Obama Win Now Inevitable?

[NeoRicen]

I was just looking at CNNs politics page and after Mississippi it shows the delegate count at:

Obama: 1608
Clinton: 1478

That gives Obama a 130 delegate lead. With the number of remaining delegates dwindling and only 400ish more needed for Obama (compared to 530ish for Clinton) is it even possible for Clinton to win anymore?

I'm not a US citizen so I'm quite unfamiliar with the process, so what's required for Clinton to get 2025 in terms of % in upcoming states. Even after Pennsylvania Clinton won't be ahead, how are the states after that polling?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Possible, however.. I doubt they'll call it now, as there are some 800 superdelgates. *sigh*

I dunno. Maybe something will happen between here and April.

[boloboffin]

The supers are waiting for the end of the primary/caucus process (June 3). At this point, they have to. Anything else would appear to disenfranchise the remaining states, and Florida/Michigan is enough on that front. I also think that neither candidate should drop out at this point (although the rhetoric should be dialed back from 11).

Hillary only enjoys a lead in supers right now because of her early "inevitable" status. Barack's momentum will probably assure him the nomination (Mississippi just erased any margin Hillary might have gained from Texas and Ohio, and Barack appears to have the edge in Texas delegates anyway).

The supers will then (by and large) go for the candidate with the most delegates. There will be no brokered convention. If Camp Hillary floats one more veep balloon Barack's way, his campaign should respond by releasing a short list of their veep candidates. As I see it, Obama/* is the Democratic ticket against McCain/*.

[Puppycow]

No. Rather, I think it's now almost certain that we cannot be sure until the convention. Because neither candidate can win on pledged delegates alone.
But he remains ahead.
The bettors (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html) favor him 76% to 23.6% for Clinton. Prior to March 4 he had been as high as 86% favored, so people think that March 4 increased Clinton's odds of winning. And Wyoming and Mississippi didn't seem to change the odds much, so I guess those wins were already factored into the price.
Obama will probably need something in the neighborhood of 340 to 380 superdelegates to vote for him. Now he has 211 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html).
Slate's delegate calculator (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) shows that it would very hard for Clinton to take an outright lead in pledged delegates (barring new contests for Michigan and Florida), but if she does very well for the remainder of the contests, that would be fresher in people's minds (including superdelegates) than what happened in February.

[IchabodPlain]

Hillary only enjoys a lead in supers right now because of her early "inevitable" status. Barack's momentum will probably assure him the nomination (Mississippi just erased any margin Hillary might have gained from Texas and Ohio, and Barack appears to have the edge in Texas delegates anyway).

Actually, since the TX caucuses broke heavily in Obama's favor, he ended up with slightly more delegates than Hillary:


Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/

Eta: Also, there are three important statistics Obama has going for him

1. He has won (thus far) the popular vote.

2. He has won more states than Hilary.

3. He will (almost certainly) end up with more delegates than Hilary.

[joobz]

Actually, since the TX caucuses broke heavily in Obama's favor, he ended up with slightly more delegates than Hillary:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/

Eta: Also, there are three important statistics Obama has going for him

1. He has won (thus far) the popular vote.

2. He has won more states than Hilary.

3. He will (almost certainly) end up with more delegates than Hilary.
And I do not know how reliable it is, but Howard Dean had said, while on the daily show, that the superdelegates are planning to vote for whoever wins the most delegates.

Obviosuly they are not required to do so, but it sounds like they do not want to cause even more controversy.

[Bododio]

According to Yahoo News this morning, Obama has accumulated 1364 pledged delegates so far to Clinton's 1218. Assuming that's true, a 146 delegate lead for Obama, and assuming there are 566 pledged delegates remaining in the 10 contests yet to be run, Clinton would have to get approximately 356 of them just to pull even with Obama. That calculates to almost 63 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.

I don't see Clinton winning the remaining contests by that margin, even if she is able to win all of the remaining contests. Unless something really dramatic happens along the way, it looks increasingly likely that Obama will go into the convention with the pledged delegate lead, and the lead in popular vote. Clinton's only hope will be with the superdelegates.

[TheChadd]

Won't all this change if there's a redo in Florida/Michigan which we'd presume would deliver more delegates for Hillary?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Won't all this change if there's a redo in Florida/Michigan which we'd presume would deliver more delegates for Hillary?

Assuming she won both, which seems likely, then yes.

However, would it make a big difference?

She won Ohio by a big margin (54% - 44%) and picked up a net gain of 9 pledged delegates out of 141 available.

Florida and Michigan have a total of about 313 delegates (based on figures on Wiki so may not be spot on). If she won both by a similar margin to her Ohio win, and extrapolating from her delegate gain there, she might close the gap by 20 or so pledged delegates. (It may be that this does not give an accurate projection of how the delegates would split due to different allocation rules in different states so treat with a pinch of salt).

[NeoRicen]

Assuming she won both, which seems likely, then yes.

However, would it make a big difference?

She won Ohio by a big margin (54% - 44%) and picked up a net gain of 9 pledged delegates out of 141 available.

Florida and Michigan have a total of about 313 delegates (based on figures on Wiki so may not be spot on). If she won both by a similar margin to her Ohio win, and extrapolating from her delegate gain there, she might close the gap by 20 or so pledged delegates. (It may be that this does not give an accurate projection of how the delegates would split due to different allocation rules in different states so treat with a pinch of salt).
That's the thing, even a win in a big state now, while giving you a lot of delegates, doesn't actually give you much of a lead over your opponent.

[TheChadd]

Assuming she won both, which seems likely, then yes.

However, would it make a big difference?

She won Ohio by a big margin (54% - 44%) and picked up a net gain of 9 pledged delegates out of 141 available.

Florida and Michigan have a total of about 313 delegates (based on figures on Wiki so may not be spot on). If she won both by a similar margin to her Ohio win, and extrapolating from her delegate gain there, she might close the gap by 20 or so pledged delegates. (It may be that this does not give an accurate projection of how the delegates would split due to different allocation rules in different states so treat with a pinch of salt).

Plus we'd assume that PA is going to be another big state to deliver for her, so we could very well see her being on top of the delegate count, right?

So basically if:

- MI, FL have a re-do.
- She wins in MI, FL, PA by a decent amount.

She will be in the lead and take the nomination.... I can see a lot of people getting angry about this though. IMO if this happens, the democrats will be absolutely fractured and Hillary will lose to McCain.

[mortimer]

Plus we'd assume that PA is going to be another big state to deliver for her, so we could very well see her being on top of the delegate count, right?

