Campaign 2008

[Guest Vitamin X]

18-20 is a pretty small sample to take, though. I don't think you can really quantify that based on that, since it only measures one period of their life where they could have possibly voted. It creates a fallacy to compare them to, say, the 25-44 or 45-64 bracket since there's going to be a. significantly more people in that sample and b. more education and political experience. I know plenty of under 30-year olds who don't vote and plenty who do. More who do than don't, however.

 

Combine the 18-20 and 21-24 group into the same category and you have a group which compromised a larger percentage. Plus, the date Jerk's got there is 3 elections old. I figured some things have changed with the last few elections.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, I believe the media generally defines "the youth vote" as between like 18 and 30 or 35.

[snuffbox 0]

It's almost as if the Youth Vote accomplished something absolutely huge (like get their chice of candidate the nomination) in 1972, were completely dismissed and neglected that November, and then told they "didnt vote."

 

Beyond '72, was it a bunch of old folks that got Clean For Gene? I mean, all they did was be insrtumental in driving a sitting President from seeking reelection and that's nothing!

 

Also, do you see alot of elderies going door to door during campaigns? When the phone calls come, is it Great Aunt Agnes dialing the numbers?

[snuffbox 0]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ayden-look.html

 

I'll donate a dollar to the Hillary campaign if she could just say one honest thing. One.

[EricMM 0]

...but she cannot honestly win.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Assuming Obama wins the next couple of primaries, are the Dems finally going to force her out?

[snuffbox 0]

Probably not. Hacks gotta watch out for their own. I just can't see somebody like Bayh telling Hillary it's all over through an annoying squinty grin.

[EricMM 0]

You can't FORCE anyone out...

[Firestarter 0]

Um, sorry, but he has used the youth vote to win elections.

Young people have been working hard in campaigns & voting for decades. And, after these efforts are put in, they have to listen to the profoundly retarded statements on how they didn't vote. Conventional wisdom is usually wrong in politics, this is probably the best example.

You're wrong, and you werent even funny in being wrong. Hit the showers.

Bwahahaha! You kids really have no clue.

 

But please feel free to continue "raging against the machine" or whatever it is you do.

 

http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/voter-tur...and-statistics/

 

http://www.eac.gov/clearinghouse/docs/vote...t_download/file

 

Only about a third of people 18-20 vote in presidential elections, down from almost half in 1972.

Man, I'm getting tired of agreeing with Y2J.

[Firestarter 0]

Wright's Voice Could Spell Doom for Obama

 

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

Barack Obama's pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.

 

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

 

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

 

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

 

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

 

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

 

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

 

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

 

That significantly complicates Obama's job as he contemplates how to extinguish Wright's latest incendiary device. Now, he needs to do more than express disagreement with his former pastor's view; he needs to refute his former pastor's suggestion that Obama privately agrees with him.

 

Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full "context" of his sermons -- yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

 

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?

 

Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

 

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

 

He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").

 

And he vigorously renewed demands for an apology for slavery: "Britain has apologized to Africans. But this country's leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I'm not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt, do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I'm still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capisce?"

 

Capisce, reverend. All too well.

 

By Eric Pianin | April 28, 2008; 12:55 PM ET

- link

 

It's strangely fascinating to watch one shit-stained monkey drag another shit-stained monkey back down into the pit.

[At Home 0]

Hopefully when this Hillary shit is all said and done with, we can begin to realize that the Wright controversy is sensationalist bullshit and that guilt by association is terrible logic, and then move on to better things.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The problem with wright is that 90% of the things he says are somewhat reasonable, but 10% of it is just plain crazy. And it's that 10% that keeps getting played on all the cable shows.

[SuperJerk 0]

It's strangely fascinating to watch one shit-stained monkey drag another shit-stained monkey back down into the pit.

Monkeys aside (!!!), I'm not going to defend Wright and I'm certainly not going to defend Farrakhan (as fondly as the Million Man March is remembered, the keynote speech by Farrakhan was the insane ramblings of a deluded mind). Obama said he didn't agree with Wright's crackpot ideas, and I beleive him.

 

Combine the 18-20 and 21-24 group into the same category and you have a group which compromised a larger percentage. Plus, the date Jerk's got there is 3 elections old. I figured some things have changed with the last few elections.

