringent Christian beliefs in the closet, and using fear of the Arab and Hispanic menace to keep the voters in line. Hence how the war hero beat out the Mormon Ken doll and the intelligent guy who wore his religion on his sleeve.

I assume your criticism means that he should hit Wright and Ayers and Rezko harder

Not at all. I want to hear him talk about issues and policies, rather than nonsense such as "greed on Wall Street." I want him to set forth a stirring defense of capitalism and of the free market (granted, with his support of the bailout it's harder for him to do that). I want to hear him talk about the virtues of less government -- and what he will do to accomplish that. I expect he will attack Obama's "share the wealth" policies, but I want to see him do more than that.

McCain's campaign, to me, has been all about buzzwords. "Greed." "Earmarks." Etc. McCain and Palin keep talking about how they are going to "reform Washington." Well, what kinds of reforms? Which _parts_ of the federal government? They don't say. Has McCain identified specific agencies or programs he thinks we can do without? No.

(you will hear those names tonight--Obama supposedly challenged McCain to ask about Ayers "to his face" and McCain said he was surprised that Obama thinks that he (McCain) does not "have the guts" to do so). But I don't think that would work so well.

Nor do I, which is why I think McCain should stay away from that (I also think Ayers and Rezko are sideshows). Bringing up Ayers and Rezko would sound desperate, and I don't want to hear about them anyway. (I've said that I find the Wright association legitimate, but the ship has sailed on that, and McCain ruled it out of bounds anyway.) I want to hear McCain systematically attack Obama's policies, but I doubt we will.

I do think McCain _will_ bring up Ayers, but, again, that will simply be a sign of desperation.

Not at all. I want to hear him talk about issues and policies, rather than nonsense such as "greed on Wall Street." I want him to set forth a stirring defense of capitalism and the free market (granted, with his support of the bailout it's harder for him to do that). I want to hear him talk about the virtues of less government -- and what he will do to accomplish that. I expect he will attack Obama's "share the wealth" policies, but I want to see him do more than that

.

Well, I think, then, that you want to re-animate Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. Plus, the best way to create wealth fast is to bet on the Rays to win the WS, and I doubt McCain knows this. ;

Plus, the best way to create wealth fast is to bet on the Rays to win the WS, and I doubt McCain knows this. ;

That's not creating wealth. That's just redistributing it from the non-Rays supporters to the Rays supporters.

By the way, Ray, you wouldn't happen to be interested in selling a share of that ticket, would you?

By the way, Ray, you wouldn't happen to be interested in selling a share of that ticket, would you?

I've thought about hedging my bet, but I've decided instead to just go all the way.

I do think McCain _will_ bring up Ayers, but, again, that will simply be a sign of desperation.

It's also a deadly trap for McCain. If he doesn't bring it up, after his recent words, he looks weak. If he does bring it up, Obama can just mention again how Obama was 8 when Ayers committed these acts, how there were multiple Republican members of the same committee which Obama and Ayers served on, how he's already addressed this on many occasions, and how he can't believe that McCain is continuing to bring up these falsehoods when the average American is struggling to put food on the table or gas in their tank - why can't we talk about things which matter to the average American, Senator McCain?

And that's if Obama decides not to haul out the G. Gordon Liddy/Keating Five double bill as a counter.

I've thought about hedging my bet, but I've decided instead to just go all the way.

I can't say that I blame you in the slightest. At this point, you're effectively down to 50/50 odds on a 200:1 bet.

McCain's campaign, to me, has been all about buzzwords. "Greed." "Earmarks." Etc. McCain and Palin keep talking about how they are going to "reform Washington." Well, what kinds of reforms? Which _parts_ of the federal government? They don't say. Has McCain identified specific agencies or programs he thinks we can do without? No.

Which makes him no different than any campaigning presidential hopeful.

Granted, with his support of the bailout it's harder for him to do that.

McCain's real chance at a game changer came and went with the bailout. A firm stance against the Paulsen plan, along with a principled speech about why he disagreed with it, and support for a smaller, less government intrusive plan that didn't seem to merely be throwing a ton of taxpayer money at the problem, could have rallied Republican support to his side. Given that many Dems were iffy about the bailout, and no bailout wasn't being passed without bipartisan support, McCain would have had some room to work. He, of course, failed to capitalize, so it's a moot point now. Now he pretty much has to talk about Ayers, because he ain't got jack all else. It also could have blown right up in his face, but again, he ain't got jack all else.

The problem with Huckabee, as his primary performance showed, is that he only appeals to about 15% of the electorate.

As per my previous post, Huckabee would start, like every Republican, with about 40% of the vote. Even Goldwater, in the biggest PV blowout in modern times, got 38.5%. Further, Huckabee's main issues in this primary were twofold and interlinked.

1) He didn't have the scratch. His lack of money, and inability to raise it even after Iowa, lead to his eventual defeat.

2) Directly tied with this is why many people backed Romney over him as the "cultural conservative" in the race against John McCain. McCain hardly won resounding majorities in places like South Carolina, he simply won because his peace of the pie, national security hawks and moderate republicans, was the biggest compared to the 30% picked up by Huckabee and Romney both of more fervent conservatives. Further, Huckabees issues were exacerbated because he didn't have the money to do anything other than put all of his eggs in the Iowa basket and hope he could build a campaign quickly enough in South Carolina.

If Huckabee has a better money operation next time around, expect him to be a frontrunner instead of the dark horse he was this time. He got buried in the money primary and was never able to claw back from that deficit.

You can claim all you want about us liberal devils here on BTF, or about the evils of Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw and the vast arrayed legions of the liberal media,

I don't believe in vast conspiracies... I leave that for the Arkys and Perroses of the world. However, the vast majority of the print and TV media donates and votes democratic, and I believe their biases color their coverage. Just because you, personally, are farther left than the mainstream media doesn't magically make them right wing.

Especially given the actual coverage of Palin, like the fact that she violated Alaskan state ethics law has been utterly ignored by the mass media as a whole after she said she was cleared of wrongdoing.

You do realize that even the Washington Post has acknowleged that she's cleared of "legal wrongdoing," right? You're going to have a short legal career if you can't track facts better than that, although based on your posting history here, that's probably a foregone conclusion. But even if Palin was worse than Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew combined, it wouldn't excuse the personal attacks directed at her.

Anyway, the notion that the media wouldn't rightfully go apeshit on Huckabee's ass over the insane stuff he's said (Quarantining AIDS patients?!?) and his literalist bible interpretations is naive at best. Even Andy has acknowledged as much.

you ain't got nothing but a bunch of insecurities that make up the base of your perception of politics that you wield as a sword to make sure no one gets close enough to point out to you that you make absolutely no sense.