So basically if:

- MI, FL have a re-do.
- She wins in MI, FL, PA by a decent amount.

She will be in the lead and take the nomination.... I can see a lot of people getting angry about this though. IMO if this happens, the democrats will be absolutely fractured and Hillary will lose to McCain.

I would think it would take more than just a "decent amount" in those 3 states for Clinton to catch up. I'm not saying these are definitive numbers, but there are about 470 pledged delegates between the three states, and Clinton's behind by about 130. She'd have to win about 300 of those 470 delegates to catch Obama. She'd probably have to win by 25-30% (that'd be about 63% to Obama's 37%) in all three to do that. I can't imagine that happens without an Obama scandal surfacing.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I was just looking at CNNs politics page and after Mississippi it shows the delegate count at:

Obama: 1608
Clinton: 1478

That gives Obama a 130 delegate lead. With the number of remaining delegates dwindling and only 400ish more needed for Obama (compared to 530ish for Clinton) is it even possible for Clinton to win anymore?

I'm not a US citizen so I'm quite unfamiliar with the process, so what's required for Clinton to get 2025 in terms of % in upcoming states. Even after Pennsylvania Clinton won't be ahead, how are the states after that polling?


The Democratic leadership will pick the nominee. The current system was created to prevent another McGovern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Plus we'd assume that PA is going to be another big state to deliver for her, so we could very well see her being on top of the delegate count, right?

So basically if:

- MI, FL have a re-do.
- She wins in MI, FL, PA by a decent amount.

She will be in the lead and take the nomination.... I can see a lot of people getting angry about this though. IMO if this happens, the democrats will be absolutely fractured and Hillary will lose to McCain.

Not going to happen. Michigan is polling at about 50-50. And Pennsylvania isn't such a huge win. If you look at the polls, it is Clinton 50% to Obama 37%. She can only get 0 delegate net gain to a maximum of 38. That isn't nearly enough to overtake Obama's lead, which varies depending on the source but all agree to be well over 100. Also, if Florida is seated as is, Hillary only gets a net gain of 31 delegates.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not going to happen. Michigan is polling at about 50-50. And Pennsylvania isn't such a huge win. If you look at the polls, it is Clinton 50% to Obama 37%. She can only get 0 delegate net gain to a maximum of 38. That isn't nearly enough to overtake Obama's lead, which varies depending on the source but all agree to be well over 100. Also, if Florida is seated as is, Hillary only gets a net gain of 31 delegates.

It all depends on the party leadership, exact vote counts do not matter.

If they see her winning the large electoral states she will be the nominee regardless of pledged delegates.


They have memories of McGovern.

[TheChadd]

Not going to happen. Michigan is polling at about 50-50. And Pennsylvania isn't such a huge win. If you look at the polls, it is Clinton 50% to Obama 37%. She can only get 0 delegate net gain to a maximum of 38. That isn't nearly enough to overtake Obama's lead, which varies depending on the source but all agree to be well over 100. Also, if Florida is seated as is, Hillary only gets a net gain of 31 delegates.

But with Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania she'll probably have the greater % of the popular vote right? I can see party insiders going with her on the basis of that and that she's won the bigger states. It'll ruin their election chances though.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

But with Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania she'll probably have the greater % of the popular vote right? I can see party insiders going with her on the basis of that and that she's won the bigger states. It'll ruin their election chances though.

I dunno. In Florida she got about 300,000 more votes. Obama has over 700,000 lead. Not sure what the Penn. turnout will be.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Plus we'd assume that PA is going to be another big state to deliver for her, so we could very well see her being on top of the delegate count, right?

So basically if:

- MI, FL have a re-do.
- She wins in MI, FL, PA by a decent amount.

She will be in the lead and take the nomination....

In a word, nope.

She would need to win each not by a decent amount but by a massive amount to end up ahead in pledged delegates. Ohio made a difference of 9 in what was a "big win" for her by 10%. scale up from 141 delegates to 470ish for MI, FL, PA and assume the same margin and she close the gap by 30.

She is currently around 130 behind. So even assuming she wins all three by a decent amount, she is still 100 behind.

[NeoRicen]

So the only way for Clinton to win is to persuade the superdelegates to defy the popular vote?

It seems to me she's pretty much screwed then. If the remaining superdelegates wanted Clinton to win so badly over Obama even if he got the popular vote they would have already endorsed her.

[timhau]

I dunno. In Florida she got about 300,000 more votes. Obama has over 700,000 lead.

...and that doesn't include numbers from 4 caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html), of which Obama won 3.

[Jimbo07]

...and that doesn't include numbers from 4 caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html), of which Obama won 3.

Wut diffrence tween primary n caucus?

(for us non-USAianites)

[Brainster]

Wut diffrence tween primary n caucus?

(for us non-USAianites)

Primaries are just like regular elections. You go into a polling place during voting hours (typically about a 12-hour period), fill in your ballot, submit it and go home. Caucuses are more like conventions, where you show up at a specified time, listen to speeches by candidate surrogates, then vote. In many, perhaps most caucuses, votes are public, not private (unlike primaries), and the process can take several hours as compared to primaries, where one can easily be in and out in ten minutes. Caucuses tend to draw the more committed party regulars where primaries (because of the simpler nature) draw from a broader spectrum of the electorate.

[Jimbo07]

Caucuses tend to draw the more committed party regulars where primaries (because of the simpler nature) draw from a broader spectrum of the electorate.

Do you need to be a registered member of the party to vote in a caucus?

[Dr Adequate]

Do you need to be a registered member of the party to vote in a caucus? Yes, but it varies in technical details.

In Hawaii, for example, you had to be a registered Democrat to caucus, but you were allowed to register at the door.

In Texas, you had to prove that you'd voted Democrat in the primaries before you could caucus.

Under the American constitution, each party in each state could in principle elect its delegates by doing "eeney-meeney-miney-mo". In practice, each state comes up with its own idea of what is fair and reasonable, which varies from state to state.

[BenBurch]

I dunno. In Florida she got about 300,000 more votes. Obama has over 700,000 lead. Not sure what the Penn. turnout will be.

Florida does not count as ONLY Clinton campaigned there due to the ban.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Florida does not count as ONLY Clinton campaigned there due to the ban.

The Democratic party gets to decide what counts.

[BenBurch]

The Democratic party gets to decide what counts.

They get to decide what the rules are, and they did that. But what I meant was that you cannot use that tally as a measure of popular support as it was structurally biased.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They get to decide what the rules are, and they did that. But what I meant was that you cannot use that tally as a measure of popular support as it was structurally biased.