Not much larger, and not much has changed, I'm afraid. Gore and Kerry hardly set the college campuses on fire, y'know.

 

Probably not. Hacks gotta watch out for their own. I just can't see somebody like Bayh telling Hillary it's all over through an annoying squinty grin.

Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

[snuffbox 0]

Jerimiah Wright will be the John Bircher to Obama's Goldwater.

 

[At Home 0]

Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

 

Probably because she's going to say that Indiana is more representative of the voting populace.

[SuperJerk 0]

Noteworthy, but long...

 

Peggy Noonan's Litmus Test

Does Obama love Sutter's Mill? America demands an answer.

By Timothy Noah

Posted Monday, April 28, 2008, at 7:08 PM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

When I think about all the hoops Barack Obama is being made to jump through in order to prove he's a patriotic American, I feel nostalgic for the days when the press thought Obama's biggest negative was his supposed inexperience relative to Hillary Clinton (see "Hillary's Experience Lie").

 

First Obama had to distance himself from some bizarre comments made by his former pastor. Then he had to explain why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin often enough to suit Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Then he had to distance himself from a former member of the Weather Underground to whom he was introduced when he decided to run for the Illinois Senate but with whom he has since had scant contact. Then he had to distance himself from Hamas, a terrorist organization he has repeatedly condemned, simply because its chief political adviser, Ahmed Yousefat, expressed admiration for him. Now Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal demands that Obama demonstrate he carries sufficient love within his breast for … Sutter's Mill.

 

I'm not making this up. Here is what Noonan wrote:

 

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over … the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

 

Let me pause here to point out that if Barack Obama were ever to refer to the '49ers of the California gold rush—even with affection—as "losers and brigands," then Sean Hannity would demand his immediate impeachment from the Senate, Bill Kristol would cite it as evidence that Obama was a member of the Communist Party, and Noonan herself would grieve over this condescension toward the starry-eyed dreamers who constitute the heart, soul, and viscera of this proud land.

 

I'm sure Obama is as sentimental as the next guy about the Wright brothers and D-Day and George Washington (to whom he is distantly related). Henry Ford is a harder case. On the one hand, he is the father of mass production and the inventor of the Model T. On the other hand, he was a raving anti-Semite. Between 1920 and 1922, Ford published in the Dearborn Independent, which he owned, no fewer than 81 articles on what he called "The Jewish Problem in America." These screeds were so odious that they prompted the resignation of the Dearborn Independent's editor, who refused to print them. Ford's rants about the international Jewish conspiracy, published in book form, were a formative influence on Baldur von Shirach, leader of the Hitler Youth, according to von Shirach's testimony at the Nuremberg Trials. One of these books—The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem—has been posted online by the American Nazi Party. At the very least, such affinities make it a challenge to love both Ford and D-Day, the Allied invasion that ultimately landed Ford's most influential disciple in Spandau prison for 20 years.

 

But I digress. Of this golden history, Noonan continues:

 

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

 

Please note the presumption that it is impossible to acquire affection for the history of the United States in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, or Connecticut, where Hillary Clinton lived before she lived in Arkansas. Conservatives long ago managed to establish as unchallengeable fact that the real America cannot be found in the places where a majority of its population resides. Exceptions are made for the greater Washington, D.C., area only when the persons involved belong to the U.S. military. No, America's authentic heart beats only in the states where people are scarce, for the simple reason that the few people you do find there tend to be Republicans. One would think this widely accepted (if faulty) proposition would benefit Obama, since he hails from the sparsely populated state of Hawaii. But conservatives don't recognize Hawaii as the real America (Vermont has this problem, too) because its inhabitants tend to vote Democratic. Never mind that Hawaii was the most recent place in the United States to be attacked by a foreign power.

 

Noonan continues:

 

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country—any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

 

Noonan is beating about the bush here. When people complain that a flag pin is too often absent from Obama's lapel—and I am not convinced very many people do—it's for the same reason that Henry Ford complained that a yarmulke was too often present on Bernard Baruch's head. It's because they don't believe such people are one of us. Baruch was the Other because he was Jewish. Obama is the Other because his (largely absent) father was a foreigner from Kenya, because he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and the rest of it in Hawaii, and because his mother was, in the New York Times' words, "a free-spirited wanderer."