Behold! My +5 sword of insecurities shall force you to keep your distance!

Well, you're still not making any sense, but at least you're getting funnier.

However, the vast majority of the print and TV media donates and votes democratic, and I believe their biases color their coverage.

The vast majority of the print and TV media is also owned by those who donate and vote Republican. These people are also the ones who set the editorial line for the print and TV media, and determine the high-level direction and tone of coverage - individual reporters typically have very little control over this.

Why wouldn't they?

If you have to ask, you'll never know, but in the meantime I'll put up a thousand bucks that says they won't. Are you down?

No, because I honestly don't know why it's an issue and was hoping for an explanation. I think the MoveOn guys are largely wingnuts, but lots of wingnuts get photo ops at the White House, from both sides. Unless the wingnuts are so far out there that society would and should shun them, I don't see the big deal.

It's hard to tell exactly how crazy she is. Malkin's TruBeliever shines right through.

I don't see Malkin as any more a true believer than Coulter- both will deliberately say completely INSANE things like:

Coulter- once said the greatest injustice of the 21st century was perpetrated upon the White Farmers of Africa after de-colonization.
- has spent reams of paper in a failing effort to prove that the ONLY person actually named by McCarthy as a Communist - really was a communist-
- has spent reams of paper arguing that McCarthy really was a war hero...


Malkin: - Attacked Rachel Ray for allegedly wearing a terrorist symbol scarf
- defended the US Government's Detention of Japanese Americans during WW-II...

Actually I'm pretty sure Coulter is crazier than Malkin...

You do realize that even the Washington Post has acknowleged that she's cleared of "legal wrongdoing," right?

And the report itself clearly stated that she committed an ethical violation. As someone who is (I assume) going to cast a vote for her, does that not concern you in the slightest?

I personally think the most troubling thing about Palin is way she's carried herself in her office, hiring friends, allowing her husband to play a role in the government although he has no qualifications and has not been elected to anything, and most recently, being cited for unethical action. I think a lot of her policies are way too socially conservative, but that's because I'm a liberal. I don't understand why her incredibly sketchy governing record isn't a concern for those on the right.

If he does bring it up, Obama can just mention again how Obama was 8 when Ayers committed these acts, how there were multiple Republican members of the same committee which Obama and Ayers served on,

Yeah, this. The people who appointed Ayers to that board in the first place were the Annenbergs, staunch longtime Republicans who have endorsed and donated to McCain. It would be fun to hear McCain try to explain why he accepts the support of people who bankroll terrorists like Bill Ayers.

Does Ayers currently teach classes? I bet interest in his courses is way up from here on out.

The vast majority of the print and TV media is also owned by those who donate and vote Republican. These people are also the ones who set the editorial line for the print and TV media, and determine the high-level direction and tone of coverage

Firstly that's not actually true with respect to the NYT or WaPo.

Secondly, Rupert Murdoch is endorsing Obama. If he wasn't he'd be awfully busy telling all those reporters what to write and editors what to print.

Limbaugh is not a wingnut. He is a shrewd, successful entertainer, whom a lot of wingnuts (and other people) LIKE.

Robin, does it occur to you that he might be a generally likeable and entertaining guy wsho ALSO has wingnut political views?

If Rush Limbaugh weren't a political wingnut, and if he knew more about baseball, he'd be Jon Miller. They probably wear about the same size suit, for that matter. He sure as hell wouldn't be syndicated on hundreds of radio stations and courted by every Republican politician.

And if he weren't a superb entertainer, he'd be nothing but one more pill-popping ranter in a Missouri VFW lodge, except that they'd have to waive the "veteran" part for him to be able to join.

So isn't a case of either/or. He's both.

-----------

As to whether McCain brings up Ayers during tonight's debate, won't that be to a great extent determined by Schieffer?

Personally, I hope McCain doesn't bring it up. He's embarrassed himself enough already, and the more he keeps harping on this completely irrelevant side issue, the more he's going to seem disconnected from reality. He's already dangerously close to being seen as little more than a self-parody, and that could just about push him over the edge.

I mean, can you just picture McCain saying, "My friends, why hasn't Senator Obama told us the truth about his relationship with Bill Ayers?" Jesus, the parodies of that would be on YouTube even before the poor old man completed the question.

"Actually I'm pretty sure Coulter is crazier than Malkin..."

I don't think that Coulter believes everything she says, but I'm pretty sure that Malkin does. Or a significantly higher percentage, at least.

And the report itself clearly stated that she committed an ethical violation. As someone who is (I assume) going to cast a vote for her, does that not concern you in the slightest?

I think Palin is a terrible candidate and her choice, combined with my state being firmly blue anyway, will probably lead me to vote for Barr for President. All my other votes will be against whoever the incumbent is.

If Huckabee was anywhere near approaching national political power, the media would be portraying him as a snake-handling jesus freak who wants to throw out the Constitution in favor of a biblical theocracy.

I don't believe in vast conspiracies.

Uh-huh. Just, I guess, the overwhelming bias of the entire fourth estate to the point where you can refer to them as a singular unit. Right.

You do realize that even the Washington Post has acknowleged that she's cleared of "legal wrongdoing," right? You're going to have a short legal career if you can't track facts better than that, although based on your posting history here, that's probably a foregone conclusion. But even if Palin was worse than Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew combined, it wouldn't excuse the personal attacks directed at her.

You'd think that this would make my point, considering that the investigator wrote that she violated state ethics statute, which is a law. But not in Good Face world. It must be nice having sources you can excoriate for never being honest and then turn around and cite when they say something you agree with.

Nice trying to pick on my legal accumen, though you'll probably be unsurprised that I couldn't give 2 shakes what you think about it.

I don't think that Coulter believes everything she says, but I'm pretty sure that Malkin does. Or a significantly higher percentage, at least.

cosigned.

I personally think the most troubling thing about Palin is way she's carried herself in her office, hiring friends, allowing her husband to play a role in the government although he has no qualifications and has not been elected to anything, and most recently, being cited for unethical action. I think a lot of her policies are way too socially conservative, but that's because I'm a liberal. I don't understand why her incredibly sketchy governing record isn't a concern for those on the right.

If I'm on the right (arguable), it is. My take is that she is simply a garden variety evangelical Republican. I don't like this, but it doesn't, IMO, automatically disqualify her. I was, however, very disappointed in McCain for choosing her. Not because she's stupid or not from the right background (IMO, we could use someone with her background, though not with her actual policy positions) but because she runs counter to what McCain has been about for a long time.