You have not been following politics very long, have you?


The Democratic party will CHOOSE the candidate which it thinks will win the general election.

The primaries and caucuses are a show to drum up support for the CHOSEN candidate.

[Spindrift]

You have not been following politics very long, have you?


The Democratic party will CHOOSE the candidate which it thinks will win the general election.

The primaries and caucuses are a show to drum up support for the CHOSEN candidate.

The Republican party should probably take some lessons from the Democrats then, because it didn't work out that way for them.

[Dr Adequate]

You have not been following politics very long, have you?


The Democratic party will CHOOSE the candidate which it thinks will win the general election.

The primaries and caucuses are a show to drum up support for the CHOSEN candidate. IIRC, you believe that the "CHOSEN candidate" is Hillary, yes?

We are so going to have the laugh on you, my friend.

[Dr Adequate]

The Republican party should probably take some lessons from the Democrats then, because it didn't work out that way for them. Oh, you are so naive. Obviously John McCain was chosen by the Illuminati and the Reptilians and the Evil Joos ... but they pretended that he wasn't the chosen candidate so as to fool the sheeple into voting for him.

They're always one step ahead, and whatever happens is always exactly what they wanted.

Even JEROME DA GNOME, did he but know it, poor fool, is just an innocent pawn in their little game.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

IIRC, you believe that the "CHOSEN candidate" is Hillary, yes?

We are so going to have the laugh on you, my friend.

You are going to laugh if someone is wrong? Rather sandbox, is that not? Besides, my being wrong about which candidate is ultimately chosen by the party leadership does not invalidate the fact that the party leadership chooses the candidate which they believe is the best candidate for the general election. The current system is designed to prevent another McGovern.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh, you are so naive. Obviously John McCain was chosen by the Illuminati and the Reptilians and the Evil Joos ... but they pretended that he wasn't the chosen candidate so as to fool the sheeple into voting for him.

They're always one step ahead, and whatever happens is always exactly what they wanted.

Even JEROME DA GNOME, did he but know it, poor fool, is just an innocent pawn in their little game.

Here is a starting point for your education in the Democratic choosing process.

George McGovern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern)

Equating a major party choosing its candidate with Reptilian CT is about as weak an argument as could be made. Try some education about the American political process before engaging in such silliness.

[Upchurch]

The current system is designed to prevent another McGovern.
I've been thinking about this. Are either Obama or Clinton "another McGovern"?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I've been thinking about this. Are either Obama or Clinton "another McGovern"?

It is the opinion of the party leadership which matters. Neither of these candidates may be another McGovern. The point is the system is designed so that the party leadership chooses the candidate.

ETA: McGovern was just the reason that the party created the current system of leadership choice. They wanted to prevent the voters from choosing a poor candidate in the primaries.

[Upchurch]

They wanted to prevent the voters from choosing a poor candidate in the primaries.
Well, all the more reason for them to back Obama. :D


ba-dump-bump

[mortimer]

It is the opinion of the party leadership which matters. Neither of these candidates may be another McGovern. The point is the system is designed so that the party leadership chooses the candidate.

ETA: McGovern was just the reason that the party created the current system of leadership choice. They wanted to prevent the voters from choosing a poor candidate in the primaries.

So, is there any evidence that the party leadership is going to communicate with one another and decide how each superdelegate will vote?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, all the more reason for them to back Obama. :D


ba-dump-bump


I acknowledge that they could come to this conclusion. I still think there are too many racists within the Democratic party leadership to allow it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, is there any evidence that the party leadership is going to communicate with one another and decide how each superdelegate will vote?

That is how the process works. You are familiar with politics, are you not? The system was set-up for this express purpose. I am sorry to say, but your question is ridiculous.

[Jimbo07]

The Democratic party will CHOOSE the candidate which it thinks will win the general election.


I won't comment on the correctness of this (because I don't know), but shouldn't it be this way? At a Canadian party's convention, they wrangle and vote multiple times, but only registered party members may vote, and the ability to win elections is one consideration...

[mortimer]

That is how the process works. You are familiar with politics, are you not? The system was set-up for this express purpose. I am sorry to say, but your question is ridiculous.

No, it's not. Just because the system is set up so the superdelegates CAN choose the candidate (if the race is close enough in pledged delegates) doesn't mean they WILL choose the candidate. To prove the latter, you must prove that the superdelegates are in some sort of collusion. You've provided no evidence to this end other than your proclamation that it is so.

[Dr Adequate]

You are going to laugh if someone is wrong? Well, yes.

You've come out with this CT crap about how Whoever It Is Who Is Actually In Charge is going to fix the election for Hillary.

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.

When he does, I will bump this thread and laugh at you. Such is life.

[Bododio]

According to Yahoo News this morning, Obama has 1364 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1218, a difference of 146 infavor of Obama. Assuming there are 566 pledged delgates (PD) remaining in the contests yet to be run, to catch Obama, Clinton would have to get 356 of them, or about 63 percent.

Let's assume that FL (186) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 50 to 33 (remember Edwards was still in the game then, and he got 14 percent). This would give Clinton 93 PDs and Obama 61 PDs, net gain of 32 for Clinton. The new PD total would be 1425 for Obama and 1311 for Clinton, a difference of 114. Assuming the same 566 PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need 340 of them, or 60 percent.

Now let's assume that MI (128) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 55 percent. Neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot, so I have to conjecture a little. I'll assume that Obama would have gotten 32 percent of the vote. These assumptions give 70 PDs to Clinton and 41 to Obama, net gain of 29 for Clinton. Adding this to the FL results shows Obama still in the lead, 1466 for him and 1381 for Clinton, a difference of 85. Assuming the same 566 remaining PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need about 325 of them, or about 58 percent.

Without the sky otherwise falling in on Obama, a scenario such as this must be what Clinton is hoping for. I'm being generous to Clinton in my assumptions, just to see what a best case might be for her campaign. If FL and MI PDs are seated according to the above scenario, she might have an outside chance of drawing close in PD count before the convention.

Current polls in PA give Clinton the lead 52 percent, to Obama's 36. Not enough to close the gap significantly. And I just read that MI, unlike FL, is close to deciding to run another primary. A current poll has Obama and Clinton pretty much neck and neck at 41 percent each, with 18 percent undecided. Assuming the PDs in MI get split fairly evenly, the scenario for Clinton is not as good as she needs.