 

Noonan is ready for this line of attack:

 

Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness.

 

If you object to having your patriotism questioned on the basis of your religion, or your foreign parentage, or your having lived in a foreign country, or your having lived in Hawaii, or your harboring "lefty" beliefs, then according to Noonan you are "snooty." Calm down, Noonan says. I'm not questioning whether you're patriotic. I'm questioning whether you're patriotic enough. This is a distinction without a difference.

 

Then, of course, there's race. Is Noonan characterizing Obama as the Other because he's black? I'd find this interpretation hard to dismiss if Noonan hadn't already assured me, in her Journal column of Feb. 8, that

 

No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy—or professionally desirable—to take [Obama] down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

 

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

 

It seems to me that with this column the race has already gone "low," even if Noonan didn't mean to suggest that an African-American must be assumed unpatriotic until proven otherwise. Do you know what I love about America? I love that one isn't pestered on an hourly basis about one's presumed failure to be patriotic, or patriotic enough, or patriotic in the right way. We are a tolerant people who tend to judge all, including presidential candidates, as individuals. For the most part, anyway. An exception must be made for conservative pundits like Noonan who make their living by imagining the United States to be overrun with xenophobic, bigoted morons; who pretty up that misapprehension by calling it patriotism; and who then try to foment culture war in the name of these make-believe "real Americans." As to this latest litmus test, I doubt Obama has strong feelings one way or another about the prospectors who overran Sutter's Mill in 1849, though he may now be forced to pretend that he does. Why a grown woman, much less a member of the working press, should pose such an idiotic question is not easy to understand.

http://www.slate.com/id/2190129/

 

 

[NYU 0]

Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

 

Because North Carolina is all but unwinnable. She has a shot of taking Indiana.

 

Play up your strengths. Hide your weaknesses. It's Politics 101.

[SuperJerk 0]

Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

 

Probably because she's going to say that Indiana is more representative of the voting populace.

And it would be awesomely dumb of her to claim the state that is 90% white is more representative of a nation that is 74% white than the state that is 75% white.

 

Funny how she's pinning all her hopes and dreams on winning Indiana, and playing off the BIGGER state that is having its primary the exact same day as an acceptable loss. How does her strategy make anything close to sense anymore? She's gone off the fucking deep end.

 

Because North Carolina is all but unwinnable. She has a shot of taking Indiana.

 

Play up your strengths. Hide your weaknesses. It's Politics 101.

 

Its Politics 101 to lie your ass off. Its Insanity 101 to expect the superdelegates to buy such a ridiculous argument.

[At Home 0]

Ah, yes, D-Day, the poorly planned invasion of Europe which left hundreds dead because of a lack of coordination at the upper levels.

 

Ah, yes, Henry Ford, America's leading anti-semite in the roaring twenties. Woops, didn't read through the whole thing.

 

Has Noonan really studied up on her history?

 

Actually, I didn't like any of that. That was a good read, though.

[Firestarter 0]

It's strangely fascinating to watch one shit-stained monkey drag another shit-stained monkey back down into the pit.

Monkeys aside (!!!), I'm not going to defend Wright and I'm certainly not going to defend Farrakhan (as fondly as the Million Man March is remembered, the keynote speech by Farrakhan was the insane ramblings of a deluded mind). Obama said he didn't agree with Wright's crackpot ideas, and I beleive him.

Unfortunately for the Obamessiah...

 

Obama and his defenders have repeatedly insisted that the bits from Wright's sermons that got wide circulation last month had been taken "out of context." His infamous sound bites were grounded in concrete theological or factual foundations, they claim. He was quoting other people. He's done good things. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

And so God bless Wright because he's left all of these folks holding a giant, steaming bag of ... well, let's just call it a bag of "context."

 

Let's start with the news out of his speeches Sunday and Monday: Wright, Obama's mentor and former pastor, is worse than we thought. He's a bigot, at least by the standards usually reserved for white people such as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers or "The Bell Curve" author Charles Murray.

 

On Sunday in Detroit, he explained to 10,000 people at the Fight for Freedom Fund dinner of the NAACP -- an organization adept at taking offense at far less racist comments from nonblacks -- that whites have an inherent "left-brain cognitive, object-oriented learning style. Logical and analytical," while blacks "learn not from an object but from a subject. They are right-brain, subject-oriented in their learning style. That means creative and intuitive. The two worlds have different ways of learning."