With that said, there are a lot of garden variety evangelical Rs in the Republican base, so it's no surprise that she is popular there. I also do think the press was all over her for very inappropriate reasons early on. I took this as bias against Republicans, bias against evangelicals and bias against those who aren't from the "right" background (right schools, right state, right think-tanks, etc.). That the press has been largely vindicated in her not being a good candidate doesn't mean their reasons for initially pushing that POV were correct.

Actually I'm pretty sure Coulter is crazier than Malkin...

I get the sense that Coulter sees herself as an entertainer, willing to say or write anything as long as it keeps her in the public eye and puts money in her pocket, whereas Malkin actually believes the things she writes. I think that makes Malkin crazier, while Coulter is just fundamentally dishonest.

EDIT: Wow, I owe two Cokes for one comment.

I think Palin is a terrible candidate and her choice, combined with my state being firmly blue anyway, will probably lead me to vote for Barr for President. All my other votes will be against whoever the incumbent is.

Cool, thanks, sorry if I've missed you state as much before.

The problem with Huckabee, as his primary performance showed, is that he only appeals to about 15% of the electorate.

As per my previous post, Huckabee would start, like every Republican, with about 40% of the vote. Even Goldwater, in the biggest PV blowout in modern times, got 38.5%. Further, Huckabee's main issues in this primary were twofold and interlinked.

I didn't say he would get 15% of the vote; I said he appealed to about 15% of the electorate.
IMO, as the nominee, Huckabee would get about 40-42% of the popular. I see him getting very few independents. After McCain picked Palin--right after, when everyone was still excited--I saw a Repub talking head saying he didn't like the pick strategically, since he would rather have "a lukewarm plurality" than "a totally delighted 45%." That is how I see Huckabee.

Secondly, Rupert Murdoch is endorsing Obama. If he wasn't he'd be awfully busy telling all those reporters what to write and editors what to print.

Cite.

IMO, as the nominee, Huckabee would get about 40-42% of the popular. I see him getting very few independents. After McCain picked Palin--right after, when everyone was still excited--I saw a Repub talking head saying he didn't like the pick strategically, since he would rather have "a lukewarm plurality" than "a totally delighted 45%." That is how I see Huckabee.

Fair enough. I do think that he appeals to more of the electorate and might be able to get more indies, but we don't really have any way to test our assumption.

[Edit] Ranting hate about Coulter removed to avoid being put on government watch lists.

Cite.

The NY Post officially endorsed Obama a while ago. It's a Murdoch owned paper. He's also failed to come out against Obama on numerous occasions, and voiced a lot of concerns about McCain in interviews. I can't find a specific record of him saying "I'm Rupert Murdoch and I approve this candidate", but his failure to endorse McCain is fairly telling.

[Edit] Ranting hate about Coulter removed to avoid being put on government watch lists.

Please. If hatred of Coulter were grounds for being put on a government watch list, the list would be huge.

Oh. Never mind.

Ranting hate about Coulter removed to avoid being put on government watch lists.

Too late! Mwahahaha! They're on their way towards deleting your social security number as we speak!

The NY Post officially endorsed Obama a while ago.

Did they? They endorsed McCain on September 8th. Did they revoke their endorsement and give it to Obama?

Edit: They endorsed Obama in the primaries, but they most def gave a fervent endorsement of McCain in September.

" THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States. McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama."

Seriously, read the whole thing, it's a love letter to McCain. If this is how Murdoch plans on endorsing Obama this and the current daily scourging of Fox News isn't exactly the way someone would go about it.

I get the sense that Coulter sees herself as an entertainer, willing to say or write anything as long as it keeps her in the public eye and puts money in her pocket, whereas Malkin actually believes the things she writes. I think that makes Malkin crazier, while Coulter is just fundamentally dishonest.

I second this. (Or third it; I forget how many posters have co-signed.) I put Limbaugh and Coulter (and, on the flip side, the now jumped-the-shark Michael Moore) in the entertainer camp. I put Hannity and Malkin in the True Believers camp. Though Malkin is far more intelligent than Hannity, who can't come up with original ideas on his own and instead has to be spooonfed them from the Malkins of the world.

Coulter has mocked the media, in various interviews, for succeeding in padding her bank account by conjuring up outrage over her various comments.

The people who appointed Ayers to that board in the first place were the Annenbergs, staunch longtime Republicans who have endorsed and donated to McCain. It would be fun to hear McCain try to explain why he accepts the support of people who bankroll terrorists like Bill Ayers.

See THAT's why McCain can't bring up Ayers in a debate (as much as "his" supporters want him to)- because if he does- that will be Obama's response- and instead of running Ads regarding the Annenbergs, Obama's people have been waiting for Ayers to come up in a televised debate-

Of course IF McCain chicken's out (Obama essentially dared McCain to bring up Ayers in a debate- and McCain then said he would) Ads linking Ayers to McCain supporters will start running wherever McCain's ADs mentioning Ayers are aired.

WRT Wright (The wingnuts have been howling that McCain has to bring him up) the drawback to that is that many of Palin's longtime religious associations/associates will appear to the general public to be as batshit as Wright- and McCain knows it even if Palin's wingnut supporters don't.


One of the big difference between Obama and Kerry- Kerry had no response to the Swift Boat Veterans for the [un]Truth- I get the impression that Obama has this stuff lined up and waiting just in case.

Did they? They endorsed McCain on September 8th. Did they revoke their endorsement and give it to Obama?

Dammit. I wasn't specific enough - they endorsed Obama in the primary. In the grand scheme of things, that's probably worthless.

Since I'm a doddering old coot myself, let me share my one Bill Ayers story. Not a word is made up. The time was 1969, the place was in a car ride back to Durham, the Monday after the big November 15th anti-war march, and although Ayers is the central character in the incident, I've never met him, and the punch line concerns my fellow passengers, and not Ayers himself. But Ayers' well-known reputation at the time provided me with the opening for my riff, which was deliberately kind of rambling, purely for effect. It went like this:

Me, to nobody in particular: "Hey did you all hear about poor Bill Ayers?"

Someone else: "No, what do you mean?"

Me: "F*ck, you didn't know about it? It was all over the radio this morning."

Someone else: "No, what happened?"

Me: "Well, you remember on Friday, when the American Legion was telling everyone that they should turn on their headlights during the day, as a sign of support of the boys in Vietnam?"

Someone else: "Yeah, but what's that have to do..."