The numbers, even generously allocated, do not add up for Clinton. She either has to be hoping for some bombshell dirt to surface on Obama, or that somehow she can argue her way to nomination at a brokered convention.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, yes.

You've come out with this CT crap about how Whoever It Is Who Is Actually In Charge is going to fix the election for Hillary.

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.

When he does, I will bump this thread and laugh at you. Such is life.

I see your misunderstanding about the process.

It is not an election, it is a party nomination.

Political parties choosing their nominee is not a CT.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I won't comment on the correctness of this (because I don't know), but shouldn't it be this way? At a Canadian party's convention, they wrangle and vote multiple times, but only registered party members may vote, and the ability to win elections is one consideration...

Exactly, it is the purpose of the party to CHOOSE its nominee. The rules for this process were changed in the Democratic party to prevent the people from choosing a bad candidate like McGovern.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, it's not. Just because the system is set up so the superdelegates CAN choose the candidate (if the race is close enough in pledged delegates) doesn't mean they WILL choose the candidate. To prove the latter, you must prove that the superdelegates are in some sort of collusion. You've provided no evidence to this end other than your proclamation that it is so.

If you do not understand that politics is necessarily collusion than I know you are extremely misinformed. Shall I evidence for you that cartoons are just drawings as well?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now let's assume that MI (128) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 55 percent. Neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot, so I have to conjecture a little. I'll assume that Obama would have gotten 32 percent of the vote. These assumptions give 70 PDs to Clinton and 41 to Obama, net gain of 29 for Clinton. Adding this to the FL results shows Obama still in the lead, 1466 for him and 1381 for Clinton, a difference of 85. Assuming the same 566 remaining PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need about 325 of them, or about 58 percent.

Obama received zero votes in MI.

[mortimer]

If you do not understand that politics is necessarily collusion than I know you are extremely misinformed.

So you have no evidence but your own proclamation that superdelegates are colluding to choose the Democrat's candidate. Gotcha.

[GStan]

Obama received zero votes in MI.

Holy mackerel! Zero votes. I gotta get hold of his stump speech transcripts from Michigan. Was he sacrificing little puppies or something? Zero votes is...er...well....that's not alot.

It clearly doesn't matter though. As the party leadership can give all the Michigan delegates to Obama to help prevent an undesirable Hillary candidacy.

[Dr Adequate]

I see your misunderstanding about the process. Wrong.

It is not an election, it is a party nomination. Which involves elections. These are what we call "pri-ma-ries".

Political parties choosing their nominee is not a CT. However, your whacky CT is a CT.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Holy mackerel! Zero votes. I gotta get hold of his stump speech transcripts from Michigan. Was he sacrificing little puppies or something? Zero votes is...er...well....that's not alot.

It clearly doesn't matter though. As the party leadership can give all the Michigan delegates to Obama to help prevent an undesirable Hillary candidacy.

He was not on the ballot. He received zero votes.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because Michigan and Florida are nonraces.

[GStan]

He was not on the ballot. He received zero votes.

Thank you, I understood, I was just being a smart@ss. His zero votes are on equal footing with Hillary's 328,000 as far as delegates are concerned because the contest proceeded on the pretense that the delegates would not be seated. Those votes are irrelevant. I feel for the voters in those states who have effectively lost their voice, but the time to raise a stink about it was when the primary was moved, despite a totally unambiguous warning that the result of moving the primary would be that the voters would effectively lose their voice.

[Bododio]

Obama received zero votes in MI.
I agree that in the primary already held, Obama received no votes. And neither candidate received any delegates. The purpose of my scenario was to show how difficult it would be for Clinton to catch Obama even if somehow the Michigan PDs were split in Clinton's favor. I used some percentages as examples. For Clinton, I factored her winning percentage in the already-held primary. For Obama I conjectured a percentage that might have occurred had he been on the ballot.

Such a scenario could potentially happen if Michigan holds another primary.

[Brainster]

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.


And the New England Patriots were going to win the Super Bowl. Obama is more likely to win the nomination than Hillary; that's certainly true. But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. InTrade (http://www.intrade.com) has Obama at around 75%, with Hillary at about 25%. That strikes me as about right. Chris Bowers is a major liberal blogger who supports Obama, but says (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4548):

Without a single more superdelegate making an endorsement, it is still possible for Clinton to move pretty close in the delegate count. I presented this case yesterday in a table projecting future delegate counts based on current polling in remaining states, which shows Clinton down by 79 delegates when all the voting is completed. However, it should be pointed out that it is also possible for Clinton to surpass current delegate projections and polling. She could, for example, net 18 more delegates in Michigan, 16 more delegates in PA, 12 more in Indiana, 10 more in Florida, 6 more in North Carolina, 4 more in both Puerto Rico and Oregon, and 2 more in West Virginia, Montana, and Kentucky. All told, that would put her within three delegates of Obama. If that winning streak also results in her winning the national popular vote, then she would have an overwhelming argument to bring to superdelegates based on both momentum and the popular will.

Again, I see Obama as more likely to be the nominee, but this notion that he's got it in the bag is a trifle unrealistic. Of course it's more realistic than Jerome's fantasy, but I'm sure you'll agree that's setting the bar low.

[Dr Adequate]

Again, I see Obama as more likely to be the nominee, but this notion that he's got it in the bag is a trifle unrealistic. Of course it's more realistic than Jerome's fantasy, but I'm sure you'll agree that's setting the bar low. I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

And in practice, Obama is going to win. He'd have to be caught in bed with an entire teenage male voice choir to lose. If I'm wrong, you can bump this thread. But I'm not.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thank you, I understood, I was just being a smart@ss. His zero votes are on equal footing with Hillary's 328,000 as far as delegates are concerned because the contest proceeded on the pretense that the delegates would not be seated. Those votes are irrelevant. I feel for the voters in those states who have effectively lost their voice, but the time to raise a stink about it was when the primary was moved, despite a totally unambiguous warning that the result of moving the primary would be that the voters would effectively lose their voice.

Is the Democratic party ready to disenfranchise voters?

Those voters votes don't count?

Sounds like 2000. :blush:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because Michigan and Florida are nonraces.

Disenfranchising voters?

[T.A.M.]

As sad as it is for me to say this...Obama is finished. The Preacher thing combined with the talk show ass****s will ensure Obama goes down with Rev. Wright.

Well done...well done.

Good luck with McCain in 2008.

TAM:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

I never said such a thing.

Why are you creating silly straw-men to blow? See below for the answer.

You are a liar because the reality hitting you in the face about YOUR candidate does not sit well.