 

Blacks even have better rhythm, Wright explained.

 

CNN carried the speech live, and news anchor Soledad O'Brien reported from the scene that it was "a home run."

 

Then, Monday morning at the National Press Club, Wright attempted to clear the air about all of the supposedly deceptive sound bites he's been reduced to.

 

So, does he stand by his "God damn America" statement?

 

Well, yeah. He explained that until American leaders apologize to Japan for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to black Americans for slavery and racism, we will remain a damnable nation.

 

What about that bit about America's chickens coming home to roost on 9/11? Yep, we heard him right. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it not to come back on you; those are biblical principles," he explained.

 

Asked whether he stood by his assertion that the U.S. government created HIV as part of a genocidal program to wipe out the black race, Wright mostly dodged but ultimately offered this nondenial denial: "I believe our government is capable of doing anything." He also offered a zesty defense of Louis Farrakhan -- "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century" -- and dismissed criticism of Farrakhan as an anti-Semite.

 

To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff "politicians say." They "do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." So much for Obama's new politics.

 

On Friday, Wright appeared on Bill Moyers' PBS TV show, in which Moyers all but shouted "Amen!" every time Wright took a breath. The impression viewers were supposed to take away: Wright is on the side of the angels, not like those "Swift-boating" crazies at Fox News.

 

But then Obama himself told "Fox News Sunday" that he considers Wright fair game -- as long as you don't quote him out of context.

 

It's a deal.

 

Wright is every bit as radical as his detractors claimed and explodes Obama's messianic rhetoric about standing foursquare against divisiveness. Which is why that chorus you hear rising up from the John McCain and Clinton campaigns sounds an awful lot like this: "God damn Jeremiah Wright? No, no, no: God bless Jeremiah Wright!"

- link

[NoCalMike 0]

How 'bout "ignore Jeremiah Wright" and move on to something that matters?

[The Niggardly King 0]

move on to something that matters?

 

like this

[snuffbox 0]

Jonah Goldberg, heh.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Obama 'outraged' by Wright's remarks

Link.

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said he is "outraged" by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made Monday at the National Press Club and is "saddened by the spectacle."

 

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

 

Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

 

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," Obama said, adding that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

 

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate." Video Watch Obama describe Wright's comments »

 

Obama said he did not think Wright's comments accurately portrayed the perspective of the black church and said they "certainly do not portray accurately" his own values and beliefs.

 

Throughout his campaign, Obama has said he wants to be a uniter, said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.

 

"Now Rev. Wright comes forward and says many intensely divisive things, particularly along racial lines. That's exactly the opposite of what Barack Obama is trying to achieve in his life and in his campaign, so he made a very powerful effort today to distance himself and denounce Rev. Wright's comments," Schneider said. Video Watch Bill Schneider analyze Obama's comments »

 

Dee Dee Myers, former White House press secretary in the Clinton administration, said Tuesday that Wright has been "so far out there the last couple of days, it's been easier for Obama to say 'this does not represent me, this is not who I am,' and to take a much firmer view ... I think Obama did the right thing."

 

GOP strategist Rich Galen also said Tuesday that Obama did the right thing in denouncing the statements. Galen said he would urge Obama to "get on the phone with, of all people, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, to say ... let's let this thing blow over."

 

Some of Wright's outspoken sermons, circulated and widely discussed on the Internet and on television, became an issue in the Democratic presidential race this year because of the former pastor's ties to Obama.

 

In one sermon, Wright said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself. In another, he said Sen. Hillary Clinton had an advantage over Obama because she is white.

 

Obama gave a speech on race relations during the height of the controversy with Wright and said he rejected Wright's racially charged comments but could not repudiate the man himself.

 

Obama said Monday that Wright's remarks were "antithetical to our campaign; it was antithetical to what we're about." Video Watch Obama denounce Wright's remarks »

 

"I cannot prevent him from making these remarks," but "when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts what I'm about and who I am. ... It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

 

In a break with previous comments, Obama focused his criticism on Wright the man, and not simply his remarks.

 

Obama said he gave Wright "the benefit of the doubt" before his speech on race relations.