Me: "Well, apparently Ayers got so steamed about this that he told everyone he wasn't ever going to be mistaken for one of those fascist war supporters. So instead he keeps his headlights OFF, not only during the day, but well after sunset---I guess 'just to make sure.'"

Someone else: "Yeah, ok..."

Me: "Jeez, I can't believe you didn't hear about this. He didn't see a turn in the road, and ran his car off the road, and killed himself, his wife, and their baby boy."

Everyone else: "OH, WOW!!"

Of course the whole story was complete BS, and I had no idea whether at the time he was even married. But the fact that everyone believed it---and I mean everyone, and I repeated it several times back in Durham just for fun, until finally one person just broke out laughing---tells you a lot about what people thought about Bill Ayers back in 1969. And this was before he went underground and started planting bombs. And it was at least a month or two before he started influencing little Barry Obama.

And GoodFace, I'll even admit that back then there were probably as many wingnuts on the left as there were on your side of the line. Those were weird f*ck*ng times.

I'll even admit that back then there were probably as many wingnuts on the left as there were on your side of the line. Those were weird f*ck*ng times.

And, really, we've been paying the price for it ever since. I wasn't there, but from my reading, both sides of the aisle went stark, raving mad in the 60s and haven't really settled down since. And that is as good an argument for Obama as any.

See THAT's why McCain can't bring up Ayers in a debate (as much as "his" supporters want him to)- because if he does- that will be Obama's response- and instead of running Ads regarding the Annenbergs, Obama's people have been waiting for Ayers to come up in a televised debate-

Such a response by Obama may serve to cloud the issue and therefore benefit him in that way, but I doubt it would succeed in causing McCain's attack to backfire. I frankly think the general public doesn't have the interest level to go beneath the surface on this Ayers story. Once Obama mentions the Annenbergs, the public is lost, and doesn't know whether this is really a body blow to McCain or not. Again, it may prove effective in deflecting the issue for Obama, but I doubt it would be effective as return fire.

One of the big difference between Obama and Kerry- Kerry had no response to the Swift Boat Veterans for the [un]Truth- I get the impression that Obama has this stuff lined up and waiting just in case.

They had a 13 minute Keating documentary polished and in the can for the moment McCain went after Obama's friends. I'd say they're ready for whatever McCain brings at them.

In the grand scheme of things, that's probably worthless.

I think the telling thing is that Obama and Murdoch had a decent conversation with each other over the summer, with Roger Ailes there, and then Obama turned to Ailes and then just bawled him out about Fox New's coverage of the campaign. Murdoch may not hate Obama, but he has no problem with his news organizations slagging him and supporting McCain.

Ray: The current polling from the past week, since the Ayers allegations have dropped, have showed a ding on McCain's favorables but not on Obama's. I think in a time of economic crisis, bringing up the specter of the 60's radical boogeyman isn't working as well as it might have in an election focused on the divisions wrought by a war, such as 2004.

I frankly think the general public doesn't have the interest level to go beneath the surface on this Ayers story.

This is probably a good summary of the issue. If the general public really cared about Ayers, or Wright, or Rezko, or any of the other increasingly speculative relationships that Obama may or may not have, it would be expected that there would have been at least some reaction in the polls. Instead, it's been nothing but a steady climb for Obama.

Once Obama mentions the Annenbergs, the public is lost, and doesn't know whether this is really a body blow to McCain or not.

It depends on how Obama mentions it. If he just says their names, it probably doesn't mean much. If he chases with a description of their close ties to the Republican party, their support of Reagan, and their donations to McCain, and turns it into a "Do you refute their support of you, these good people who supported St. Reagan?" issue, then McCain is in a bit more of a bind.

To clarify: I agree that the Ayers attack will be ineffective at best and will likely backfire at worst, but not because "the Annenbergs" is any magic weapon. Simply because the Ayers attack smacks of desperation and distraction.

Once Obama mentions the Annenbergs, the public is lost, and doesn't know whether this is really a body blow to McCain or not.

But Obama doesn't need to land any body blows against McCain. As long as he can defuse or even confuse the issue, Obama wins. Although, as others have suggested, the Ayers issue is most likely meaningless at this point anyway.

Huckabee's problem is similar to what (pre-affair) John Edwards faced among Democrats: he was perceived as too "populist" for the party bosses, who always worry that populist attitudes could dry up funding from the bigwigs who really keep the party going.

TGF to TGF:

Huckabee is literally everthing democrats hate about Bush. A christian fundamentalist who believes in big government to further his political goals. It's astonishingly funny to see people who think Bush is the antichrist say nice things about Huckabee. If Huckabee were anywhere close to political power, you'd be wetting your pants. I mean more so than usual.

Huh? If you're going to throw around insults, make them funny or at least relevant to the discussion.

And that's if Obama decides not to haul out the G. Gordon Liddy/Keating Five double bill as a counter.

I'll give odds Obama doesn't go this route. It would have a 'so's yer old man' quality Obama doesn't need to inject in the joint press conference, er, debate, and as you yourself noted in 308 (and Tom did in 317), Obama has a perfectly good rejoinder without troubling to mention McCain's sins. I'm morally certain Obama and Biden challenged McCain to bring this up at the joint press conference, er, debate, precisely because it's a winner for them.

Damn, but Obama's getting better and better at this. I'm really looking forward to watching him try to get some dicey legislation through. Politics is actually fun again.

And GoodFace, I'll even admit that back then there were probably as many wingnuts on the left as there were on your side of the line. Those were weird f*ck*ng times

It was indeed surreal. There were people at that time who actually believed Nixon was secretly bombing other nations and dragging them into the Vietnamese civil war, that he was continuing the war, where millions died, in some part out of vanity, that the whole conflict had little to do with communism and a lot to do with markets, that Nixon was secretly monitoring his political opponents and using the FBI to track them, that he had a goon squad breaking into his opponents offices, a ratfucking squad to demonize opposition, that he was wiretapping political opponents, that the government was secretly testing drugs on civilians... Some pretty bizarre beliefs floating around.

If everything were the same except Obama was white, he'd be up by another 1-2 points.

Obama never would have gotten past the primaries if he was a white guy. In fact, he never would have run for president. Imagine a guy that had never even completed 1 Senate term, never been re-elected and had very little experience running anything, trying to run for president. That candidate and his credentials would have been laughable.

A massive part of Obama's appeal and charisma is due to him being black. He never would have gotten past Hillary, hell even Biden in the primary.

This is the lead on yahoo! right now. Excerpt:

With McCain unlikely to budge, GOP officials are hoping groups outside of the campaign will finance an ad attack on Obama-Wright ties. It is unclear if any conservative group has the cash to bankroll a serious effort, however.