Your presentation is not adequate, this is understandable because your emotions are confounded by facts. I forgive you.

[NeoRicen]

As sad as it is for me to say this...Obama is finished. The Preacher thing combined with the talk show ass****s will ensure Obama goes down with Rev. Wright.

Well done...well done.

Good luck with McCain in 2008.

TAM:)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

He's already condemned him. I doubt it will hurt him much, it would if he pulled a Hillary and didn't repudiate him.

[NeoRicen]

As sad as it is for me to say this...Obama is finished. The Preacher thing combined with the talk show ass****s will ensure Obama goes down with Rev. Wright.

Well done...well done.

Good luck with McCain in 2008.

TAM:)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

He's already condemned him. I doubt it will hurt him much, it would if he pulled a Hillary and didn't repudiate him.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

He's already condemned him. I doubt it will hurt him much, it would if he pulled a Hillary and didn't repudiate him.

No condemnation of the Rev in that article. Did you mean to link to a different article?

[Dr Adequate]

I never said such a thing. I exaggerate for comic effect. You have, however, said something awfully like that.

Why are you creating silly straw-men to blow? See below for the answer.

You are a liar because the reality hitting you in the face about YOUR candidate does not sit well.



Your presentation is not adequate, this is understandable because your emotions are confounded by facts. I forgive you. And now back to the real world, where my candidate is winning.

[Brainster]

I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

Yes.

And in practice, Obama is going to win. He'd have to be caught in bed with an entire teenage male voice choir to lose. If I'm wrong, you can bump this thread. But I'm not.

I'm not trying to score points on you and I'll not bump the thread for gloating purposes. My point is that you should not count the chickens while they're still in the eggshell. This race has been extraordinarily fast and now there's going to be a month where nobody wins anything significant. The war is going to be about stuff undiscovered to date, and guess whom that favors? Hillary and McCain have been well-picked over by the national media, so Barack gets the front and center treatment. Hello, Rev. Wright!

[mortimer]

I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

No, Jerome is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will conspire to hand it to whoever they conspire to give it to. If Obama wins, the party elite conspired to make sure he wins. If Clinton wins, the party elite conspired to make sure she wins. He can't be wrong! Classic CT mentality.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, Jerome is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will conspire to hand it to whoever they conspire to give it to. If Obama wins, the party elite conspired to make sure he wins. If Clinton wins, the party elite conspired to make sure she wins. He can't be wrong! Classic CT mentality.

Some people on this forum have spent way too much time in the conspiracy theory threads. They see CT everywhere they look!


ETA: Just because you are not understanding the politics of the circumstance does not mean that you should create straw-men to blow.

[Elind]

After seeing the racist bigot who is Obama's "Spiritual" adviser (whatever the hell that means) dance while being slapped on the back by flunkies, I would hold in contempt anyone who votes for him to lead our country.

[T.A.M.]

So if the term is vague enough that you refer to it as "whatever the hell that means", why do you attach such a direct link of character and judgment between this preacher and Obama, that you would hold anyone who votes for him in contempt?

I mean if "spiritual adviser" to you, is some nebulous, vague term of little value or consequence, then why should what this man says have any bearing on how we relate or feel about Obama?

Obama has denounced this man, and said he denounces and disagrees with the views he expressed in the extreme. Now if you are calling Obama a liar about this, then fine, that is your opinion, which I feel is wrong. If not, if you feel Obama's denouncement is genuine, then what more would you have the man do?

Let me guess, drop out of the race?

TAM:)

[GStan]

Is the Democratic party ready to disenfranchise voters?

Those voters votes don't count?

Sounds like 2000. :blush:

The voters, or at least their elected representatives, in MI and FL knew that their votes would not count (that is, their delegates would not be seated), if they chose to move their primaries to the dates they were held. They knew in advance and moved them anyway. They disenfranchised themselves.

[Elind]

So if the term is vague enough that you refer to it as "whatever the hell that means", why do you attach such a direct link of character and judgment between this preacher and Obama, that you would hold anyone who votes for him in contempt?

I mean if "spiritual adviser" to you, is some nebulous, vague term of little value or consequence, then why should what this man says have any bearing on how we relate or feel about Obama?

Obama has denounced this man, and said he denounces and disagrees with the views he expressed in the extreme. Now if you are calling Obama a liar about this, then fine, that is your opinion, which I feel is wrong. If not, if you feel Obama's denouncement is genuine, then what more would you have the man do?

Let me guess, drop out of the race?

TAM:)

I don't know what you have seen, but I saw Obama's face, and heard his quavering voice, trying to distance himself from 20 years of Presidential aspiration competence claims.

He sounded like a schoolboy caught associated with school vandals and explaining how he wasn't really involved.

This is the man you defend for candidacy of the Presidency of the United States of America????

For 20 years this insightful, intelligent prospective leader of the of the only Super Power on this planet hadn't figured out that his spiritual adviser (whatever the hell that means) was a raving racist living in the past and wanting to foment the same hatreds that so many decent Americans thought they had moved past; and proved it by voting for the little man and his angry wife???

I listened with disgust at the venom coming from that little man of some god, and I have NEVER encountered that in my personal experience which does not include any insulated "white" sanctuaries, in case you are tempted to offer a quip.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't know what you have seen, but I saw Obama's face, and heard his quavering voice, trying to distance himself from 20 years of Presidential aspiration competence claims.

He sounded like a schoolboy caught associated with school vandals and explaining how he wasn't really involved.

This is the man you defend for candidacy of the Presidency of the United States of America????

For 20 years this insightful, intelligent prospective leader of the of the only Super Power on this planet hadn't figured out that his spiritual adviser (whatever the hell that means) was a raving racist living in the past and wanting to foment the same hatreds that so many decent Americans thought they had moved past; and proved it by voting for the little man and his angry wife???

I listened with disgust at the venom coming from that little man of some god, and I have NEVER encountered that in my personal experience which does not include any insulated "white" sanctuaries, in case you are tempted to offer a quip.




LOL, I'm sure your biases weren't at all involved in your conclusions based on Obama's facial expression :rolleyes: . What made you think he was a raving racist? I didn't hear him saying blacks were superior to whites.

[TriskettheKid]

I don't know what you have seen, but I saw Obama's face, and heard his quavering voice, trying to distance himself from 20 years of Presidential aspiration competence claims.

He sounded like a schoolboy caught associated with school vandals and explaining how he wasn't really involved.

This is the man you defend for candidacy of the Presidency of the United States of America????