 

"What we saw yesterday from Rev. Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of these old divisions," Obama said.

 

Obama said he did not see a transcript of Wright's remarks until Tuesday.

 

He said he had not spoken with Wright since the minister's Monday speech, though he would not rule out a conversation with him in the future.

 

Obama said his relationship with Wright may have suffered irreparable harm. "There's been great damage," he said. "It may have been unintentional on his part, but I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

 

Asked whether he would continue attending the church, Obama said "as of this point, I am a member of Trinity."

 

He said he still values the church's community but does not want to be a distraction for those who are worshiping.

 

On Monday, Clinton -- who had said she would not have remained a member of the church under similar circumstances -- focused her criticism over Wright on presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain.

 

Last week, the senator from Arizona told the North Carolina GOP not to run an ad linking the state's Democratic candidates for governor -- Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue, both Obama supporters -- to Wright.

 

Clinton criticized him for failing to do more to stop the ad.

 

"I regret the efforts by the Republicans to politicize this matter, and I believe that if Sen. McCain were serious he would do more than just send a letter," she said.

 

McCain said again Monday that he does "not believe that Sen. Obama shares Rev. Wright's extremist statements or views."

advertisement

 

McCain also said he would no longer get involved in such matters.

 

"I will not be a referee," he said.

 

Of course, this still probably won't be good enough to work for Obama's critics, I'm sure. Thankfully, most casual followers of the presidential elections aren't really clued in to all of this. I say this because a good deal of the amount of people I've talked to (in various states, FWIW) who are voting, have all said they know little to nothing about Wright's remarks. I know this doesn't mean much for the cable news network watchers, but it's not like the majority of Americans get their information from Fox News and MSNBC.

[Firestarter 0]

Jonah Goldberg, heh.

It's not just Jonah Goldberg.

[NoCalMike 0]

Quite frankly, I am tired of people being outraged, saddened, happy, angry, upset etc etc by Rev. Wright's comments. How about people start just not giving a flying fuck about his comments, agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevent, just stop giving a shit about them and let this coverage die the quick death it deserves. Seriously it is fucking trivial. The entire soap opera has gotten way more coverage then it deserves already.

[Firestarter 0]

let this coverage die the quick death it deserves

So you can get back to fellating your mulatto saint?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Quite frankly, I am tired of people being outraged, saddened, happy, angry, upset etc etc by Rev. Wright's comments. How about people start just not giving a flying fuck about his comments, agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevent, just stop giving a shit about them and let this coverage die the quick death it deserves. Seriously it is fucking trivial. The entire soap opera has gotten way more coverage then it deserves already.

 

Amen. The sad thing is that the Wright fiasco could well cost Obama Indiana in a close race (although he'll still win by a decent margin in North Carolina to offset it) and then we have to endure the media giving us b.s. spin about how the Clinton machine is in control of the Democratic primary now that it won that state.

 

This race, while competitive, has just done so much damage to both candidates. If Obama wins he's got to endure the Wright association for the general and if Hillary wins then she's basically going to have to rebuild her reach to the black community which probably will not work and that could well cost her the election. It would be interesting to see if Obama getting robbed of the nomination at the convention by super delegates could cause a great shift in the black vote back to the GOP.

 

It's also interesting to note how either candidate could affect Congressional races in 2008. The Democrats are banking on getting a veto proof majority in the Senate and making some more gains and a case I think that either candidate needs to make at this juncture is how they could help other candidates with the "coat-tail" effect. It's not an argument I've really heard yet from either side.

[NoCalMike 0]

let this coverage die the quick death it deserves

So you can get back to fellating your mulatto saint?

 

What the hell have I ever posted on this forum or anywhere else that suggests I "fellate" Obama? Obama has legit flaws and issues, no one is denying that(well not me anyway), but the Rev. Wright bullshit isn't a legit one, it is a sensationalist media snow job over just about nothing, but they can't help themselves over such trivial garbage, can they? If the same thing was happening to a conservative candidate I could just hear Marney and co. screaaaaaaming "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA LIBERAL MEDIA, THE LEFTIST BASTARDS THIS IS SUCH A NON ISSUE"

[Firestarter 0]

Actually, last I heard, NC was within 4 points. MOE.