“Wright is off the table,” said one top campaign official. “It’s all McCain. He won’t go there. His advisers would have gone there.”

The aides argue that the 20 years that Obama spent in the fiery Wright’s pastoral care — and his later assertion that he knew nothing of his former minister’s more extreme statements — provide an opening to challenge Obama’s judgment and honesty in a relevant and politically resonant way.

“He was a central figure in Obama’s life, shaping Obama’s thinking, and he made the extreme radical comments that are borderline anti-American,” the campaign official said.

But McCain will not allow it, according to campaign sources.

“There’s a slippery slope in politics on the racial divide, and Sen. McCain made it very clear early on that he did not want to get into that area,” a top Republican official said. “I don’t want to be known as a racist, and McCain doesn’t want to be known as a racist candidate.”

***

I didn't know Ray was advising McCain.

Obama never would have gotten past the primaries if he was a white guy.

We covered this months ago. Obama wouldn't be Obama if he were a white guy, just like McCain wouldn't be McCain if he had not been a POW, and Hillary wouldn't be Hillary if she had a sex-change operation after Wellesley, and you wouldn't be Beano if you didn't mock and ridicule people who disagree with you. Counterfactual arguments generally go nowhere.

Huckabee is literally everthing democrats hate about Bush.

As a Democrat who has hated Bush, this couldn't be further from my opinion. What I disliked about Bush was his lack of personal integrity, ties to the big business and big oil side of the Republican party, a bullying persona that seemed to lack any empathy with the lives of most people, and the general belief that he had never really thought much about anything substantially.

Huckabee, to me, seemed to posses a great deal of personal integrity, had little support among corporate donors, cared deeply with engaging in issues, and (in immigration especially) showed that he had empathy for people in difficult situations. I see very little in common between the two.

Of the 2008 Republican contenders, Romney possessed most, if not all, of the things I hated about Bush.

McCain never would have gotten past the primaries if he was a black guy.

Obama never would have gotten past the primaries if he was a white guy.


We covered this months ago.

Doesn't make it any less true though. But since I generally support affirmative action programs, I can't say it bothers me much.

Doesn't make it any less true though.

No offense, but that isn't really the point, even if you think it is "true." W--who Beano really likes and supports--would have never been president if he came from a different family and had had a different name. But then, he wouldn't be W if he came from a different family. Hillary would not have been in the running if she had married an attorney who was not a political wiz with good timing. If Obama were named Barry Owens, he wouldn't have as many fringy rumors about being a Muslim. And on and on.

All candidates have built-in plusses and minuses because of who they are and where they come from.

Obama never would have gotten past the primaries if he was a white guy. In fact, he never would have run for president. Imagine a guy that had never even completed 1 Senate term, never been re-elected and had very little experience running anything, trying to run for president. That candidate and his credentials would have been laughable.

I know I can just let it go with what Robinred said, but man. This is dying for an Abe Lincoln joke.

edit: Also, O'Bama would have done so much better with lowerscale whites that it would be hard to believe.

Hillary would not have been in the running if he had married an attorney who was not a political wiz with good timing.

I laughed.

I laughed.

I caught it, but left it in for the hell of it. Pretty petty of me. Think I'll change it now.

Huckabee, to me, seemed to posses a great deal of personal integrity, had little support among corporate donors, cared deeply with engaging in issues, and (in immigration especially) showed that he had empathy for people in difficult situations.

I agree with this. I didn't like his joke about Obama's getting shot when he spoke at the NRA convention, but all pols (and humans) say dumbass stuff sometimes.

Also, O'Bama

Why did the blind couple vote for Obama?

Because they always support Irish politicians.

I caught it, but left it in for the hell of it. Pretty petty of me. Think I'll change it now.

Change it back! Change it back!

Since when have the posters here been bothered by pettiness.

My stance on this isn't that the voters are dumb, it's just that they have kids, they have a mortgage or rent payment, they have at least one if not more jobs, and they have precious little free time already. They simply don't have the time or the energy to waste on something like politics when the most it impedes on their life is every 4 years during a presidential... the single election where their vote has the least individual weight. So they don't really tune in until it's nearly time to vote, and they have a fairly short period of time in which they're paying attention, much less when they're persuadable.

Absolutely. The average person doesn't really understand the internal workings of a computer, not because they are stupid, but because it's not critical knowledge for everyday life. Many people have a basic idea of their political position that clearly falls into one bucket or the other, and it is very unlikely that they will vote out of party, so it's not worth spending time absorbing every nuance of difference between candidates. Especially if they live in a state that simply isn't up for grabs. Voters in New York or Massachusetts or Texas know the results in advance for their states, so there's even less incentive to become politically aware.

Right; voters are ignorant, but it's rational ignorance. Sitting there and studying the candidates in depth is basically wasted energy. (Wasted, if one is doing it for the purpose of voting; it's not wasted if one is doing it for entertainment, like learning about the rosters of the AL East teams.) One's individual vote virtually never matters, and the details of platforms rarely matter, particularly since circumstances change after a candidate gets into office.

Change it back! Change it back!

I think the GOP has its 2012 slogan.

. The debates are basically the most substantive event of the campaign, in which the candidates really do present their positions and proposals.

Geez, what debates were those. I must have missed them while I was watching McCain, Obama, Biden and Palin mouth platitudes and ignore questions.

I must have missed them while I was watching McCain, Obama, Biden and Palin mouth platitudes and ignore questions

Yeah, but I got all tingly like Chris Matthews when Palin winked at me.

No offense, but that isn't really the point, even if you think it is "true." W--who Beano really likes and supports--would have never been president if he came from a different family and had had a different name. But then, he wouldn't be W if he came from a different family. Hillary would not have been in the running if she had married an attorney who was not a political wiz with good timing. If Obama were named Barry Owens, he wouldn't have as many fringy rumors about being a Muslim. And on and on.

But this begs the question. Would "Barry Owens," a white politician from a Chicago suburb who otherwise had Obama's resume/skillset win the nomination? No. And it's OK to admit it. Just like it's OK to acknowledge that Bush would have NEVER come within light years of the White House if he was born into any other family.

But this begs the question. Would "Barry Owens," a white politician from a Chicago suburb who otherwise had Obama's resume/skillset win the nomination? No. And it's OK to admit it. Just like it's OK to acknowledge that Bush would have NEVER come within light years of the White House if he was born into any other family.