For 20 years this insightful, intelligent prospective leader of the of the only Super Power on this planet hadn't figured out that his spiritual adviser (whatever the hell that means) was a raving racist living in the past and wanting to foment the same hatreds that so many decent Americans thought they had moved past; and proved it by voting for the little man and his angry wife???

I listened with disgust at the venom coming from that little man of some god, and I have NEVER encountered that in my personal experience which does not include any insulated "white" sanctuaries, in case you are tempted to offer a quip.




Yes, yes he is.

I don't want McCain. I don't want Hillary.

I don't care about what his pastor thinks, so long as it doesn't manifest in what Obama says or does.

Reagan talked to an ASTROLOGER when making decisions. I find that to be quite a bit more worrisome than Obama's pastor making some ridiculous claims.

[Elind]

LOL, I'm sure your biases weren't at all involved in your conclusions based on Obama's facial expression :rolleyes: . What made you think he was a raving racist? I didn't hear him saying blacks were superior to whites.

I am disappointed in your response. I said no such thing, even while I think I can detect squirm in a person, while you can't.

It is his pastor and confidant of 20 years who said not what you suggest, but instead that the evil whites are responsible for aids, drugs, illegally winning WWII and even more. Clearly you have not bothered to pay attention even as you post this comment or you you would have had a more relevant comment.

What matters is the capacity of personal judgment of the one who wants to be our leader (the Decider according to present self declared naming).

I think 20 years of ignoring the obvious is a bad reference. Real bad.

[Elind]

I don't care about what his pastor thinks, so long as it doesn't manifest in what Obama says or does.



Does it manifest, even conceivably, in what he thinks, or are you one of those who only accepts whatever you hear?

Perhaps that doesn't matter to you. Any old excuse will do as long as it is said.

[TriskettheKid]

Does it manifest, even conceivably, in what he thinks, or are you one of those who only accepts whatever you hear?

Perhaps that doesn't matter to you. Any old excuse will do as long as it is said.

So long as what the pastor has said doesn't manifest itself in Obama's actions or statements, or anything qualitative, what does it matter?

Again, Reagan would actually consult, and take the advice of, an astrologer when making decisions.

So, let me ask you:

What has Obama done, or said, or written, that has shown that his pastor is going to have undue influence on Obama or his Presidency?

[Elind]

So long as what the pastor has said doesn't manifest itself in Obama's actions or statements, or anything qualitative, what does it matter?

:eye-poppi

It matters in a matter of judgment, and it matters in that if he could not detect obvious, dare I say obscene, racism and conspiratorial woo woo that Randi himself would have a hay day with were it not so politically connected (you do know what forum you are on, don't you?); yet you say "what does it matter". Please don't vote.

Again, Reagan would actually consult, and take the advice of, an astrologer when making decisions.


As a skeptic, alleged, do you consider your basis of analysis of any given situation to be that of finding some possibly worse example, and then claiming that the present one must be OK if lesser (in your opinion)?


So, let me ask you:

What has Obama done, or said, or written, that has shown that his pastor is going to have undue influence on Obama or his Presidency?

You ask, clearly, the wrong irrelevant question. Please try again.

[TriskettheKid]

It matters in a matter of judgment, and it matters in that if he could not detect obvious, dare I say obscene, racism and conspiratorial woo woo that Randi himself would have a hay day with were it not so politically connected (you do know what forum you are on, don't you?); yet you say "what does it matter". Please don't vote.

First off, please ditch the arrogance. It gets in the way of your argument.

And yes, what does it matter? Can you show that Obama actually agrees with everything his pastor said? Can you conclusively show that Obama is a believer in the woo?

If you can't, then I'm thinking you're being awfully quick to judge.

As a skeptic, alleged, do you consider your basis of analysis of any given situation to be that of finding some possibly worse example, and then claiming that the present one must be OK if lesser (in your opinion)?

Are you always so quick to jump to conclusions?

That doesn't seem like something an alleged skeptic would do. You do know which forums you're posting on, correct?

You ask, clearly, the wrong irrelevant question. Please try again.

Based on what?

Maybe you didn't understand, so I'll post the question again:


What has Obama done, or said, or written, that has shown that his pastor is going to have undue influence on Obama or his Presidency?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am disappointed in your response. I said no such thing, even while I think I can detect squirm in a person, while you can't.

It is his pastor and confidant of 20 years who said not what you suggest, but instead that the evil whites are responsible for aids, drugs, illegally winning WWII and even more. Clearly you have not bothered to pay attention even as you post this comment or you you would have had a more relevant comment.

What matters is the capacity of personal judgment of the one who wants to be our leader (the Decider according to present self declared naming).

I think 20 years of ignoring the obvious is a bad reference. Real bad.

There is this thing we call a definition, and I don't think that saying those things count as being a "raving racist" under the definition. I think you are goin to need to give me complete quotes, because I don't recall reading those things. I believe he called the atom bombings terrorism, which I don't think raving or racist. And for the drug thing, while his rhetoric was high, it is a fair criticism to say that the formulation of drug laws had a racist streak. I would be interested to see what his whole positions are, rather than a one sentence quotes given in speeches.

As for him saying "God Damn America", I think he does have a point. America's history has hardly been as grand as the statement "God Bless America" would lead one to believe. He just said it in a very over the top way, which I won't hold against him.

And even if he did have really weird ideas, sometimes you overlook them because of other things. Obama liked what the church did in ministering and outreach. He was Obama's spiritual advisor, not historical or political. You can be great in one area and a complete loon in another. In fact, Obama did compare him to an old uncle, he likes him for other things than these more controversial statements.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What has Obama done, or said, or written, that has shown that his pastor is going to have undue influence on Obama or his Presidency?

He used his line for the title of his book, so clearly he believes that the bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism :rolleyes: .

[Redtail]

I know this is directed towards TAM but...

I don't know what you have seen, but I saw Obama's face, and heard his quavering voice, trying to distance himself from 20 years of Presidential aspiration competence claims.

He sounded like a schoolboy caught associated with school vandals and explaining how he wasn't really involved.

That may be what you think but you're wrong.

This is the man you defend for candidacy of the Presidency of the United States of America????

I tend not to make a decision on that until the final two candidates are chosen but I am leaning towards Obama at the moment.


For 20 years this insightful, intelligent prospective leader of the of the only Super Power on this planet hadn't figured out that his spiritual adviser (whatever the hell that means) was a raving racist living in the past and wanting to foment the same hatreds that so many decent Americans thought they had moved past; and proved it by voting for the little man and his angry wife???