Well, I thought that's what I said, more or less. The problem I have with it is that the pol's
"resume/skillset" are tied to those issues of who s/he is, and I don't think you can pull the two apart that easily.

But this begs the question. Would "Barry Owens," a white politician from a Chicago suburb who otherwise had Obama's resume/skillset win the nomination? No. And it's OK to admit it. Just like it's OK to acknowledge that Bush would have NEVER come within light years of the White House if he was born into any other family.

I'm just not buying it. Obama's organization in Iowa was just too good. His gameplanning against Hillary was just too good. If someone with the same talents as Obama were running, he'd still have filled the Anti-Hillary/Anti-Iraq War void. And more than anything in the Dem primary it was Clinton's poor strategy in the run up to super Tuesday and her outright unwillingness to step up and repudiate her Iraq war vote (and the fact that she ran to an extent on the vote) that opened up the door for anyone else. An orator with Obama's skill that had his same advantages going into the race and didn't have to deal with race as an issue? Please, that guy would have wiped the floor with Clinton.

95% of government spending is "wasteful."

It creates jobs, Ray! It's not like they are just burning money.

2 or 3 threads and 1500 posts back I asked if anyone could explain to me how government spending (i.e., taxation) is bad for the economy, but corporate spending (i.e "job creation") is good.

Any takers? It's a serious question.

But this begs the question. Would "Barry Owens," a white politician from a Chicago suburb who otherwise had Obama's resume/skillset win the nomination?

Wait a minute, are you saying a white guy who was intelligent, articulate, levelheaded, a charismatic orator, made a speech critical of the Iraq war even before it began, and didn't participate in the authorization vote that snagged Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton wouldn't win a nomination? I really fear for this country sometimes ...

I actually like Huckabee, I don't like his belief in creationism etc.*, but other than that I like him- I think he would have been a VASTLY better choice than Palin from McCain's POV.
Huckabee is likeable- even to many of those who disagree with him on policy- Palin on the other hand is absolutely abhorrent to those who do not like her on policy... (Which is something those who like or lean towards her on policy issues seem incapable of comprehending)-

You're only saying that because you do like Huckabee on policy. If Huckabee were actually a small-government conservative, you'd be portraying him the same way as Bush -- a right wing theocratic nutcase. (One could argue that it would be different because Huckabee is likeable personally, which is true. But so was Reagan, and that didn't make his ideological opponents any less nutty and outraged about him.)

However, those who do control the party "machinery" do not like Huckabee-

YM voters. Huckabee lost because primary voters didn't vote for him.


Let's face it: if it weren't for the abortion realignment of the last twenty years, Huckabee would have been a Democrat. That's why you like him.

as long as we're discussing race, I'd like to point out Nate Silver's interesting take on Obama and the Bradlee effect.

Right; voters are ignorant, but it's rational ignorance. Sitting there and studying the candidates in depth is basically wasted energy. (Wasted, if one is doing it for the purpose of voting; it's not wasted if one is doing it for entertainment, like learning about the rosters of the AL East teams.) One's individual vote virtually never matters, and the details of platforms rarely matter, particularly since circumstances change after a candidate gets into office.

I agree with this, and also think the Obama polling lead is mostly structural. Still, Obama didn't screw the pooch, and McCain didn't pull a rainbow out of his butt, so there is some credit there.

Geez, what debates were those. I must have missed them while I was watching McCain, Obama, Biden and Palin mouth platitudes and ignore questions.

Another bingo, here.

As for Obama's blackness... to rehash: If being a non-white male is such an advantage, why are there so few elected?

Oh, and didn't Huckabee support Rev. Wright?? No _way_ he could get nominated.

If being a non-white male is such an advantage, why are there so few elected?

It's a complex question. Obama himself, I thought, had a pretty good take on it in practical terms when he said that "of course" some people will not vote for a black guy, but also that some people would vote for him "because" he is black, so it is a "wash." I guess I see it this way:

1. There is no question that the chance to be part of an historical first has in part motivated some people to vote for Obama and get involved in his campaign.
2. (1) wouldn't matter if Obama were not a skilled pol running at the right time.
3. I don't buy the "if he were a white guy" arguments because I have trouble with the premise, and I do agree with scott and aleksel that a well-funded, well-organized, handsome, charismatic white guy who came out against the war in 2002--think a 2008 JFK--would have made some noise, even with a thin resume. I think people have sort of blocked out how fundamentally abrasive Hillary Clinton is to millions of voters, since the Demos need her and the Repubs started kissing her ass after Obama took the lead. If she were the nominee, I think she'd be winning because of the bailout issue, but I do not think she'd be polling better than Obama is.

If Huckabee was anywhere near approaching national political power, the media would be portraying him as a snake-handling jesus freak who wants to throw out the Constitution in favor of a biblical theocracy. And so would the BBTF liberals for that matter. It's amusing to see people singing his praises here.

Funny, they don't seem to be portraying Sarah Palin that way. But good of you to run up a strawman. I bet those insecurities you wrap around yourself help you sleep better at night.

They don't? Really? Palin's a book-burning anti-abortion creationist who wants to ban birth control and thinks God wants us to invade Iraq. You missed that coverage of her?

It's been said pretty well by robinred, but to second his point:

As soon as you say "If Obama were white," you are in the land of literally incomprehensible statements. It's like beginning a statement, "If the cube was round..." Nothing that follows has any meaning since the conditional clause is incoherent.

However, the vast majority of the print and TV media donates and votes democratic, and I believe their biases color their coverage.

The vast majority of the print and TV media is also owned by those who donate and vote Republican. These people are also the ones who set the editorial line for the print and TV media, and determine the high-level direction and tone of coverage - individual reporters typically have very little control over this.

That's the standard rebuttal by liberals. The problem is that the first claim is without basis -- other than Rupert Murdoch, who are you even thinking of when you say this? -- and the second claim is wrong. Since when do owners of newspapers act as editors? (If by "editorial line" you literally mean the editorials themselves, those may be influenced by the owners, but that's entirely separate than the news coverage. And editorials are buried in back, not on the front page.)

95% of government spending is "wasteful."

It creates jobs, Ray! It's not like they are just burning money.

2 or 3 threads and 1500 posts back I asked if anyone could explain to me how government spending (i.e., taxation) is bad for the economy, but corporate spending (i.e "job creation") is good.

Any takers? It's a serious question.

I won't try to address your question for the moment, but I'd like to layer it with an additional question. Even Ray might agree that his ' "95% of government spending is "wasteful." 'is hyperbole, and pinning down the exact percentage is impossible, but I've never understood the widely-believed claim that the private sector is more efficient than government. The private sector is astonishingly wasteful and inefficient, even before we figure in how much of private costs are transferred to the public. The evidence of its wastefulness and inefficiency is in plain sight all the time. That the reverse, the private sector is efficient, and certainly more efficient than government is generally considered to be true amazes me.

They don't? Really? Palin's a book-burning anti-abortion creationist who wants to ban birth control and thinks God wants us to invade Iraq. You missed that coverage of her?

If this is the only description of Palin you get from watching the mainstream media, you need to expand your idea of the mainstream media from just Matt Taibbi.

(edited for offensiveness & funniness)

The problem is that the first claim is without basis -- other than Rupert Murdoch, who are you even thinking of when you say this?

Isn't the Tribune company owned by conservatives? I don't recall. Editorials (and op-eds, which tend to be split between liberal and conservative commentators) are, btw, one of the most read parts of the paper, especially online versions.

I'd also add that, outside of a small subset of news media the news has more of an emphasis on what gets eyeballs over what's liberal or what's conservative. Especially given the weakening state of American newspapers and the increasing conglomeration of television media under corporate auspices that have cut funding for news teams and pushed for higher viewership instead of viewing news gathering as a duty to the public good.

The problem is that the first claim is without basis -- other than Rupert Murdoch, who are you even thinking of when you say this?

Sinclair Broadcasting.

Isn't the Tribune company owned by conservatives? I don't recall. Editorials are, btw, one of the most read parts of the paper, especially online versions.

The Tribune company is owned by Samuel Zell. Zell has given money to the RNC and Norm Coleman, among others; he has also given money to Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel's PAC, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold, among many others.

The problem is that the first claim is without basis -- other than Rupert Murdoch, who are you even thinking of when you say this?

Conrad Black, until fairly recently the third largest newspaper owner in the world, was notorious for dictating both editorial content, and directions of general coverage. He was so intent on this that he even created a new national newspaper in Canada, because he felt the existing national paper was insufficiently conservative, which is a laugh if you've ever read The Globe and Mail.

and the second claim is wrong. Since when do owners of newspapers act as editors? (If by "editorial line" you literally mean the editorials themselves, those may be influenced by the owners, but that's entirely separate than the news coverage. And editorials are buried in back, not on the front page.)

As noted above, Black dictated both the editorial direction and the focus of coverage in his papers. He was also accused by quite a few of his editors for terminating their employment when they deviated from his imposed company line. Izzy Asper, the owner of the Global Television Network (a significant player in the Canadian market) was also noted for dictating company coverage and editorial content, especially with respect to a powerfully pro-Israel slant. For the record, he was a long time Liberal party member and supporter.

To pretend that an owner does not or cannot significantly influence or even straight-out dictate the direction of not only editorial content but news content too is just a ridiculous position, and that applies for both liberal and conservative publications and networks.

Isn't the Tribune company owned by conservatives?

Did you mean the Chicago Sun-Times? That one went from Rupert Murdoch to Conrad Black. I'm not sure who owns it now.

Wait a minute, are you saying a white guy who was intelligent, articulate, levelheaded, a charismatic orator, made a speech critical of the Iraq war even before it began, and didn't participate in the authorization vote that snagged Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton wouldn't win a nomination? I really fear for this country sometimes ...

I know this is hard for Obama lovers to wrap their heads around, but the thinness of his resume is unprecedented in modern presidential politics. His experience in national level politics at the time he began his campaign was less than 2 years serving as a US Senator. Never served as a US Congressman. Never served as a state governor. Never served in the military. Any other politician with that background who tried to run for president would be laughed out of the contest as a lightweight. Edwards had more experience than Obama in 2004 and was widely considered to be such.

So Obama's an affirmative action candidate. Which is fine, doesn't mean he's not capable of doing the job. But it would be nice for people to recognize it.

But until Obama actually outperforms polls and expectations, I'm very hesitant to claim that he's found a way to beat the system.

Following up on this further, from fivethirtyeight.com:

(A brief aside: This is not to suggest that there was no relationship between race an errors in polling during the Democratic primaries. There is clear evidence that Barack Obama overperformed his polls in states with a large number of African-American voters, a.k.a a Reverse Bradley Effect. There is not any statistically compelling evidence however that Obama routinely underperformed his polls in states with a large number of white voters).

David: My mistake, I was thinking of the Chicago Sun-Times, when it was owned by Black through the Hollinger group.

They don't? Really? Palin's a book-burning anti-abortion creationist who wants to ban birth control and thinks God wants us to invade Iraq. You missed that coverage of her?

If Huckabee were actually a small-government conservative, you'd be portraying him the same way as Bush -- a right wing theocratic nutcase.

If Huckabee were actually a small-government conservative- he wouldn't be Huckabee

I would find Palin a bit less abhorrent if she actually was a "small-government conservative"- I can respect that position, but she's not actually a member of that political sub-species.

They don't? Really? Palin's a book-burning anti-abortion creationist who wants to ban birth control and thinks God wants us to invade Iraq. You missed that coverage of her?

Well, being as how Sarah "No exceptions for rape or incest" Palin would force any of your wives, girlfriends or mothers to carry Willie Horton's or Charles Manson's baby to full term, even in the odd chance that that baby weren't the product of a stable and loving married relationship, I'd say she's lucky that the media haven't given some of her views the full attention and dissection that some of think they might deserve.

Hell, if the Democrats were to channel Lee Atwater**, they could run a Willie Horton ad to end all Willie Horton ads, and with every bit as much logical justification as the Atwater original.

**Hi, David!

Bernard Shaw, 2008:**

Governor Palin, if one of your beautiful daughters should be raped by Willie Horton and then locked in a closet for ten weeks, upon her escape would you then have the law compel her to bear the child?

**Hi, Lee!

I know this is hard for Obama lovers to wrap their heads around, but the thinness of his resume is unprecedented in modern presidential politics. His experience in national level politics at the time he began his campaign was less than 2 years serving as a US Senator. Never served as a US Congressman. Never served as a state governor. Never served in the military. Any other politician with that background who tried to run for president would be laughed out of the contest as a lightweight. Edwards had more experience than Obama in 2004 and was widely considered to be such.

Why assume this has to do with Obama's race and not with the country's record high (and growing) disapproval with the direction of how the country has run and everyone who has been running it lately? I think it has a lot more to do with the growing movement of disgust with everything associated with Washington as a symbol of our government than anything race related. This movement has been growing on the left at least since I left college three years ago, when I was working for the Democrats, and Obama seems to have caught it at the crest and manipulated it to his advantage. I don't think there is any reason to believe he's been successful because he's black, I think that's just the most obviously unique quality Obama has and some here have zeroed in on it instead of looking deeper.