Yes, even intelligent, good, honest people can make mistakes.


I listened with disgust at the venom coming from that little man of some god, and I have NEVER encountered that in my personal experience which does not include any insulated "white" sanctuaries, in case you are tempted to offer a quip.

I've listened in disgust to a lot of things actual politicians themselves have said... what's your point?

[Elind]

First off, please ditch the arrogance. It gets in the way of your argument.

It is not arrogance. It is impatience with people who can't hold a discussion on a topic, like you.

And yes, what does it matter? Can you show that Obama actually agrees with everything his pastor said? Can you conclusively show that Obama is a believer in the woo?

You clearly don't pay attention when something obscures your preconceptions. It is not a matter of proving what he agrees with, it is a matter of ignoring what he (hopefully) doesn't agree with for 20 years. That is not presidential material.



If you can't, then I'm thinking you're being awfully quick to judge.

Not half as quick as you are to judge by closing your brain.



Are you always so quick to jump to conclusions?

Give me a reason to not make a conclusion. You sound like a professional apologist.

That doesn't seem like something an alleged skeptic would do. You do know which forums you're posting on, correct?


Don't try the smartass quip. It's tiresome.


Based on what?

Maybe you didn't understand, so I'll post the question again:


What has Obama done, or said, or written, that has shown that his pastor is going to have undue influence on Obama or his Presidency?

You already asked that, as you said, yet you ignore the entire response. That is not the question. The question is a matter of judgment. Clearly he has little awareness of what surrounds him, and that is a kind evaluation.

[TriskettheKid]

Wow, Elind. Wow.

Thank you. You've really opened my eyes. I had no idea that the ignore function was so useful until I met you.

[Elind]

There is this thing we call a definition, and I don't think that saying those things count as being a "raving racist" under the definition. I think you are goin to need to give me complete quotes, because I don't recall reading those things.

You should watch more TV, or at least go to Utube. The little turd was obscene and I saw him. Try to be a better educated apologist.

I believe he called the atom bombings terrorism, which I don't think raving or racist. And for the drug thing, while his rhetoric was high, it is a fair criticism to say that the formulation of drug laws had a racist streak. I would be interested to see what his whole positions are, rather than a one sentence quotes given in speeches.

As for him saying "God Damn America", I think he does have a point. America's history has hardly been as grand as the statement "God Bless America" would lead one to believe. He just said it in a very over the top way, which I won't hold against him.

And even if he did have really weird ideas, sometimes you overlook them because of other things. Obama liked what the church did in ministering and outreach. He was Obama's spiritual advisor, not historical or political. You can be great in one area and a complete loon in another. In fact, Obama did compare him to an old uncle, he likes him for other things than these more controversial statements.

JC!! you are the apologist supreme, and yet you pretend to be a skeptic on a skeptic forum. If this was your sorry ass uncle I would be nicer, but this is a man who wants to represent all of us to the planet, and this is the best judge of character he can present? I would have been kinder had he been number 9. (don't watch TV? Try google)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

SHOCKING VIDEOS From Obama's Church!!! (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632)

Just listen to that hate speech!

[Elind]

Wow, Elind. Wow.

Thank you. You've really opened my eyes. I had no idea that the ignore function was so useful until I met you.

Enjoy your bliss in ignore ance.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You should watch more TV, or at least go to Utube. The little turd was obscene and I saw him. Try to be a better educated apologist.

Wow, ad hominem and failing to provide evidence. This conversation will end well :rolleyes: .

JC!! you are the apologist supreme, and yet you pretend to be a skeptic on a skeptic forum. If this was your sorry ass uncle I would be nicer, but this is a man who wants to represent all of us to the planet, and this is the best judge of character he can present? I would have been kinder had he been number 9. (don't watch TV? Try google)

Wow, even more. Way to not address anything at all.

[TriskettheKid]

SHOCKING VIDEOS From Obama's Church!!! (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632)

Just listen to that hate speech!

We must not tolerate such hate speech.

After viewing that video, it is quite clear that Obama is nothing more than an automaton that will submit to his pastor's whims at the drop of a hat.

[Elind]

SHOCKING VIDEOS From Obama's Church!!! (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632)

Just listen to that hate speech!

What does that have to do with the obvious hate speeches that I saw?

Are you one of those who, for example, think that hate one day is canceled out by someone else saying that it didn't happen on another day?

Do you think that he was high on drugs, had been beaten by his wife, or something similar when he said that aids and drug addition was manufactured by rich white people to keep the ******* in line? (Yes, he said that bleeped word).

[Elind]

Wow, ad hominem and failing to provide evidence. This conversation will end well :rolleyes: .



Wow, even more. Way to not address anything at all.

The evidence is there, yet you call it ad hominem when you refuse to look at it. What kind of logic do you call that?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What does that have to do with the obvious hate speeches that I saw?

Are you one of those who, for example, think that hate one day is canceled out by someone else saying that it didn't happen on another day?

Do you think that he was high on drugs, had been beaten by his wife, or something similar when he said that aids and drug addition was manufactured by rich white people to keep the ******* in line? (Yes, he said that bleeped word).

Again, what hate speech? You still haven't given complete quotes or anything.

And what the church does matters because that's why Obama went there. Yes, I think that if the church does ministry and outreach programs to change the community, the pastor is allowed to make inflamed rhetoric a few times.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The evidence is there, yet you call it ad hominem when you refuse to look at it. What kind of logic do you call that?

Funny, all I saw was you calling me uneducated and and "apologist" and telling me to watch TV or "Utube" :rolleyes: .

[TriskettheKid]

Funny, all I saw was you calling me uneducated and and "apologist" and telling me to watch TV or "Utube" :rolleyes: .

Actually, I believe he called me an apologist. If he called you one, then I am no longer aware of it, since he has me on ignore.

Oh, and since he was flexing those large skeptical muscles of his, he also told me that I shouldn't vote. And that I was quick to judge because I had closed my brain.

Tactics I've only seen from Twoofers, I'd like to point out.

[Kaylee]

SHOCKING VIDEOS From Obama's Church!!! (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632)

Just listen to that hate speech!

Good videos TB. I followed some links and here is another good one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632
Unity the Great Need of the Hour, Obama Nonors MLK

That one is long, about a half hour.

Still concerned about Wright's speech, and will probably be thinking some more about what the ramifications are of Obama going to his church for 20 years --- but it was good to hear the other ones also.

[T.A.M.]