BTW I did NOT complain when Red Juice posted those gruesome aborted partial birth pictures. The abortion question has nasty implications whichever side of the question you're on, and there are no positions that don't result in horrible consequences.

I know this is hard for Obama lovers to wrap their heads around, but the thinness of his resume is unprecedented in modern presidential politics. His experience in national level politics at the time he began his campaign was less than 2 years serving as a US Senator. Never served as a US Congressman. Never served as a state governor. Never served in the military. Any other politician with that background who tried to run for president would be laughed out of the contest as a lightweight. Edwards had more experience than Obama in 2004 and was widely considered to be such.

It's not like Obama hasn't been hit, and hit repeatedly and heavily on the experience angle. In fact, the biggest issue facing him in both the primary, and in the general I'd argue, is this lack of experience. I also think it's offensive to refer to him as an affirmative action candidate, although that may not have been your intention. I know it may be hard for you to wrap your head around this, but the quality of the campaign he's run over the course of over 18 months in the public spotlight, and the ability he's shown in overcoming not only the Clinton organization but also seemingly on the verge of overwhelming the Republican party goes a long way to most voters and many pundits and journalists to assuaging the worries about his resume.

Obama was expected to run a reasonably decent race and raise his political profile. Instead he actually turned out a vast number of younger voters and won the Iowa caucuses through an extremely high quality ground game. These are things that would stick with him regardless of his race. In fact, it probably would have been less shocking for him to win Iowa if he wasn't black.

The guy may be relatively new on the field, but it's not like he's a raw rookie. Ever since he stepped onto the stage at the 2004 DNC he's been balling with the best of them, and has done an excellent job creating a campaign that could challenge a titan, despite the fact that the titan wrapped up the leaders of the constituency one might most expect to be on his side. Saying that he's an affirmative action candidate, as if his race is the but-for cause for where he is, is astonishingly disrespectful to the man and the campaign he's run.

edit: CP, I think the point that TGF is trying to make is that Obama would have never made it out of the primary, due to the fact that no one would take him seriously as a candidate because of his slim experience in government. I don't know why that would be less the case because he's black, but I believe that's the point he's making.

They don't? Really? Palin's a book-burning anti-abortion creationist who wants to ban birth control and thinks God wants us to invade Iraq. You missed that coverage of her?

I think everybody missed this coverage of her, because it did not exist.

What did exist was reportage of the facts. She did discuss removing books from the library. She is staunchly anti-abortion. She has talked about God's will with respect to Iraq. I don't know if she is a creationist, but if she is, so be it.

Are you saying these facts aren't relevant to understanding who she is? Or that they shouldn't have been reported?

On "qualifications": The qualifications for the presidency are stated in the Constitution. Beyond that, it's up to the voters to decide.

Who's the greater musician: Beethoven or Gershwin? McCartney or Sinatra? Horowitz or Charlie Parker?

And who's more qualified to be Governor of California? A career politician who's run out of gas, or a movie star with rugged good looks and a way with words?

a way with words?

Arnold is getting better, but I wouldn't say he has a way with words. ;

Arnold is getting better, but I wouldn't say he has a way with words. ;

He didn't say it was a good way.

EDIT: Based on what I've seen/heard, Arnold has been a much better Governor than almost anyone expected. I'd bet that the Democrats are really glad right now that he's not eligible for the Presidency.

Arnold is getting better, but I wouldn't say he has a way with words. ;

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

Yeah, but Lee Atwater wrote that, not Arnold.

Why assume this has to do with Obama's race and not with the countries record high (and growing) disapproval with the direction of how the country has run and everyone who has been running it lately? I think it has a lot more to do with the growing movement of disgust with everything associated with Washington as a symbol of our government than anything race related. This movement has been growing on the left at least since I left college three years ago, when I was working for the Democrats, and Obama seems to have caught it at the crest and manipulated it to his advantage. I don't think there is any reason to believe he's been successful because he's black, I think that's just the most obviously unique quality Obama has and some here have zeroed in on it instead of looking deeper.

Don't misunderstand me, Obama has plenty of political skills. He gives good teleprompter, has a lovely speaking voice, is tall, handsome, and projects calmness and confidence. He's also benefitting from structural conditions as MCoA pointed out, and has demonstrated good timing and initiative in seizing the opportunity to benefit from them. Plus he's had his share of luck in how things have shaken out over the past 6 years, and luck is good.

But in years past, nobody with a resume that thin would be allowed through the door. They wouldn't be taken seriously by the media or party bigwigs. A white politician with his skills/background would be told, "come back in 4-8 years". A black politician lacking his skills would be told, "as if."

Well, being as how Sarah "No exceptions for rape or incest" Palin would force any of your wives, girlfriends or mothers to carry Willie Horton's or Charles Manson's baby to full term, even in the odd chance that that baby weren't the product of a stable and loving married relationship, I'd say she's lucky that the media haven't given some of her views the full attention and dissection that some of think they might deserve.

I'm sorry, but this is the consistent opinion, unlike the ones who allow the rape and incest exception.

If one believes a fetus is a person whose life should be protected by the government, then whether or not that person was created by rape or incest is irrelevant. Science is science and a fetus doesn't go ZIPPITY SESAME! and magically change into another substance because of whether it's/his/her creation was intentional. If a diabetic can't eat cookies but really wants to eat a cookie, a cookie doesn't magically become a carrot. It's still a cookie.

Of course, I don't believe an early-stage fetus is a person, so I don't have a problem with abortion in the case of rape, incest, feeling like it, horoscope, or the fear of having to watch Spongebob.

Bernard Shaw, 2008:**

Governor Palin, if one of your beautiful daughters should be raped by Willie Horton and then locked in a closet for ten weeks, upon her escape would you then have the law compel her to bear the child?

Uh, she was asked that in the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial election, and said yes. (You can find the actual debate on Youtube, if you care, which I assume you actually don't.)

I think the point that TGF is trying to make is that Obama would have never made it out of the primary, due to the fact that no one would take him seriously as a candidate because of his slim experience in government.

And I'm arguing that the current political climate, which is noticeably different from 2004, one that is loaded with disgust at those who do have experience, is beneficial climate for a guy who has little experience. Experience in Washington, as we keep learning from the Republican ticket, is not a great bullet point on your resume this time around and that's why Obama has been able to go further on such a thin resume than you would have expected 8 or 4 or 2 years ago.