I don't know what you have seen, but I saw Obama's face, and heard his quavering voice, trying to distance himself from 20 years of Presidential aspiration competence claims.

He sounded like a schoolboy caught associated with school vandals and explaining how he wasn't really involved.

This is the man you defend for candidacy of the Presidency of the United States of America????

For 20 years this insightful, intelligent prospective leader of the of the only Super Power on this planet hadn't figured out that his spiritual adviser (whatever the hell that means) was a raving racist living in the past and wanting to foment the same hatreds that so many decent Americans thought they had moved past; and proved it by voting for the little man and his angry wife???

I listened with disgust at the venom coming from that little man of some god, and I have NEVER encountered that in my personal experience which does not include any insulated "white" sanctuaries, in case you are tempted to offer a quip.




Against the other two candidates, a disingenuous matronizing school marm and a bumbling war vet (and yes he is a hero, so don't go there), he can hold his own and then some.

quavering? you must be listening to a different person. If anything, Obama is in more control of his emotions then the other two.

I am an outsider, so in the end, the matter is peripheral to me. My interest is only in who the rest of the world has to deal with next...I do not want it to be Billary or 4 more years of Bush.

Obama, I have no doubt has accomplished more than YOU or I have, or likely ever will accomplish. To call him little reveals your emotion, your bitterness. Similarly, my labeling of Billary and McCain above, can clearly show my dislike for them...so be it.

I am not arguing on your like or dislike, as that is raw, emotional, personal, and may or may not be logical. I am arguing on the lack of merit in condemning the man for what his preacher has said.

SHould we do the same with John McCain and Bill Cunningham, or John Haggee, or others I am sure we could dig up? SHould we do the same with Billary and Ferraro?

Like those cases, it makes the news, it is a negative, and in all cases the campaigns have done the proper thing and denounced it.

I guess if Obama wins in November you are going to be pretty upset.

TAM:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And for the drug thing, while his rhetoric was high, it is a fair criticism to say that the formulation of drug laws had a racist streak. I would be interested to see what his whole positions are, rather than a one sentence quotes given in speeches.

Selective reading?

He said the government is the one bringing in the drugs for the purpose of locking up blacks.

Will Obama stop the CIA from selling drugs?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Again, what hate speech? You still haven't given complete quotes or anything.

Here are the words coming from his own mouth at the pulpit.

VUbUBTlmAiA

8M-kD0QdRJk

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here are the words coming from his own mouth at the pulpit.

VUbUBTlmAiA

I actually liked that one. Sure, the beginning was bizarre, but if you listen to the end he says Jesus taught that you shouldn't give into hatred and bigotry, and that you should love your enemies, etc. I don't think it makes him a raving racist to say that black people have had a raw deal in our society. Personally, I would prefer to hear the whole sermon, to know what the main message was.

8M-kD0QdRJk

And that one was just a bunch of one sentence liners strung together. It didn't give the context at all. The only "raving racist" thing I heard in there was the part about the gov. giving people drugs, which I don't get. But again, I have no idea what he said before or after that, so I don't know what he meant.

OMG, two weird sentences out of all the sermons he gave in 20 years. Yes, this guy is clearly a hate-filled bigot.

ETA: And I noticed white people standing and cheering too. Clearly they were too dumb to realize he was actually being a hateful bigot.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OMG, two weird sentences out of all the sermons he gave in 20 years. Yes, this guy is clearly a hate-filled bigot.

White guilt is a powerful tool.


I would never vote for someone based upon their skin color.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

White guilt is a powerful tool.


I would never vote for someone based upon their skin color.

Are you trying to win best non sequitur of the month or something?

[dudalb]

I can't believe people are actually trying to defend Wright's rants.
Obama knows enough to try to distance himself from them. Some of his supporters do not.

[joobz]

Are you trying to win best non sequitur of the month or something?
HAve you tried these croutons?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I can't believe people are actually trying to defend Wright's rants.
Obama knows enough to try to distance himself from them. Some of his supporters do not.

Dead man walking.


But the true believers. All one has to do is say "HOPE".

ETA: I forgot the other catch phrase: BELIEVE. I guess they are not so much phrases as just words, but it does not take too much with many to bring them into the fold.

[Elind]

Again, what hate speech? You still haven't given complete quotes or anything.

And what the church does matters because that's why Obama went there. Yes, I think that if the church does ministry and outreach programs to change the community, the pastor is allowed to make inflamed rhetoric a few times.

What the hell is the matter with you? Don't have TV or internet access access where you are?

Do you not realize how moronic it is to ask for a transcript of something that everyone else is watching before you can respond?

You call accusing the USA of manufacturing AIDS to repress Black people "inflamed" rhetoric?

You call accusations of the USA (read -- rich whites) deliberately peddling drugs to Black people to keep them in jail and subdued "inflamed" rhetoric?

There was even more disgusting, racist, bigoted, shameful and hateful commentary where that came from

You are truly retarded, is all I can say.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/457558159_61057b0d48_m.jpg

[Elind]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/457558159_61057b0d48_m.jpg


Cute. Relevant to what?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What the hell is the matter with you? Don't have TV or internet access access where you are?

Do you not realize how moronic it is to ask for a transcript of something that everyone else is watching before you can respond?

You call accusing the USA of manufacturing AIDS to repress Black people "inflamed" rhetoric?

You call accusations of the USA (read -- rich whites) deliberately peddling drugs to Black people to keep them in jail and subdued "inflamed" rhetoric?

There was even more disgusting, racist, bigoted, shameful and hateful commentary where that came from

You are truly retarded, is all I can say.

Just as I predicted, this conversation ended well.

God, even Jerome (no offense) gave evidence. And all you do is name call.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Cute. Relevant to what?

Obama would be the man walking.

The umbrella would be the defense for his actions.

The piano would be the Democratic party realizing that a perceived racist will not win the general election.

[NeoRicen]

Obama would be the man walking.

The umbrella would be the defense for his actions.

The piano would be the Democratic party realizing that a perceived racist will not win the general election.

What actions? He hasn't done anything...

[Cylinder]

What actions? He hasn't done anything...

Putting Wright on his campaign staff sealed Obama's fate. All that's left for Sen. Obama is to try to pretend like he did not know about the public views of his long-term and intimate friend and in the same breath continue to tout his superior judgment. Surely you can see the problem with that, right?

[Elind]

Just as I predicted, this conversation ended well.

God, even Jerome (no offense) gave evidence. And all you do is name call.

The conversation never started because you have a cognitive dissonance about what is in front of you.